|
RedwoodGuy
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: February 09, 2013, 10:24:23 AM » |
 Reply
|
Thanks, Doug. Here's another landscape.
@Man on cell phone in lobby Well, there it is - - how much more "ambiguous" can a photo be than a man on a cell phone in a lobby? I guess we could wonder "who is he calling?" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
seamus finn
|
|
« Reply #121 on: February 09, 2013, 11:03:33 AM » |
Reply
|
Be Careful Out There:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myrvaagnes
|
|
« Reply #122 on: February 09, 2013, 11:07:53 AM » |
Reply
|
@ Man beating drum
Is this ambiguous? Really?
But it's a Still Life, not a Street Photo, so it doesn't need ambiguity.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RedwoodGuy
|
|
« Reply #123 on: February 09, 2013, 11:22:54 AM » |
Reply
|
But it's a Still Life, not a Street Photo, so it doesn't need ambiguity. Oh gee, I didn't get that. Thanks so much. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RSL
|
|
« Reply #124 on: February 09, 2013, 12:29:16 PM » |
Reply
|
Keep 'em coming, Seamus. I can't get back on the street until we get out of here and go someplace like St. Augustine, but I'll go back through some more earlier stuff when I get a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RSL
|
|
« Reply #125 on: February 09, 2013, 03:31:59 PM » |
Reply
|
Serenade
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
seamus finn
|
|
« Reply #126 on: February 10, 2013, 04:17:04 AM » |
Reply
|
Be careful what you wish for:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stamper
|
|
« Reply #127 on: February 10, 2013, 05:34:48 AM » |
Reply
|
Shadows.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stamper
|
|
« Reply #128 on: February 10, 2013, 06:02:32 AM » |
Reply
|
I'm forever blowing bubbles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stamper
|
|
« Reply #129 on: February 10, 2013, 06:14:37 AM » |
Reply
|
My cup is full and running over.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RedwoodGuy
|
|
« Reply #130 on: February 10, 2013, 10:59:01 AM » |
Reply
|
Be careful what you wish for:
There is a string of very explicit photographs here. Some work pretty well, such as the boy in the bubble. I think this one doesn't work well, so I was interested to analyze why. To say it is explicit is an understatement. The sign is formally framed by the camera to present the sign dead on - screaming - look here! So, I did. But all I found was banal sentiments, and nothing clever, profound, humorous or ironic. The "Before I Die.." hook is great, but nothing of interest grabs the bait. At that point it is far more like a document and far less like a photograph. (There's no play of light and shadow, for instance.) I do think it was a good photographic instinct though. To make it work better, the photographer might have waited (the sign isn't going anywhere) until someone came into the picture, and perhaps wrote on the board. That would allow plenty of opportunity for a more engaging picture - before, during, or after writing on the board. Or even just looking. The possibilities are then endless. You could even end up with an ambiguous photograph if that was your intent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #132 on: February 12, 2013, 03:43:31 AM » |
Reply
|
An early digital test shot for me: my D200 with a 24mm cunningly disguised as a 35mm.
I thought it was a jewel-like camera, but it now sits doing nothing. As, really, does most of the other stuff, too. Guess the sweet bird of motivation got shot somewhere in a forest. Worse: it might be prisoner in a golden cage. Why don't you write, sweet one; whisper in my ear?
Rob C
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kencameron
|
|
« Reply #133 on: February 12, 2013, 04:36:47 AM » |
Reply
|
An early digital test shot for me...
I like it, but would like it better without the title which, for me, detracts rather than adds in this case. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #134 on: February 12, 2013, 04:48:16 AM » |
Reply
|
I like it, but would like it better without the title which, for me, detracts rather than adds in this case.
Probaby right, Ken, but it's impossible for me to do that: it's as close as I get to writing Sunflowers. Without a title Vinny would have had but a weed. Or an old chair. ;-) Rob |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kencameron
|
|
« Reply #135 on: February 12, 2013, 05:19:11 AM » |
Reply
|
Looking again, I am seeing the case for the title: it is of the same vintage as the photograph. Where have all the chicks gone?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #136 on: February 12, 2013, 05:29:52 AM » |
Reply
|
Looking again, I am seeing the case for the title: it is of the same vintage as the photograph. Where have all the chicks gone?
Imitated the lamb, and gone to the slaughter. They became feminists and thus lost their God-given natural power and superiority. I never met a girl who couldn't make her point without the need to be strident, which most seemed to know would only be counterproductive. Why do we never know what we have untill we lose it or, worse, destroy it ourselves? Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kencameron
|
|
« Reply #137 on: February 12, 2013, 05:36:37 AM » |
Reply
|
"Two". I like to think they were discussing sculpture - we and they had just come out of a fine exhibition.. I could only here the odd word. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #138 on: February 12, 2013, 07:09:52 AM » |
Reply
|
"Two". I like to think they were discussing sculpture - we and they had just come out of a fine exhibition.. I could only here the odd word. From her face, I imagined they - or at least she - were discussing his feet. Ambiguity is nice, sometimes, as long as it doesn't come from your bank. Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
