Vacuity

[Ivophoto]

You still haven't given me an example, Ivo. Guess I'll have to conclude you use words you don't comprehend.

You can conclude I don’t go into discussion with you, I would loose the discussion due to a lack of internetblabla experience.

[RSL]

You can conclude I don’t go into discussion with you, I would loose the discussion due to a lack of internetblabla experience.

"Internetblabla" being something like this: "You are good in romantisme, not so good in rhetorics, Russ."

[Ivophoto]

"Internetblabla" being something like this: "You are good in romantisme, not so good in rhetorics, Russ."

Why don’t you pick up the artistic glove and post a photographic illustration of the ‘ultimate Vacuity’

Come on , walk the talk.

[RSL]

More "Internetblabla." But never anything of substance.

[Rob C]

Well, Rob. That are a hell of a lot words to say that it was not on purpose, it just happened. Life on its own conditions, we can say. My statement remains valid: you can spice it up.

I guess that with fresh models yes, I could, but I don't have any, and using my old shots over and over again becomes boring even to me.

Perhaps that's why I keep looking for new Peter Lindbergh videos, but even he seems to have run out of steam recently insofar as videos go. Funny thing is, the videos are usually more attractive to me than the projects for which they are the making-of part. It happens a lot to me: I keep feeling motion photographers have better eyes and medium than stills people usually do.

:-(

[Rob C]

There really do appear to be two, quite separate LuLas going down.

We have the gearhead contingent, and an almost absolute divide between that and the other one, that's almost totally into the metaphysics of the thing. We could be different species for all the cross pollination that occurs.

I guess it's a mirror of photography itself: ultra spec on the one hand with the new impressionists wafting about on the other, not giving a damn about numbers of any kind.

[KLaban]

There really do appear to be two, quite separate LuLas going down.

We have the gearhead contingent, and an almost absolute divide between that and the other one, that's almost totally into the metaphysics of the thing. We could be different species for all the cross pollination that occurs.

I guess it's a mirror of photography itself: ultra spec on the one hand with the new impressionists wafting about on the other, not giving a damn about numbers of any kind.

38-24-36?

[KLaban]

There really do appear to be two, quite separate LuLas going down.

We have the gearhead contingent, and an almost absolute divide between that and the other one, that's almost totally into the metaphysics of the thing. We could be different species for all the cross pollination that occurs.

I guess it's a mirror of photography itself: ultra spec on the one hand with the new impressionists wafting about on the other, not giving a damn about numbers of any kind.

But there again no doubt the gearheads would define metaphysics as abstract theories with no basis in reality...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Explain more about Florida, please. Do I understand it correctly, is it like the Indian reservation for retired not natives...

[Ivophoto]

Thanks, Slobodan.

Remains the question to what category Florida residents belong.

A granny, A tranny, or just a regular loony.

🤭

[LesPalenik]

One category of the Florida winter residents are mature snowbirds paying with loonies.

[Ivophoto]

One category of the Florida winter residents are mature snowbirds paying with loonies.

Canadian emigrants?

[LesPalenik]

Not emigrants, simply winter fugitives from the Grey White North. In spring, they fly back with Canada geese.

"Snowbird" is a North American term for a person who migrates from the higher latitudes and colder climates of the northern United States and Canada in the southward direction in winter to warmer locales such as Florida, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, or elsewhere along the Sun Belt of the southern United States, Mexico, and areas of the Caribbean. Many "snowbirds" are from either the northeast, Midwest, or Canada.

The loonie is a colloquial term which refers to the $1 Canadian coin and is also used by foreign exchange (FX) traders to refer to Canadian currency in general. The loonie derives its name from the picture of a solitary loon on the reverse side of the coin.

[Rob C]

Key West was the only place my wife ever fainted from a combinatiuon of heat and humidity. Scared the hell out of the group.

Holiday Inn, as far as I recall.

I thought we'd found a nice, private little beach right at the hotel, with one of those big wicker chairs with high backs: turned out the beach was concrete. Got a shot that made it to the calendar, though. And pre-Photoshop!

;-)

[RSL]

Actually, that’s the problem with Florida as far as I’m concerned, Rob. Up north you pretty much stay inside in the winter and do your outside stuff in the summer. In Florida it’s the reverse. At least up north you can put on more clothes if you’re going out in the cold. In Florida the law’s the limit to how much you can adapt to summer. But I’ve gotta admit, the Vietnam delta was worse.

Bottom line: snowbirding is the best solution. You’re in the north and in the south in their best seasons.

[MattBurt]

I've enjoyed Key West too but not much else in Florida. At least in Key West I felt like I could ride a bike around and have a decent chance of not getting hit by a car.
I'm an athlete and I hate to work out indoors so I need a good fix of some kind of cardio outside a few times a week to feel normal. The times I have been in Florida for work or vacation, it seems too dangerous to road bike and too flat and sandy to mountain bike. Swimming (distance/workout style) works in some places but I've felt like I was going to get run over by a boat or jet ski or the water quality is questionable (gross). That leaves running which is ok but it's hard to find any hills. Bridges seem to be the biggest hills I could find.
I just don't feel like I'm Florida material but my employer that was based in Taos, NM has been acquired by a company in Orlando so I have to endure some ongoing Florida trips now. Just the cost of doing business, I guess.

[KLaban]

There really do appear to be two, quite separate LuLas going down.

We have the gearhead contingent, and an almost absolute divide between that and the other one, that's almost totally into the metaphysics of the thing. We could be different species for all the cross pollination that occurs.

I guess it's a mirror of photography itself: ultra spec on the one hand with the new impressionists wafting about on the other, not giving a damn about numbers of any kind.

Getting back to this point, Rob, I believe there's a lot of truth in what you say. At times it does seem to be a cavernous divide. If I had to place myself on that long dividing line between on the left the metaphysical and on the right the gearhead I'd be pretty much nudging against the former.

That said there are occasions when those numbers are important, most notably when I'm about to release the moths from my wallet. Laying down big bucks is something I only do when I have to and have good reason. As an example, when I was in the market for wide lens with outstanding corner to corner performance the last thing I wanted to end up with was an expensive lens with poor corner to corner performance. Based on the MTF numbers I chose the 21mm Leica Super-Elmar ASPH, thoroughly tested the lens, coming to the conclusion that it was the best wide I had ever used and fitted the purpose I had in mind perfectly. On the other hand when in the market for a standard focal length lens with a bunch of character when used wide open I chose the comparatively inexpensive 50mm Zeiss c Sonnar zm and it didn't disappoint. The numbers were the basis of selection, real world behaviour the deciding factor.

The point is once bought, tested and in use the numbers are meaningless, any cross pollination can be forgotten and once again I find myself nudged up against the left of that line. 

[Rob C]

Getting back to this point, Rob, I believe there's a lot of truth in what you say. At times it does seem to be a cavernous divide. If I had to place myself on that long dividing line between on the left the metaphysical and on the right the gearhead I'd be pretty much nudging against the former.

That said there are occasions when those numbers are important, most notably when I'm about to release the moths from my wallet. Laying down big bucks is something I only do when I have to and have good reason. As an example, when I was in the market for wide lens with outstanding corner to corner performance the last thing I wanted to end up with was an expensive lens with poor corner to corner performance. Based on the MTF numbers I chose the 21mm Leica Super-Elmar ASPH, thoroughly tested the lens, coming to the conclusion that it was the best wide I had ever used and fitted the purpose I had in mind perfectly. On the other hand when in the market for a standard focal length lens with a bunch of character when used wide open I chose the comparatively inexpensive 50mm Zeiss c Sonnar zm and it didn't disappoint. The numbers were the basis of selection, real world behaviour the deciding factor.

The point is once bought, tested and in use the numbers are meaningless, any cross pollination can be forgotten and once again I find myself nudged up against the left of that line.

I'm not in any way trying to be critical of the gearhead section at all - if I were, I'd have been upfront about it. No, I was just remarking on what I see as little interest crossing over, with not much imagery forthcoming from those participants. Insofar as that department's concerned, it's been a great source of help to me during my time printing, a time that has vanished with my great HP printer. So no ill will towards it, mainly gratitude for help freely given.

There are far greater fights going on in my own head between shooting or just letting it all fade into the distance of the rear mirror. Partly, the problem has little to do with photography per se, but with the way that time seems to slip away each day with one damned distraction or another creeping into my life and robbing it of shooting time. It seems impossible to account for this, it just happens to me. One factor, for sure, is my current preference for cloudy weather which means summer stays pretty flat. Equally, I have no desire to get washed away down a gully! Of course, if I were to stop my scribbles here and there... I think it was Walter once told me maybe I should stop shooting and just become a full time blogger, a fate worse than death in its demands to stay productive every day just to hold an audience, with which I'd probably have fallen out with by now, anyway.

:-)

[amolitor]

To my eye, almost every single photograph is vacuous.

The exceptions are: a) personal photos, which have meaning for me, but are probably vacuous for you. b) the incredibly rare single photo with enough of something I cannot put my finger on to stand alone. Even those mighty single photos exist, more often than not, in the context of someone's oeuvre, and so I cannot be sure that even many of these truly stand alone.

Only with groupings and in context can I hope to make sense of a photograph, in almost all cases.

Conversely, almost any photograph can be made powerful and meaningful when placed into the situation, when placed next to the right other pictures, the right words, the.. I don't know what else.

 

[Rob C]

To my eye, almost every single photograph is vacuous.

The exceptions are: a) personal photos, which have meaning for me, but are probably vacuous for you. b) the incredibly rare single photo with enough of something I cannot put my finger on to stand alone. Even those mighty single photos exist, more often than not, in the context of someone's oeuvre, and so I cannot be sure that even many of these truly stand alone.

Only with groupings and in context can I hope to make sense of a photograph, in almost all cases.

Conversely, almost any photograph can be made powerful and meaningful when placed into the situation, when placed next to the right other pictures, the right words, the.. I don't know what else.

You may be unaware of it, Andrew, but you have pretty much echoed the late Terence Donovan's credo.

It's a part of the tease for the non-pro simply because there is no obligation to make photographs unless you feel like it. And what on Earth can make that urge come alive in any generally meaningful and more broadly relevant fashion?

I fight that worry every time I take a camera out of the apartment: I invariably try to balance reward with effort, and then push that equation away at arm's length out of fear that I may, again, just think of myself as one of those mindless machines that have been programmed to do something and keep doing it, aimlessly, until the battery dies.

Who said it has to be "fun"? (You shouldn't have reminded me, Keith!)

:-)