 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / August 2006(August, 21st) Picture of the Week
Hello All, I would like to present you the picture of the week. In square and b&w. http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ Thanks for your visit, -- <> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > Hello All, > > I would like to present you the picture of the week. > In square and b&w. Daniel...let me be the first to say..... ABSOLUTE CRAP (as always) That photo is sh.t. Hope this helps. >> Hello All, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hope this helps. Daniel's photos may be ordinary, but at least they generate stimulating and incisive critiques >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I would like to present you the picture of the week. >>> In square and b&w. >> Daniel...let me be the first to say..... >> >> ABSOLUTE CRAP (as always) >Daniel's photos may be ordinary, but at least they >generate stimulating and incisive critiques I be thinkin' that the relatively low volume of other posts in this group at the moment has something to do with the photos generating any critiques at all. He spammed rec.photo.digital.slr-systems regarding his picture of 31 July (the first time he'd posted in that group since he had his a.s handed to him on a platter by a poster named Helen back in April), and the post sank without a trace in in sea of relevant and interesting posts. In here, though? 23 replies. (Including me, guilty as charged m'lud.) MUCH more to do with there being "not much else on" than with the intrinsic "discussion-worthiness" of the pictures, methinks. (Yes, I DID get the central point of your post; I just thought I'd add a different one of my own. 8^> ) > Hello All, > > I would like to present you the picture of the week. > In square and b&w. Taken by?? > http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ > > Thanks for your visit, I didn't so you can keep your thanks > -- > <> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> > http://www.monochromatique.com > Hello All, > > I would like to present you the picture of the week. > In square and b&w. > > http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ There is too much in that photo. An image of the spiral staircase on its own would have made for a good image. >> Hello All, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > own would have made for a > good image. I have a friend who lives in Paris, he says the best view in Paris is from the top of the Eiffel Tower, because from there you can't see the Eiffel Tower :-) Oz > > Hello All, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There is too much in that photo. An image of the spiral staircase on its own would have made for a > good image. I actually like the mad complexity in the background, but I find the blandness of the shaft of the staircase detracts a little. grumpy@mailinator.com a écrit : > > http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ > There is too much in that photo. An image of the spiral staircase on its own would have made for a > good image. I understand your point of view. My goal in the picture is to show the upstairs as if they born from the metallic structure of the Eifel Tower. In general I prefer and do all for having a blurred background to show clearly the main subject. Thanks for your comment. http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/  Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > grumpy@mailinator.com a écrit : > > > http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > clearly the > main subject. Yup, that's how I'd have approached this one. But not a "wide-open" blur: sharp enough to let people figure out it's the tower without a legend, but blurred enough that it doesn't look so busy. Probably ripe for a future experiment? Noons a écrit : (...) > Yup, that's how I'd have approached this one. But > not a "wide-open" blur: sharp enough to let people figure > out it's the tower without a legend, but blurred enough that > it doesn't look so busy. Probably ripe for a future experiment? Understood. I have done a serie of pictures of the Eiffel Tower. Some of them with people some of them without. And some of them with parts blurred and partsm not. I think that I'll show them a day. Thanks for your comments :) Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > Hello All, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > <> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> > http://www.monochromatique.com Too busy Typical crap shot. By the way is it even your photo? >> Hello All, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Typical crap shot. > By the way is it even your photo? He says it is in another thread SignatureUnderstood. I have done a serie of pictures of the Eiffel Tower. Some of them with people some of them without. And some of them with parts blurred and partsm not. I think that I'll show them a day. ^Temuchin^ a écrit : (...) > He says it is in another thread All pictures of my website are made by me, except the only one in the Infos page. Sorry, I have not made the Eiffel Tower, it's Eiffel. Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com ^Temuchin^ a écrit : (...) > He says it is in another thread > All pictures of my website are made by me, except the only one in the > Infos page. Wrong. You have ripped off other's people work before, and even posted them here as your own. They were still crap. > ^Temuchin^ a écrit : > (...) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You have ripped off other's people work before, and even posted them here as > your own. They were still crap. and photos of photos does not count..... >> ^Temuchin^ a écrit : >> (...) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > and photos of photos does not count..... he could get the rogue traders to sing a song for him "I;m taking a picture of a picture you took before" > ^Temuchin^ a écrit : > (...) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You have ripped off other's people work before, and even posted them here > as your own. They were still crap. Are you referring to the photo of the subway poster which had been defaced by a sticker over the model's face? If so, I think your interpretation might be very different to the photographer's intention. > > ^Temuchin^ a écrit : > > (...) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If so, I think your interpretation might be very different to the > photographer's intention. I don't think their imagination or insight extends that far. It was obvious to me (and I suspect most) what the photo was, but a couple of people started barking on indignantly about plagiarism, of all things. Even when the photo was explained to them, they still continued to bounce of the walls with some kind of wierd moral outrage. I frankly don't get where they're coming from with all that. I suspect they're just wanting to have a go at the original poster, and can't actually come up with any substantive criticisms of his photographs. On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:20:24 GMT, "Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote >> > ^Temuchin^ a écrit : >> > (...) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >they're just wanting to have a go at the original poster, and can't actually >come up with any substantive criticisms of his photographs. Oh come ON. Are you seriously telling us that without having seen his post here stating that it was a photograph of a poster you could have told that fact just from looking at it? If your answer to that is "yes", I'm afraid that I'm going to have to read it as "BS". I don't think that for a minute that he was deliberately engaged in fraud; if he was, he wouldn't have said what it was in his weekly spam. That, however, isn't the point. As I stated previously, his "creative input" into that picture was pretty much zero. He took a shot of a flat surface. It's one thing to "borrow" someone else's work in creating your own, it's another thing to hold it up as being "his" photograph with a message that "he" was conveying, as indeed he did. In the end he did what he should have done in the first place; provided some form of attribution on the page containing the picture. Although even then he should really have given credit to those who really DID create the image. And you're right that some used it as nothing more than an excuse to beat him around the head, and still do; but that doesn't alter the fact that his actions in the first place were at best inappropriate and at worst ethically questionable. > >> > You have ripped off other's people work before, and even posted them > >here [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> If so, I think your interpretation might be very different to the > >> photographer's intention. of course. the whole "indignation" thing is nothing but trolling bullshit. taking a pic of a poster in a public place is far from the "indignant rip" these absolute jokers attributed to it. > >I don't think their imagination or insight extends that far. It was obvious > >to me (and I suspect most) what the photo was, but a couple of people > >started barking on indignantly about plagiarism, of all things. Even when > >the photo was explained to them, they still continued to bounce of the walls > >with some kind of wierd moral outrage. anyone with half a brain could see it's a pic of a poster. it's only these brain-dead trolls that can't figure it out. > >I frankly don't get where they're coming from with all that. I suspect > >they're just wanting to have a go at the original poster, and can't actually > >come up with any substantive criticisms of his photographs. absolutely. > Oh come ON. Are you seriously telling us that without having seen his > post here stating that it was a photograph of a poster you could have > told that fact just from looking at it? If your answer to that is > "yes", I'm afraid that I'm going to have to read it as "BS". No. Bullshit is the crap that went on after that. Taking a pic of a poster in a public place is not "rip" of prior art. Thatwas clearly a poster. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Europe and more concisely Paris knows that is a common poster pose. > "creative input" into that picture was pretty much zero. He took a > shot of a flat surface. Oh, dear me! What a CRIME! A "shot of a flat surface"? Tsktsk... Rip-off, I tell you! Highway robbery! (rolling eyes) > It's one thing to "borrow" someone else's work > in creating your own, it's another thing to hold it up as being "his" > photograph with a message that "he" was conveying, as indeed he did. So if you take a pic of a wall in the underground in Sydney for example, you're "ripping off" someone else's work if it happens to have a poster slapped on it? Excuse me, but as a joke that one is very feeble... > And you're right that some used it as nothing more than an excuse to > beat him around the head, and still do; at last, the truth comes out. It was nothing else than an exercise in "beating up the froggie". Clearly motivated by basic racism against the French, so characteristic of a certain sector of Australian society. Pure and simple. > but that doesn't alter the > fact that his actions in the first place were at best inappropriate > and at worst ethically questionable. Bullshit of the highest degree. >at last, the truth comes out. It was nothing else than an exercise >in "beating up the froggie". Clearly motivated by basic racism [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Bullshit of the highest degree. Ah yes. "Bullshit". I've seen it before. It pretty covers most of what I've ever seen you post. Sleep tight, if you can with all the racists under the bed. Having discussions with professional trolls holds no interest. At all. Plonk, moron. > Ah yes. "Bullshit". I've seen it before. It pretty covers most of what > I've ever seen you post. You've never seem me post, dickhead... > Sleep tight, if you can with all the racists under the bed. I sleep always like a saint. Don't have a problem with racists: I hit them early and often, before they get a chance to spew their crap. Works every time, they're nothing but a bunch of low-life cowards. > Having discussions with professional trolls holds no interest. At all. You got that right. > Plonk, moron. No. It's like this: PLONK At least, learn a little. > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:20:24 GMT, "Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > told that fact just from looking at it? If your answer to that is > "yes", I'm afraid that I'm going to have to read it as "BS". Read what you will. When I saw the image, I saw it as a "slice of life" shot: an advertising poster that had been defaced with a sticker over the face with a subversive message. If you want to go further as to why I couldn't see it as anything else, it was obviously a commercial studio shot, nothing like anything else I've seen of his, and you could even see the outline of bricks in the shot (I can be bothered having a look now, but I'm pretty sure you can see them). > I don't think that for a minute that he was deliberately engaged in > fraud; if he was, he wouldn't have said what it was in his weekly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in creating your own, it's another thing to hold it up as being "his" > photograph with a message that "he" was conveying, as indeed he did. OK, I'm gonna have to go back and have another look at the sucker now... Maybe a wider shot showing the rest of the wall, or even wider to give the greater context might have removed some ambiguity, but to me it was fine, and made the point, and the framing works. > In the end he did what he should have done in the first place; > provided some form of attribution on the page containing the picture. > Although even then he should really have given credit to those who > really DID create the image. Come on, it's an advertising poster on a wall that's been vandalised. Attribution of authorship of the underlying shot or whoever defaced it is meaningless. >> Oh come ON. Are you seriously telling us that without having seen his >> post here stating that it was a photograph of a poster you could have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >shot: an advertising poster that had been defaced with a sticker over the >face with a subversive message. Well, your prescience knows no bounds. I'm not going to call you a liar, but I WILL say that I find it difficult to believe. Although... >If you want to go further as to why I couldn't see it as anything else, it >was obviously a commercial studio shot, nothing like anything else I've seen >of his, OK, that I'll buy, though I still don't think that a casual visitor should need to go through his entire gallery so that they can say "hey, I don't think that this was originally one of his photos!" > and you could even see the outline of bricks in the shot (I can be >bothered having a look now, but I'm pretty sure you can see them). Maaaaybe. I'm not so sure whether you can, or whether you're seeing the bricks in the background of the original photograph. >> I don't think that for a minute that he was deliberately engaged in >> fraud; if he was, he wouldn't have said what it was in his weekly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Attribution of authorship of the underlying shot or whoever defaced it is >meaningless. It's not so much attribution in that sense, but making it clear that the original shot was an existing image that he had photographed. I still think that a casual visitor coming across that page without any other reference could be misled into believing that the original image was of his own creation. Even painters who make copies of the masters typically recognise that fact in the name of the piece by adding "after (whoever)". But in the end, you feel one thing, I feel another. > Come on, it's an advertising poster on a wall that's been vandalised. > Attribution of authorship of the underlying shot or whoever defaced it is > meaningless. Just like thousands of other similar works. Here is another example: http://www.studiohatyai.com/mm/Public/Public_g.html Then again, judging by the demonstrated intelligence of the rabid trolls here, the author might well need to spell out: "these are photos of posters in streets". Otherwise, some fool might "mis-interpret" his intentions... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.