CC and Camera Talk

[Rob C]

Interesting, the idea that CC should give way to camera talk; can anyone please indicate where there is already shortage of such talk on LuLa?

My experience has been that there is precious little else.

Sure, politics always heat beyond melting point, but there is a certain entertainment value in watching the manner in which different folks do their melting.

Strangely enough, it appears that the majority, or at least the more strident of the voices singing closure, are also very reluctant posters of their photographic images. I wonder why there might be that correlation; is there a subliminal fear that their images, should they exist, may reveal a little bit too much?

[KLaban]

Rob, I agree there is great entertainment value in watching that melting point, but the political threads are so divisive, lead to much ill feeling and are ultimately pretty pointless. It strikes me that opinions are entrenched: how many folk here are swayed, really swayed, by other's beliefs and opinions?

I too would like to see more contributors posting images, but hey, perhaps it's just too much to expect from a photography forum.

;-) 

[RSL]

I'm with Keith on this one. It's the pointlessness that drives me up the wall. It's nothing but head-rattling and "look at how smart I am!!" stuff. But I agree with Rob. There's already too much camera talk -- all over the web -- as if cameras make photographs, the same way guns shoot people all by themselves.

[Robert Roaldi]

Interesting, the idea that CC should give way to camera talk; can anyone please indicate where there is already shortage of such talk on LuLa?

My experience has been that there is precious little else.

Sure, politics always heat beyond melting point, but there is a certain entertainment value in watching the manner in which different folks do their melting.

Strangely enough, it appears that the majority, or at least the more strident of the voices singing closure, are also very reluctant posters of their photographic images. I wonder why there might be that correlation; is there a subliminal fear that their images, should they exist, may reveal a little bit too much?

I can only speak for myself. I closed that other thread about hate groups because although I was intrigued by the original information and wanted to share it, the ensuing thread served little purpose and was headed nowhere, I thought. I didn't want to be party to that.

As for posting images, some people are interested in doing so, others aren't, there's probably not more to it than that. I come here for the information and knowledge that is available. Others enjoy the sharing and discussions of photographic images.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm with Keith on this one. It's the pointlessness that drives me up the wall. It's nothing but head-rattling and "look at how smart I am!!" stuff. But I agree with Rob. There's already too much camera talk -- all over the web -- as if cameras make photographs, the same way guns shoot people all by themselves.

Not sure about the gist of your message.

Do selfies equate to suicides by gun?

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Not exactly. A deranged person with a smartphone can carry out thousands of selfies, but usually only one suicide.
Also, some smartphones can handily outshoot a semiautomatic rifle (with 960 fps vs 1,000 rounds per minute).

[Robert Roaldi]

Not exactly. A deranged person with a smartphone can carry out thousands of selfies, but usually only one suicide.
Also, some smartphones can handily outshoot a semiautomatic rifle (with 960 fps vs 1,000 rounds per minute).

Wow. There are smartphones that can shoot 960 fps? I should start paying attention.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not exactly. A deranged person with a smartphone can carry out thousands of selfies, but usually only one suicide.

Have to agree with that, although both can have devastating effects on the person involved.

Cheers,
Bart

[PeterAit]

I'm with Keith on this one. It's the pointlessness that drives me up the wall. It's nothing but head-rattling and "look at how smart I am!!" stuff. But I agree with Rob. There's already too much camera talk -- all over the web -- as if cameras make photographs, the same way guns shoot people all by themselves.

Interesting analogy between cameras and guns. Permit me to extend it.

With a camera, you can go out and create dozens of images very easily. Without a camera, but say with paper and pencil, it's not possible to make lots of images in a short time.

With a gun, you can go out and kill dozens of people very easily. Without a gun, but say with a knife, it's not possible to kill lots of people in a short time.

[LesPalenik]

Wow. There are smartphones that can shoot 960 fps? I should start paying attention.

960 fps in a slo-mo movie mode. Sony Experia and Samsung S9.

https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/5303-sony-xperia-xz2-beats-new-s9-with-960-fps-at-1080p

[RSL]

Do selfies equate to suicides by gun?

Cheers,
Bart

If you've ever looked closely at them, Bart, you'll know that a lot of them do.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I fail to see the point and usefulness of discussing politics here. Sure, it can be fun for a while to insult/make fun/jest/deride/humiliate/whatever the person/subject/topic that happens to be the news flavour of the day. But all too sudden it goes downhill, as everybody is right all the time.

As for posting/sharing photos, there are several places in Lula to do so, and several participants do so. If others choose not to do so, it is their prerogative. They should not be derided by their choice.

[amolitor]

I don't, as a general rule, share my pictures online.

This is mostly because they make no sense one by one, and out of the context they're made to be placed in.

There's an open question as to whether they make sense IN context, but at least I feel there's a fighting chance.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Sure, politics always heat beyond melting point, but there is a certain entertainment value in watching the manner in which different folks do their melting.

That, Rob, was more or less my motivation in re-allowing political discussion in the Coffee Corner. I have found that I've needed a pretty light touch in the last month, with most of my warnings being in private.

A surprising amount of utter drivel has been written, but offensiveness of expression (as opposed to of views with which one might disagree) has been encouragingly rare.

Jeremy

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe Isaac will return, he never showed his pictures either.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Maybe Isaac will return, he never showed his pictures either.   

He did post one of a... post*

* as in "piece of timber"

[Rob C]

I can only speak for myself. I closed that other thread about hate groups because although I was intrigued by the original information and wanted to share it, the ensuing thread served little purpose and was headed nowhere, I thought. I didn't want to be party to that.

As for posting images, some people are interested in doing so, others aren't, there's probably not more to it than that. I come here for the information and knowledge that is available. Others enjoy the sharing and discussions of photographic images.

But don't forget: you do provide a collection of images via zenfolio. That alone gives you "legitimacy" to express opinions on matters photographic; regarding politics, who knows anything for sure? Even the politicians are winging it every day.

:-)

Rob

[Robert Roaldi]

But don't forget: you do provide a collection of images via zenfolio. That alone gives you "legitimacy" to express opinions on matters photographic; regarding politics, who knows anything for sure? Even the politicians are winging it every day.

:-)

Rob

Mike Johnston over on TOP makes a good argument why a critic need not necessarily be a good practitioner of the art in question. (There is zero chance of me finding the particular blog entry, sorry.) Being a practitioner does affect the criticism though, I agree, maybe for the better and maybe not. I tend not to make comments on other people's photography, I don't have the vocabulary.

[Rob C]

Mike Johnston over on TOP makes a good argument why a critic need not necessarily be a good practitioner of the art in question. (There is zero chance of me finding the particular blog entry, sorry.) Being a practitioner does affect the criticism though, I agree, maybe for the better and maybe not. I tend not to make comments on other people's photography, I don't have the vocabulary.

That's why I started the Without Prejudice thread: not only do I not like commenting on work, but I don't much enjoy it coming towards me when it consists of "second guessing" how it should have been executed.

And even where one thinks one knows a thing or two, mistakes can happen. I bought a left-over copy of Italian Vogue this afternoon, first such magazine I have bought in, literally, decades. What a load of rubbish it seemed to be. Almost totally advertising pages with a very small editorial photography content. I had always thought Italian Vogue the leader in classy editorial content. Times, obviously, change.

But Steven Meisel's work looked very good indeed, especially in black and white.

:-(

[Jeremy Roussak]

Mike Johnston over on TOP makes a good argument why a critic need not necessarily be a good practitioner of the art in question.

Critics are like eunuchs in a harem: they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.

Jeremy