If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote (in ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg Hijacking Snipped Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread. At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that. Thread drifts in usenet are quite common. IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both the primary and [hijacked] secondary threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities. [YMMV] -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ): On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote (in ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg Hijacking Snipped Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread. At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that. Thread drifts in usenet are quite common. Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this case. IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both the primary and [hijacked] secondary threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities. [YMMV] You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities. What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry, unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images. When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do”, along with one more “talking image”. I responded with a stronger hint: "...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?” When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the hijacking of my OP was complete. Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that much more deliberate. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:25:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote (in ): On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote (in ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg Hijacking Snipped Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread. At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that. Thread drifts in usenet are quite common. Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this case. IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both the primary and [hijacked] secondary threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities. [YMMV] You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities. What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry, unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images. When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do”, along with one more “talking image”. I responded with a stronger hint: "...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?” When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the hijacking of my OP was complete. Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that much more deliberate. You should not sound so indignant. It's not personal. People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread .... -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:25:26 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote (in ): On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote (in ): On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck said: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg Now that's my type of image. I thought you might like the concept.;-) I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing and mix of color. Actually Pollack is not pure random. I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates. His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute in Utica, NY. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg Hijacking Snipped Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread. At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that. Thread drifts in usenet are quite common. Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this case. IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both the primary and [hijacked] secondary threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities. [YMMV] You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities. What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry, unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images. When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do”, along with one more “talking image”. I responded with a stronger hint: "...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?” When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the hijacking of my OP was complete. Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that much more deliberate. You should not sound so indignant. Why not? It's not personal. Sure it is. People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread .... Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On 10/14/2017 12:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
snip You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities. Jackson Pollack is interpretative work. By bringing that up You stimulated me into other types of interpretative work. What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry, unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images. When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do”, along with one more “talking image”. Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement. I responded with a stronger hint: "...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?” When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the hijacking of my OP was complete. Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that much more deliberate. I am posting this at the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread: I have been playing with ND long exposures for several years. Indeed some of my original long exposures have been posted and commented on in the SI. Here is a basic article on using ND filters with live view, and exposure correction. https://www.shutterbug.com/content/capture-magic-long-exposures-your-camera%E2%80%99s-live-view-mode-and-nd-filter-video -- PeterN |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On 10/14/2017 4:49 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote snip You should not sound so indignant. Why not? It's not personal. Sure it is. People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread .... Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking. Aw! No it was not intended to be personal. Indeed, I was happy to see that until the above post there were no personal attacks. I repeat, I am far more interested in discussing and creating images. I had no reason to attack. I consider my comments as a natural extension of yours. If I said something to insult you, it was not intentional and I apologize. Now, let's get back to the art and craft of photography. -- PeterN |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 10/14/2017 12:25 AM, Savageduck wrote: snip You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities. Jackson Pollack is interpretative work. By bringing that up You stimulated me into other types of interpretative work. OK! OK! I am to blame for your actions. That makes perfect sense. What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry, unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images. When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do”, along with one more “talking image”. Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement. Perhaps I was a tad curmudgeonly. However, allegorical or not, it sounds contrived, and weird, especially when repeated, and emphasized after my various hints. I responded with a stronger hint: "...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?” When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the hijacking of my OP was complete. Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that much more deliberate. I am posting this at the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread: I have been playing with ND long exposures for several years. Indeed some of my original long exposures have been posted and commented on in the SI. Here is a basic article on using ND filters with live view, and exposure correction. https://www.shutterbug.com/content/c...-your-camera%E 2%80%99s-live-view-mode-and-nd-filter-video Since the flavor of this thread is all shot to Hell, there will be no further accusations. Thanks for that. There are quite a number of long exposure/ND filter tutorials available. I have found that Lee Filters provide a a very good set of tutorial videos. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 10/14/2017 4:49 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote snip You should not sound so indignant. Why not? It's not personal. Sure it is. People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread .... Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking. Aw! No it was not intended to be personal. Indeed, I was happy to see that until the above post there were no personal attacks. I repeat, I am far more interested in discussing and creating images. I had no reason to attack. I consider my comments as a natural extension of yours. If I said something to insult you, it was not intentional and I apologize. Now, let's get back to the art and craft of photography. OK -- Regards, Savageduck |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On 10/14/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote snip Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement. Perhaps I was a tad curmudgeonly. However, allegorical or not, it sounds contrived, and weird, especially when repeated, and emphasized after my various hints. The chewing gum is random, Pollack is not. I did not see your statements as hints. I took them as Socratic, which is common in exploitative discussions. There is nothing weird about a statement that the image tells me what to do. I look at an image, or a scene, and decide how to process it. IOW how should I interpret it. This bird looked like a tough guy. So I gave him what I thought was an appropriate treatment. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ugwubi619fbizwy/AAAC4bXd2Ze9_uIcbAcG9poja?dl=0 -- PeterN |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Care for Some Gum?
On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 10/14/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote snip Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement. Perhaps I was a tad curmudgeonly. However, allegorical or not, it sounds contrived, and weird, especially when repeated, and emphasized after my various hints. The chewing gum is random, Pollack is not. I pretty much said as much in my comments regarding the deliberate actions in Pollock’s work. What I said about the gum wall was that it put me in mind of Pollock. However, they are very different. I did not see your statements as hints. Obviously. I took them as Socratic, which is common in exploitative discussions. “Exploitive discussions”? There is nothing weird about a statement that the image tells me what to do. I look at an image, or a scene, and decide how to process it. IOW how should I interpret it. ....er, OK. This bird looked like a tough guy. So I gave him what I thought was an appropriate treatment. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ugwubi619fbizwy/AAAC4bXd2Ze9_uIcbAcG9poja?dl=0 Not my kind of thing.You shouldn’t listen to everything your images tell you. ....and who ever heard of “AK-47” boxing gloves? -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Care For Some Gum? | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | November 5th 14 04:13 PM |
Does anybody really care . . . | Russell D. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | August 26th 12 04:16 AM |
Why to care for our customers?? | Gungun | Digital Photography | 0 | March 20th 08 02:01 AM |
Negatran Care | John Rice | In The Darkroom | 1 | April 11th 06 06:01 AM |
The care of lenses | John | Large Format Photography Equipment | 3 | February 2nd 04 09:59 PM |