Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Blue Barn  (Read 4248 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« on: June 25, 2012, 03:05:46 AM »
ReplyReply

You've got a bloody good eye, Michael; another cracker!

Rob C
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2136


« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2012, 04:21:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm with you Rob.

A beauty.

Tony Jay
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2012, 07:13:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks!

Michael
Logged
ned
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2012, 10:28:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael can you share any thoughts about the Panasonic 100-300 on the EM-5? Seems sharp enough for the web, how about a 8X10? I sent back the Olympus 75-300 because in the golden hour focusing was painful at 300mm. I do have the 50-200SWD but it's just too big.

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.
Logged

Shutter speed is crucial in photography somehow.
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2012, 11:23:21 AM »
ReplyReply

The Oly 50-200mm is a much superior lens, but the 100-300mm is smaller and more convenient. For walk-about I use the Pany, for working from the car the Oly.

Michael
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2012, 01:12:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Wasn't "Creating Meaningful Photographs" already shown at the end of May?
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2012, 02:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Wasn't "Creating Meaningful Photographs" already shown at the end of May?

At a risk of hijacking this thread, maybe not enough meaningful comments were generated the first time.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2012, 06:04:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Why should pictures require to be 'meaningful'?

I believe that as pictures, as distinct from propaganda, they just need to be beautiful.

If anyone needs meaningful, they can buy a book. Or read here.

Rob C
Logged

AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1174



« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2012, 08:06:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Why should pictures require to be 'meaningful'?

I believe that as pictures, as distinct from propaganda, they just need to be beautiful.

If anyone needs meaningful, they can buy a book. Or read here.

Rob C

Hmm.  Beautiful photo with no meaning is like beautiful woman with empty head.  Beautiful photo with meaning is like beautiful woman with brains.  The first is nice to look at, but becomes boring after a while.  The second you want to continue to hang out with.  Just my opinion....  (Of course, this begs the question of what is "meaning," anyway.)
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8902


« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2012, 02:03:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmm.  Beautiful photo with no meaning is like beautiful woman with empty head.  Beautiful photo with meaning is like beautiful woman with brains.  The first is nice to look at, but becomes boring after a while.  The second you want to continue to hang out with.  Just my opinion....  (Of course, this begs the question of what is "meaning," anyway.)

Well put! I tend to agree. However, the question that Rob poses, can beauty exist without meaning, is worthy of discussion. For example, can all those blokes be right, who have had extra-marital affairs then told their wife, after being found out, that "it didn't mean anything"? Or, are they lying? Or, are they just plain stupid?  Grin
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2012, 02:53:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh no, it's absolutely not similar to the argument about human beauty with or without brains.

A picture isn't human: it requires no personal interaction beyond the simple, basic do I or do I not like it enough to hang it?

A person does indeed demand more of you than does a picture: you have to deal with stupidity or, worse, a higher intellect than your own which will forever curse you with the knowledge of your own shortcomings; you have to worry about whether you are or are not going to get along for the long-term future and all of the financial rsponsibilities stemming from procreation etc. which seldom - I hope - arise with a picture.

If you consider human relationships as lightly as you would the selection of some wall art, heaven help you; if you consider wall art as deeply as you should a partner for life, then God help you again: better get some damned good plasterers or wallpaper hangers. Or, get Ray to hang a wall-sized cover-all image for you, kangaroos extra, for otherwise, your walls will remain pretty virginal for as long as they are yours.

Unfortunately, I've elected to type almost immediately after dropping drops onto my eyes, making my two dyslexic typing fingers even more useless, so I have to abandon this for now.

Rob C 
Logged

HSway
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2012, 02:58:25 AM »
ReplyReply

(Of course, this begs the question of what is "meaning," anyway.)


- One of those questions one should answer to oneself. People havenít a need for asking it then and perhaps surprisingly, they have a common understanding it despite the probable differences in exact answers they have given to themselves. A step from relativizing grey where it should be given and what doesnít get answered by someone else. Then come the questions for 'meaningful'  Smiley debate imo.


Hmm.  Beautiful photo with no meaning is like beautiful woman with empty head.  Beautiful photo with meaning is like beautiful woman with brains.  The first is nice to look at, but becomes boring after a while.  The second you want to continue to hang out with.  Just my opinion.... 



Precisely, canít agree more. But as with women, itís pretty hard to find a beautiful image without a meaning. If not impossible. The beauty guarantees the meaning; ever since humans were. I hope that to continue.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2012, 08:53:17 AM »
ReplyReply

The devil's in the detail, Keith.

One man's vacuum is another man's freedom from life-support - exactly what so many seek every day.

But then who's to judge whether a picture has or has not got that magical content: message  beneath the beauty? I'd expect that the only really meaningful images, then, have to be Don McCullin's and others of that ilk. But would his be considered beautiful in the first place? Possibly, yes. There's is a touch of Hogarth if you look; even a sense of beauty in age and utter desolation and devastation both physical and emotional (fear?) that he can capture and reveal (McCullin).

Is there meaning in landscape? Is there any in old buildings, in women or in stones? In streets, in random people wandering, loitering or even hurrying along those meaningful streets?

Unfortunately, I think that, as ever, it's back to the eye of the beholder, which removes it from any measurement but the empirical: it's art because I say it's art and  because other such images are considered to be art, and beautifully meaningful because it 'speaks' to me... yeah, so what does it so clearly say? Nuttin', mostly.

Oh - saw that show on BBC 4 last night on Santorini and its relationship with Atlantis: had forgotten just how beautifully desolate Greece can be. Made me think of you and your love affair with the islands.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 01:15:42 PM by Rob C » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2012, 11:22:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I've just realised that this thread is a discussion on a specific shot and have therefore deleted my off-topic posts for fear they could be misconstrued as commentary on Michaelís image. 
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2012, 12:14:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice shot!

The question is - in Japan, would this be called Green Barn?  lol
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2012, 01:20:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I've just realised that this thread is a discussion on a specific shot and have therefore deleted my off-topic posts for fear they could be misconstrued as commentary on Michaelís image. 


No, it began that way, Keith, but you know full well that things don't go according to plan - at least not usually!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad