Re: Quality of Pentax 250-600/5.6 PowerZoom
> > OK, so now it is effectively a 375-900 zoom. Will that make it less or more > useful to you for racing photos? More useful, I expect. If I'm using that lens I rarely use it below 350mm, and would sometimes like a little more reach. The example shots I posted were taken out at the long end of the range (500mm and up).
Re: Flash AF360FGZ works in TTL-mode on the LX and 645
Rüdiger Neumann a écrit: Hallo, on the www.photozone.de Alexander gave a link to the german pentax side with a flash overview: http://www.pentax.de/mediapool/attachments/photo/100/106/97229/Blitzuebersic ht.pdf There it was shown, that the AF360FGZ will work in TTL-mode with the LX, Super A and 645 I tested it and now the surprise. The AF360 works on the LX in TTL mode. The flash confirmation after the flash is also working. But no word in the AF360 manual about it. The display is showing P-TTL mode and the flash correction can be adjusted, ... The manual of the AF360FGZ say that with old body, it can display P-TTL but working in TTL mode only. Micheel
RE: How hard is it to change a K-mount/
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Oooh, this has got me thinking. What would it take to change a K50/1.2 >to an A50/1.2? Would you need the bits from a wrecked A50/1.2 or could >you use bits from a 50/1.4? >Hmmm, three minutes of playing with the K50/1.2 shows that there is two >detent points after F2, probably F1.4 and F1.2 so this is looking a bit >more difficult. >But could I convert my K30/2.8 using A28/2.8 bits? And I thought I was mad as a box of biscuits Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
A 35/2.8
Hi all, Anyone knows the quality of Pentax A 35/2.8? Is it any good? Thanks Winston
England Wins!
Just had to post this before Cotty ;-) This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: A 35/2.8
Well it MUSt be *some*good... - Original Message - From: "Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 6:19 AM Subject: A 35/2.8 > > Hi all, > > Anyone knows the quality of Pentax A 35/2.8? Is it any good? > > Thanks > > Winston > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/2003
Re: England Wins!
yeah what a close game.. wilko was on fire. i bet some aussie kicker whose name i won't mention will be regretting missing a kick or two. - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:53 PM Subject: England Wins! > Just had to post this before Cotty ;-) > > > > This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > >
Re: England Wins!
Great report, Mark! I'll bet Cot is hoarse by now! Probably take a week for the grin to relax! keith whaley Mark Roberts wrote: > > Just had to post this before Cotty ;-) > > This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com
Re: England Wins!
This one time, at band camp, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm Thank God thats over. Bunch of fools running about with thier IQ displayed on thier back England winning is a good result, the Australians are soo full of themselves. Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: England Wins!
THAT must be a real interesting series. England wins, former English colony wins, repeat Cory feeling silly this morning. Could have something to do with the massive tickle session he just had with his two little girls. - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 6:53 AM Subject: England Wins! > Just had to post this before Cotty ;-) > > > > This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/2003
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
>It's extremely cruel, Shel - you certainly have not shown it to anyone. If she were not so pathologically obese the shot with the sign in it and her clutching the bottle would have been fun. >IF you took the shot without showing her face at all, for purposes of showing how ill we, as a nation, are making ourselves - perhaps. I think there is a presumption here that I find disturbing. The woman is fat, yes, but I feel a lot of people are reacting negatively to this picture because they react negatively to fat and fat people, not because the photograph is negative per se. Did Shel make her fat? Is what made her fat known? Did Coke make her fat? Did fast food make her fat? Does it really matter? Does one have the "right" to take photographs of things that others find unpleasant? Or of people who may be unattractive to them? The only thing I felt was a possible put down was the title. And that is easily changed. Once in Polynesian cultures, fat was a sign of beauty (because it was a sign of wealth). If she was naked and spread out on a tropical print eating a pineapple, would that be okay? Would it not be "cruel?" If it was a skinny nerd with tape-mended broken glasses who looked like a loser clutching a coke and not her, would that be okay? I honestly fail to see how taking pictures of what is, of what is actually "out there" can be any sort of inherent put down. Those things just *are.* Photography, like painting/drawing, in addition to what is really there, is so much a matter of what we, the viewer, bring to it. Sort of like a Rorschach test. Marnie aka Doe
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
I honestly fail to see how taking pictures of what is, of what is actually "out there" can be any sort of inherent put down. Those things just *are.* Photography, like painting/drawing, in addition to what is really there, is so much a matter of what we, the viewer, bring to it. Sort of like a Rorschach test. Marnie aka Doe At last, a voice of reason. Lewis _ online games and music with a high-speed Internet connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
Fish-eye Takumar
Hi All I just acquired a 4/17mm Fish-eye Takumar. And I have some questions. Are there some thing to look for? It looks very nice, near mint, everything is operating smoothly and the caps are there. Any comments on that lens. How is it compared to the 16mm Zenitar (I have one in K-mount)? What's the normal going price today? Thanks in advance René van Ginkel
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
BTW, the E-10/E-20 is a marvelous stealth camera. The LCD panel folds out to any angle (although it doesn't twist you can sit it in your lap), and the since there is no moving mirror the camera is very quiet when the shutter is released. Of course, its not small at all . . . This is an interesting case. This woman is not just a little overweight; she is obese to the point of making others uncomfortable in much the same way as a physical deformity. Although I have not doubt about the legality of this, I might hesitate to take this picture. OTOH, there is a certain moral courage needed to be an artist, i.e., a willingness to occasionally push the limits of acceptability. I might hesitate myself but I also feel that it's good that others don;'t have my reservations. You can't get the amazing photo without occasionally going over the edge. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: England Wins!
I think they did away with that this year... nobody was interested. Cory Waters Wishes they'd finally quit playing basketball and baseball. Takes up so much time on SportsCenter that could be devoted to motor sports and ice hockey - Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: Re: England Wins! > Hi, > > Saturday, November 22, 2003, 12:54:38 PM, you wrote: > > > THAT must be a real interesting series. England wins, former English colony > > wins, repeat > > like the 'World' Series, you mean? > > -- > Cheers, > Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/2003
Re: England Wins!
On 22/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Just had to post this before Cotty ;-) > > > >This is what he was blathering about, for those who don't know: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm LOL, and so you did! I arose yawning at 7.30 on a rainy Saturday morning and was out the door at 8.30 for the 5 minute drive to a friend's house. He's a Brit but his wife is full-on Australian (and boy is she LOUD) so it seemed like a good idea. We had breakfast during the first have, but not before some champagne and orange juice! I think I was pretty giddy when Oz drew the first blood with a decent try. The rest of the game was basically an edge-of-the-seat affair, right down to the last 30 seconds of extra time (at 14 all) when Wilko drop-kicked the winner. It was simply unbelievable. The Brits were playing well, but made silly mistakes that dropped them back. It was so close really, either team could have collected the cup. We have a saying in England that goes: Football (soccer) is a gentleman's game played by louts, and rugby is a louts game played by gentlemen.. I have to say that (as was pointed out to me by my Aussie hostess) the Aussies put on a pretty amazing show what with all the singing and the razzamatazz. Mrs Cot arrived before the end and carted me off home at lunchtime, and I spent the rest of the day sobering up ;-) Just about human again now, and guess what - it's stopped raining :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: OT - Rugby World Cup
Exactly how many countries participate in the Rugby World Cup? Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:35 AM > To: pentax list > Subject: OT - Rugby World Cup > > > E N G L A N D ! > > YES! > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk >
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Ann Sanfedele wrote: >Three people I care about have serious weight problems, it's killing them, none of them are comfortable with having their picture taken. The all hate it. So I may have an extra reason for being disturbed by the picture. I have felt much better once I knew Shel did not really hide the camera. Your issues with fat are your issues with fat. They are not mine. I am with Graywolf here, some people are jumping to the conclusion this woman is pathetic simply by her existence (of being fat), and therefore one shouldn't take her picture. I, personally, find all kinds of bodies interesting. Maybe because of the nude drawing I have done. There might be considered to be some editorializing with the camera, or there might not. OTOH, it's just a picture of a woman clutching a coke in a fast food joint, if you remove your own emotional content. A pose, I am sure, many of us have been in (clutching a drink or a hamburger in a fast food joint.) I fail to see why she should have any more a flattering candid picture taken than anyone else who is captured by someone doing "street photography." More flattering a picture than someone would take of me in the same situation, for instance. Why should she have special status? Because she's "pathetic?" I don't jump to that conclusion, sorry. Would it be okay for someone to take a candid of me smoking on the street? Would that picture be objectionable because lots have died indirectly from smoking? Life is life, it's not all flattering or attractive to others. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Smithsonian contest (was: Defining "previously Published" for a photo contest)
Ryan, nice to know they are letting you in... I'm wondering if they will be seeing tons of Pentaxes in this contest! annsan Ryan Lee wrote: > Hey Ann.. Following your lead I thought I'd buzz them.. Good call! > :) > Ryan > > Thank you for your recent letter regarding SMITHSONIAN magazine's photo > > contest. Australians are quite welcome to enter, just make sure you send > > your entry early enough to get here before the deadline. > > We appreciate your interest. > > Sincerely, > > Karla A. Henry > > Reader Services > > SMITHSONIAN > > - Original Message - > From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:30 AM > Subject: Re: Smithsonian contest (was: Defining "previously Published" for a > photo contest) > > > Ryan Lee wrote: > > > > > I haven't been paying too close attention to this thread, and I may have > > > missed it if it's been answered already- is this contest open to non-US > > > residents? e.g. Australia.. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ryan > > > > The rules: (says nothing about geographical limitations) > > > > http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/sep03/lines.html > > > > >
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > >Three people I care about have serious weight problems, it's killing them, > none of them are comfortable with having their picture taken. The all hate it. > So I may have an extra reason for being disturbed by the picture. > > I have felt much better once I knew Shel did not really hide the camera. > > Your issues with fat are your issues with fat. They are not mine. I am with > Graywolf here, some people are jumping to the conclusion this woman is pathetic > simply by her existence (of being fat), and therefore one shouldn't take her > picture. Acutally, Shel felt uncomforatble with it. I would, too, and I'm not saying that my vision is any one elses. I also wrote you and Graywolf privately about further reasons I pounced on Shell for showing it to us - that I wish not to be made public. I would never take pictures of someone who was injured, for instance, myself. There is no judgement on my part about them, but I can't look at them. I of course am reminded of my neice when look at this woman, and what I see is death looming. Of course it is my problem. If this woman didnt care, fine - but she was not given the opportunity. I think taking pictures of strangers at this close range whether they are beautiful or homely is intrusive and should never be shown Unless the person in question has been consulted first. I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I did not. I don't like looking at pictures of me either, Marnie. annsan
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
> By the way , how many of you remember the lawsuit David Letterman lost a few years ago to a woman who was caught on camera at the US Open eating a piece of fruit (or maybe ice cream) with the juice dribbling down her face. He showed it repeatedly on his program. She was heavy and had a thyroid condition. I knew her and I knew the distress her husband felt, as did she, over it. Her appearance was the result of a medical condition that killed her just a couple of years after that. annsan
Re: England Wins!
Just curious: do folks outside of the US/Canada know what "SportsCenter" is? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/22/03 01:50PM >>> I think they did away with that this year... nobody was interested. Cory Waters Wishes they'd finally quit playing basketball and baseball. Takes up so much time on SportsCenter that could be devoted to motor sports and ice hockey - Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: Re: England Wins! > Hi, > > Saturday, November 22, 2003, 12:54:38 PM, you wrote: > > > THAT must be a real interesting series. England wins, former English colony > > wins, repeat > > like the 'World' Series, you mean? > > -- > Cheers, > Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/2003
Re: A 35/2.8
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Winston wrote: > Anyone knows the quality of Pentax A 35/2.8? Is it any good? I usually ask this question of Stan :-) http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/BriefComments.html#General%20Discussion%20of%2035mm%20lens I also search the list archives, but the search results tend to be noisy. Of course the comments need to be taken with a pinch of salt, as what is good for me is not necessarily good for you. HTH, Kostas
Re: Is this a fungal infection? [Was: Re: Is this a Vivitar?]
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, mike wilson wrote: > your other gear. I strongly suggest you take it to a professional for > their opinion. Thanks, that's what I will try to do. Need to find one around here (Edinburgh) any suggestions? Kostas p.s.: The seller offered a refund.
Re: Is this a Vivitar?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Robert Gonzalez wrote: > For 21 pounds, I would not complain about much. The description lists > it as a 'Kiron'. So buyer beware... Sorry, your comments make no sense to me. Kostas
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
> > I have thought off and on about this thread all night. What bothers me is that > the majority of the people who have commented seem to feel the woman is > contemptible or pathetic and it is impolite to take her photo because of that. > > I see nothing wrong with the woman, and I find myself feeling very uncomfortable > with those who condemn or pity her because of their unreasonable prejudices. It's quite possible that she is happy with her weight. It's also possible that she is *not* happy about it, and would much rather not be singled out because of it. It is also possible that she feels she is an interesting person in her own right, and would like to be considered as that, not as some kind of freak show entry. Unless we know which it is, it's at the very least impolite to put her image on public display - an activity which has been likened to sticking your head out of the door and yelling "Hey, folks! Come look at the fat woman!"
Re: OT - Rugby World Cup
Hi, Saturday, November 22, 2003, 7:33:15 PM, you wrote: > Exactly how many countries participate in the Rugby World Cup? Twenty. Ireland, Romania, Argentina, Namibia, Australia USA, Scotland, France, Fiji, Japan England, Georgia, Samoa, Uruguay, S. Africa Canada, Wales, Italy, Tonga, New Zealand -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
I accept the admonishment for some sort of wrongdoing. In a few days I'll figure out what the hell it was I did wrong. Regards, Bob... -- "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." -Ann Coulter From: "Lewis Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thanks for pointing that out, Bob. I will check with you before I make any > further judgments...
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
> > > > >I honestly fail to see how taking pictures of what is, of what is actually > >"out there" can be any sort of inherent put down. Those things just *are.* > > > >Photography, like painting/drawing, in addition to what is really there, is > >so much a matter of what we, the viewer, bring to it. > > > >Sort of like a Rorschach test. > > > >Marnie aka Doe > > > > At last, a voice of reason. Not really. The picture didn't just happen - it's not a random scene. There's a lot more of the photographer in the picture than of the viewer. That's what we're discussing, really; the fact that Shel chose to capture this particular shot, and then having taken it, decided to display it.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
You better! The list just doesn`t tolerate that kind of stuff. ;) P.S., love the sig. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 2:55 PM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph > I accept the admonishment for some sort of wrongdoing. In a few days I'll > figure out what the hell it was I did wrong. > > Regards, > Bob...
Re: B on *ist-D
i tried a 30 second exposure of the inside of a lens cap and i can see only one obvious hot pixel. i haven't looked all that hard yet though, and i do have the noise reduction turned on. Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 10:17 AM Subject: Re: B on *ist-D > On mine, lots of hot pixels start to show up over 1 second. I try to stay > under a half second to keep them at bay.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
When you figure it out, let me know . I was in obstreperous mode and I apologize. Best, Lewis I accept the admonishment for some sort of wrongdoing. In a few days I'll figure out what the hell it was I did wrong. Regards, Bob... > Thanks for pointing that out, Bob. I will check with you before I make any > further judgments... _ Say goodbye to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
>I don't like looking at pictures of me either, Marnie. >annsan Well, neither do I, actually. I feel I am very unphotogenic. Most of the photographs I have seen of myself do not capture my winning personality. :-) I guess what bothers me, is some people look at that woman and all they see if a fat woman, period. She may be a wonderful person, irrespective of weight. She may devote all her time to helping the homeless or something. Ergo, what is wrong with taking her picture? The various reactions say more to me about the viewers' attitudes toward weight than they do about the picture itself or the subject of the picture. I recommend "Fat is a Feminist Issue." Although I have never read it, I hear it's very good. Body image, culture's insistence on skinniness, how weight is more of a problem for women than men, how the pursuit of female beauty can be tyrannical, etc. But I think street photography has its place, and she knew Shel had a camera and she did not make sure he wasn't photography her, and it is an interesting shot. She is interesting. Personal vanity does not always have a place in photography -- not photo journalism, street type photography that tries to capture "reality." Marnie aka Doe In my humble opinion. And I am tired of talking about it. I just disagree and always will. I also find often find beauty where others do not.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Another area to find beauty: http://thecenturyproject.com/photos.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I just disagree and always will. I also find often find beauty where others do > not.
OT: More FS
Canon FTb body. ok except 1/1000. needs CLA $35 Canon FD 50/1.4 mechanically loose optically nice $25 Canon FD 35/3.5 optically nice. mechanically just a little stiff. $50 Vivitar 85-205/3.8 zoom FD mount 2-touch, older design Good condition $35 Shipping included in US.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph (Long and if you've got time to pass) :)
Hi Shel, Actually, I heard it was a covert as covert can be. Weegee apparently used an IR filter over his flash (opaque to the natural eye) and IR film, so it was more than likely noone knew a photo had been taken. Here's a link to some info http://photonotes.org/articles/ir-myths/#dark - great site, albeit Canon oriented. :) Ryan From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First, Weegee used flash, and these kids in the movie theater knew that > their > photo was taken. It's possible, considering the size and obvious nature > of > Weegee's equipment, that the photo was agreed to or even planned > beforehand, or > that these kids, seeing the camera, decided to play towards it. Of > course, > that's just an assumption, a guess. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:33 AM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph (Long and if you've got time to pass) :) > Hi Ryan ... > > There was a point in one of my comments to a response where I was about > to bring > up Weegee, but chose to go in a different direction. However, since you > brought > up Weegee and his style of photography, I'd like to suggest that the > photo you > pointed us to is not as voyeuristic as you make it seem, and that has to > do with > several factors. > > First, Weegee used flash, and these kids in the movie theater knew that > their > photo was taken. It's possible, considering the size and obvious nature > of > Weegee's equipment, that the photo was agreed to or even planned > beforehand, or > that these kids, seeing the camera, decided to play towards it. Of > course, > that's just an assumption, a guess. > > In addition, at the time the photo was taken, people generally were less > up > tight about being photographed. There was less fear in the world, > people's > motives weren't automatically suspect as they are so often today, and > being > photographed was still a relatively new and exciting proposition for > many > people, especially young people. Speaking for myself, in those days, > when Dad > got out the camera, it was an event, and we all wanted to participate. > > IMO, a more voyeuristic Weegee shot is this one: > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/weegee.html > > Please forgive the poor quality as it was taken from a small book, and > one hand > was needed to hold open the pages while the other held the camera. > > Here we have an almost naked (fat) guy sleeping outside his apartment of > the > fire escape. He never knew the photo was taken (again, assuming it > wasn't > posed), and, to some eyes, it may be quite unflattering. Not for me, > for it > brings up nice memories of NYC in the late 1940's and early 1950's, and > the > times I spent on the fire escape outside my grandparent's apartment. A > lot of > people spent time on the fire escapes during the hot summer months. > > kind regards, > > shel > > Ryan Lee wrote: > > > > I think the next most relevant photo (to Shel's) to bring up for the sake of > > discussion would be the infamous one Weegee did of the two lovers in the > > palace theatre making out. > > http://www.1earthmedia.com/photography/weegee.html That one's as voyeuristic > > as it gets, with the IR flash filter technique. > > > >
Re: OT - Rugby World Cup
Most of them are just there to make up numbers apparently. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:44 AM Subject: Re: OT - Rugby World Cup > Hi, > > Saturday, November 22, 2003, 7:33:15 PM, you wrote: > > > Exactly how many countries participate in the Rugby World Cup? > > Twenty. > > Ireland, Romania, Argentina, Namibia, Australia > USA, Scotland, France, Fiji, Japan > England, Georgia, Samoa, Uruguay, S. Africa > Canada, Wales, Italy, Tonga, New Zealand > > -- > Cheers, > Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Politics on the PDML.
- Original Message - From: "Steve Larson" Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph > P.S., love the sig. I don't. It has no place on this list. Regards William Robb
Re: Cleaning the CCD
I have had the "sticky stuff" on one corner of my D1 for a while.Its about $100 to clean at Nikon Mississauga in Toronto. I know its doable,just cannot work up the nerve to try it myself. Dust is a real problem with these cameras.I heard the first orders of D1x's came with free dust.lol Dave > So I did it. > > The anti-aliasing filter of my *istD finally got some sticky crud on it that > the CO2 wouldn't blow off. I suspect that the stuff came out of the 24-90 I > just bought from KEH, which came packed in styrofoam, always a problem with > static. Add to that the highly charged CCD, and WHAMMO! Dust magnet. > > I considered sending the whole unit to Dog knows where to get it looked at > (Pentax Vancouver being out of business), but heard that it's $70 a shot. > As the camera ages, this problem is bound to get worse, so I firured I'd > better get conversant with the mthod right now. I looked at a couple of > sites on the Web, and with fear in my heart, I resolved to clean the thing > myself. > > I bought some Eclipse and some PecPads, and cut a Superstore card to be > slightly less wide than the CCD. I wore powder-free latex gloves, changed > the batteries and locked the shutter and mirror open, and went to work. > > The results are flawless. A few drops of Eclipse on the PecPad, wrapped > around the credit card sliver, and one wipe in each direction (GENTLY!), and > the crud is gone. I was certainly nervous about doing it, and I still > wouldn't want to do this all the time, but it can be done without damage to > the CCD. I've read that you should use the AC adapter for this kind of > thing, but I don't have one, so I just used fresh NiMHs. > > I also considered buying the swabs specifically designed for CCDs, but they > are $12 each. I know that's cheaper than a new CCD, but I'm just not > willing to be held ranson like that. I read a few accounts of doing it this > way, is I figured I'd go for it. > > As an aside, the place I phoned to get the supplies is probably the most > pro-oriented shop in Vancouver, which seems to translate into the fact that > they hold Pentax 35mm (or D-SLRs) in a certain amount of contempt. They > asked me what I had - D1, D100, Canon monster, and I said, "Nope, Pentax." > He made that scoffing noise: "Pfft! - one of those little star thingies, > whatever they call 'em?" "Yup," said I. He asked, "You got dust on it > already?" I said, "Yup." > > He said, "I didn't think those things had been out long enough to have dust > on them." > >
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
> > > > > >From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : Despite some folks here look disturbed by excessive talk on > >digital stuff, it seems that discussions like this one (as old as > >photography and impossible to bring any conclusion) caught PDML more than > >anything else. Have you noticed than any other discussion has almost > >dried out since this posting? > > >Interesting, isn't it? > > Yes, it is - for a change. I'd disagree with that, too. I suspect that the number of people who will learn much from this latest discussion is rather less than the number who could learn from a discussion of bits and bytes. It's a nice soapbox for people to sound off, but at the end of the day most people will go home with their opinions and prejudices unchanged. This too, will pass, and we'll gravitate back to the regular topics. Should we even be discussing this shot? Was it taken with Pentax equipment?
Re: Politics on the PDML.
You`re right, I shouldn`t have voiced an opinion, I let my patriotism get the best of me. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:28 PM Subject: Politics on the PDML. > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Larson" > Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph > > > > > P.S., love the sig. > > I don't. It has no place on this list. > Regards > > William Robb > >
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
>I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I did not. >annsan Okay, I'll add one thing, because I finally figured out how to word it, annsan. By trying to "protect" her you are coming from the place that she NEEDS protection. I.E. That there is something "wrong" with her, something defective, something less than, something disabled, or maybe something even obscene, in a sense. Get it? Lots of people don't like other people protecting them, because of the downside implication of that protection. I've encountered disabled people (wheel chair types) who don't like people falling all over them to help them just for that reason. Some do, of course, because opening a door or something may be difficult for them. But others do not. No one likes to be pitied. It was an honest portrayal. I am now seriously tempted to go out and do street photography, and especially do unflattering, honest portrayals of fat people, ugly people, disabled people, homeless people, etc., just to confront our own inherent prejudices. Of which we all have some. Later, Marnie aka Doe No more. I got other things to do than PDMLing. This honestly has been taking too much of my time. Don't be surprised if there are no posts from me for a while. Someone can take what I have said wrong, that's okay.
Re: Re[2]: B on *ist-D
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re[2]: B on *ist-D > Bill, > > Are you sure that your ISO isn't increasing and you're getting noise > from that? I'm not seeing any noticeable hot pixels on mine up to > about 3-4 seconds. If I increase the ISO past 200, then I start to > see more noise. With noise reduction on, there are no hot pixels at 30 seconds exposure. With noise reduction off, I have a few hundred at 30 seconds. I ran this test a couple of weeks ago. William Robb
Re: OT - Rugby World Cup
Twenty nations qualified for the final series: Argentina Australia Canada England Fiji France Georgia (the state of the former Soviet Union, not the one in USA) Ireland Italy Japan Namibia New Zealand Romania Samoa Scotland South Africa Tonga Uraguay USA Wales. Even more nations are members of the International Rugby Union, and have contested previous RWC final series. It's the world's second most popular football code, after football (called soccer in some countries) itself. American Football is an "also ran" in the rank of world footballs, ranking behind football (soccer), Rugby and Rugby League (an offshoot of Rugby) based on the number of participating nations (but almost certainly ahead of Rugby League on number of fans). It would lead Australian Football on fan numbers but would be about par with it in terms of worldwide awareness and popularity. Gaelic Football is somewhere behind. Minor football codes played in only one location, such as the games played by teams in medieval costumes at Italian festivals, and the mass scrums played between English villages once a year, would rank last but always seem to get onto TV news nevertheless. My apologies to fans of football codes that I've neglected. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Exactly how many countries participate in the Rugby World Cup? > > Len >
On topic or off topic (was Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi, Saturday, November 22, 2003, 10:25:56 PM, you wrote: > This too, will pass, and we'll gravitate back to the regular topics. > Should we even be discussing this shot? Was it taken with Pentax equipment? I don't see a problem about discussing it. The ethical aspects of photography are seldom aired here; the list is as much about photograph in general as it is about Pentax in particular. And it's a lot more on-topic, and interesting, than both rugby and the cheap political point-scoring that may be about to break out. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I > did not. > >annsan > > Okay, I'll add one thing, because I finally figured out how to word it, > annsan. > > By trying to "protect" her you are coming from the place that she NEEDS > protection. I.E. That there is something "wrong" with her, something defective, > something less than, something disabled, or maybe something even obscene, in a > > sense. When annsan speaks in this thread her words can be summed up in one word - "empathy". Obviously this is something you and too many others in this thread show a lamentable lack of. Your words in the above paragraph is pathetically patronizing and if I were annsan I'd find them insulting. > Get it? > Lots of people don't like other people protecting them, because of > the downside implication of that protection. > > I've encountered disabled people (wheel chair types) who don't like people > falling all over them to help them just for that reason. Some do, of course, > because opening a door or something may be difficult for them. But others do not. > No one likes to be pitied. > > It was an honest portrayal. > I am now seriously tempted to go out and do street photography, and > especially do unflattering, honest portrayals of fat people, ugly people, disabled > people, homeless people, etc., just to confront our own inherent prejudices. Sheesh... Lasse
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Whoa, John ... There are many aspects to photography, not just the technical aspect of digital software and sensors, and film and shutter speeds and all that. What's the point of all of that if a photograph doesn't result. So, discussing the result of all the technical aspects of cameras and software seems just as valid as anything else discussed on this forum, which has included a wide variety of subjects having nothing whatsoever to do with photography. Somehow, in my little pea-sized dinosaur brain, discussing a photograph has a lot to do with photography. There is, IMO, much to learn from discussions such as this. While knowing how to make an exposure and capture a scene (which is really what all the technical stuff is about when you get right down to it) is important for some people, the essence of photography is the photograph. And what makes a photograph is far more than pixels and bits of silver and flash synch speeds, and hyper-mode, and all that. What makes a photograph is the human element, the person operating the camera. Understanding a photographers motivation, what moves him or her to see a photograph that someone else doesn't see, and to capture that moment for all to see, and perhaps learn from, is the heart of photography. It's unimportant whether someone thinks the photograph should have been taken, whether it was right or wrong to show it here, or if you or someone else believe it is demeaning or beautiful. The discussion opened people's eyes and hearts and minds to some small degree, giving some the motivation to expand their creative horizons, to perhaps try something different. Others will dismiss the whole thing as nonsense, and continue what they've been doing for years, for better or for worse. IMO, that's for worse - it's creative stagnation. I get lambasted because of a preference for older cameras (regardless of the fact that I use digital equipment), and am called to task for not moving forward with the times. For those who dismiss this discussion, and similar ones which I hope will ensue, as having no place on this list, I suggest that they are choosing not to move forward creatively or artistically, or perhaps are afraid to confront that which is within them. The technical orientation of this list, the drive to define so much of what photography is by quantifying the equipment used, should at times be offset by what it means to be a photographer, and what makes a photograph successful or not, and what motivates a photographer to choose a subject. This is what photography is when you get past pixels and shutter speeds and f-stops. And what does talking about technical minutia do to change people, to change their attitudes and ideas and they way they go through life? I'm sure "most people" will go home with their opinions and prejudices unchanged, but perhaps not all. Seems like Marnie might try something different. And I know that I've learned a few things about myself from this discussion. And there have been a few other who, through private email, have expressed a new motivation and energy. So, there you have it. shel John Francis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > : Despite some folks here look disturbed by excessive talk on > > >digital stuff, it seems that discussions like this one (as old as > > >photography and impossible to bring any conclusion) caught PDML more than > > >anything else. Have you noticed than any other discussion has almost > > >dried out since this posting? > > > > >Interesting, isn't it? > > > > Yes, it is - for a change. > > I'd disagree with that, too. > > I suspect that the number of people who will learn much from this > latest discussion is rather less than the number who could learn from > a discussion of bits and bytes. > > It's a nice soapbox for people to sound off, but at the end of the day > most people will go home with their opinions and prejudices unchanged. > > This too, will pass, and we'll gravitate back to the regular topics. > > Should we even be discussing this shot? Was it taken with Pentax equipment?
Re[4]: B on *ist-D
I didn't try it with noise reduction off. Is there a good reason to turn off noise reduction? Especially if you get hot pixels? Time to redo the test with it off and see how it does. Bruce Saturday, November 22, 2003, 4:51:44 PM, you wrote: WR> - Original Message - WR> From: "Bruce Dayton" WR> Subject: Re[2]: B on *ist-D >> Bill, >> >> Are you sure that your ISO isn't increasing and you're getting noise >> from that? I'm not seeing any noticeable hot pixels on mine up to >> about 3-4 seconds. If I increase the ISO past 200, then I start to >> see more noise. WR> With noise reduction on, there are no hot pixels at 30 seconds exposure. WR> With noise reduction off, I have a few hundred at 30 seconds. WR> I ran this test a couple of weeks ago. WR> William Robb
Re: Re[4]: B on *ist-D
i leave it on all the time. it costs extra processing though, so if you are shooting in the range where it is used (anything from 1/4s and longer) then it adds a lot to the time it takes before it stores the image onto the card. this means it is using up battery life. aside from that, i know of no other disadvantages of having noise reduction turned on all the time. Herb - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:53 PM Subject: Re[4]: B on *ist-D > I didn't try it with noise reduction off. Is there a good reason to > turn off noise reduction? Especially if you get hot pixels? > > Time to redo the test with it off and see how it does.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Firstly, welcome back Shel. I was unsubbed and out of town when you returned, and what a pleasant surprise it was to see your name when I resubbed. A thought came to mind as I read this thread (and I haven't read everything so forgive me if I repeat someone else). Whenever I've pointed a camera at someone in public with the intent of photographing them in particular, I've been acutely aware of the privacy implications. In fact when the work has been professional work I've engaged the subject to ask permission, and when not pre-arranged the usage has always been editorial illustration and non-commercial. Commercial shots have always required consenting models. But there have been times when I've pointed a camera at "the passing parade" to capture the overall scene, and often someone has been dead-centre of the field of view and they could have assumed that I was singling them out. But no-one ever did, even when I was very near with a wide-angle lens. So, strange as it seems, we as photographers must betray ourselves, by body language or something else, when we set out to photograph a particular individual. But when we defocus our attention away from individuals and onto a crowd, even though the outward appearance of our actions is the same, none of the individuals in front of the camera become self-conscious of being photographed. Or is it just me? regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi gang, > > Notice I said "taking," for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter > was tripped surreptitiously. The woman had no idea that I was going to > take this picture of her. > > I have mixed feelings about this shot. On the one hand it seemingly > reflects an aspect of American culture, yet, on the other hand, it's not > a very complimentary portrait, and one could argue that it in some ways > denigrates the subject. Is food the problem, or perhaps a medical > condition? Am I being judgmental or just recording a scene? Having > battled weight problems throughout my life, I'm somewhat sensitive to > this woman's situation. Still, the photo does, IMO, tell a story ... > and perhaps asks a question or two. > > My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken? Do you > think it is overly critical of the subject or sympathetic, or perhaps > judgmental? Maybe I'm being critical of myself, using the photo to work > through or better understand my own situation and problems. > > See for yourself, and share your thoughts: > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/bigeater.html > > > shel > >
Re: Politics on the PDML.
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> P.S., love the sig. > > I don't. It has no place on this list. Huh? Why the strong reactions, either way? Not recognizing the name quoted as the author, I can't tell if it was a weird rant by an insane person, or a parody written by a comedian, but surely it's no big deal? -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
Re: OT - Rugby World Cup
Much like the World Cup for soccer, I believe there were qualifying matches all over the world leading up to the "finals" held in Australia. Surprisingly, the American team made it into the finals (20 teams). anybody here in the US even know that the Rugby world cup was going on; or even that we had a team to support? Didn't think so. Christian Who was in Oz when the world cup started and only then realized that there was an American team. - Original Message - From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 7:32 PM Subject: Re: OT - Rugby World Cup > Most of them are just there to make up numbers apparently. > > Cheers, > Ryan >
Re: The morality of taking a photograph (Long and if you've got time to pass) :)
He was using IR film and IR flash bulbs. Quite likely the subjects did not know they were being photographed. Having played with that stuff back in the early fifties I can assure you you had to be staring into the flash reflector to see it go off. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: First, Weegee used flash, and these kids in the movie theater knew that their photo was taken. It's possible, considering the size and obvious nature of Weegee's equipment, that the photo was agreed to or even planned beforehand, or that these kids, seeing the camera, decided to play towards it. Of course, that's just an assumption, a guess. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
> > >I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I > did not. > > >annsan > > Okay, I'll add one thing, because I finally figured out how to word it, > annsan. > > By trying to "protect" her you are coming from the place that she NEEDS > protection. I.E. That there is something "wrong" with her, something defective, > something less than, something disabled, or maybe something even obscene, in a > sense. > > Get it? Lots of people don't like other people protecting them, because of > the downside implication of that protection. Your being just as presumptive yourself, you know, by arguing that she shouldn't be protected. You don't know what she wants, any more than I do. It's her body - the decision to display it should be her decision. Anyone else attempting to speak for her, on either side, is just grandstanding.
RE: Politics on the PDML.
You're right in that it's certainly one of the two. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22-Nov-03 18:44 > To: William Robb > Cc: Pentax Discuss > Subject: Re: Politics on the PDML. > Huh? Why the strong reactions, either way? Not recognizing the name > quoted as the author, I can't tell if it was a weird rant by an insane > person, or a parody written by a comedian, but surely it's no big deal?
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Taken without permission: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1639375&size=lg Taken without permission: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1729559&size=lg Taken without permission: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1901130 So, what do we make of all this? I try to talk to people as I'm taking photos of them, or if it's not possible, I try to at least talk to them afterwards, not so much to "get permission", as to maybe know them a teeny bit, and at least give them an opportunity to object to the photo (sort of like getting tacit permission, I guess). But, these ones, I didn't. Did I exploit them? Are they in any way offensive? I don't think so. But, as you said, Shel, in how many of HCB's photos did he get permission or engage with the subjects in any way? Not all of them, that's for certain. Not the crowd running the bank, being crushed against the door in China (was it Nankin, Shanghai? I can't recall off-hand), that's for sure! You know, I've looked at your photo, and I don't see that it's ~that~ unflattering. Sorry to say, but what's unflattering is that she doesn't fit what society says is beautiful. It pains me even more to say it, but she is what society would consider quite unattractive. Is that what we find repulsive about it? You're right, Shel, were she "beautiful woman", no one would give the photo a second glance, or wonder about it's ethics. If you got a photo of, I don't know, Brittany Spears, or Madonna (neither of whom I consider beautiful, but that's another issue), walking by with a soda bottle held against their body that way, with that same look on their face, would anyone say the photo was somehow repulsive or offensive? She's out in public. There is no "invasion of privacy" issue here at all! I can look at anyone walking down the street any time I choose. I can take their photo, too. It's not like they're in their home, or eating in a restaurant. Walking in public is just that, a "public" activity. No privacy at all. No issue, for me. If there's one thing about the photo I wonder about, it's whether her walking by a diner menu is an "honest" portrayal. By that, I mean there's an implication that she may have just come out of, or is going into the diner, that her size has something to do with how much she eats. It kind of reminds me of that Margaret Bourke White photo of the "Bread line", standing under the propaganda billboard "America: the World's Most Prosperous Nation" (or whatever it said). It was taken during the depression, and it looked like a group of people waiting for food handouts, ironically under that sign. In fact, their town had just flooded, and they were waiting for flood relief. Might this be the same sort of thing? Look, I'm not saying it's a pretty photo. But, that's my societal bias, telling me that thin is beautiful. Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with your photo, in and of itself. Diane Arbus made a pretty good living taking photos of less than beautiful people. My two cents worth - and I haven't read any response yet other than Christian's, so it'll be fun to see how this unfolds... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:16:37 -0800 Well, an honest response is what I was looking for. It's obvious I've mixed feelings about this photo - in fact, I've done nothing with it for about a year, since I took it ... However, I'd have to disagree with you about "this type of photography" in general. Many, many photographs, and quite acceptable ones at that, are taken candidly. Hell, what would HCB have to hang on the wall had he not acted as a voyeur? But, coming back to this picture, is it the unflattering portrayal that bothers you the most, or that the photo was taken without permission? Had this photo been of a beautiful woman, in a more flattering situation, but still taken in the same manner, would you feel the same way? _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
I think you're right. In most Common Law (ie: countries based on the English system of law, which would include the USA), as far as I know, photographs taken of individuals in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy need no releases. In some countries, such as France, you need releases for pretty much everything. The Province of Quebec in Canada, having based it's Civil Law on that of France, recently enacted a law similar to France's. So, in those places (and likely many others), street photographers would have to get releases for photos taken in public, if they intend to display them, AFAIK. regards, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:57:48 +0200 Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but: I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To take pictures in a department store, for example, you need the owner/manager's permission. But outside (maybe even in a fast food joint) -- surely -- you don't need any kind of permission? It would be quite okay in South Africa, for example, or a London street. Every day thousands of pictures go out in newspapers. How many photographers ask Tony Bliar [not a typo] if it's okay to publish his picture? Thousands of pictures are being taken in Iraq. How many of those subjects have given their permission for them to be published? But as far as showing/ publishing goes you've done that; and pretty thoroughly. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages 'The Cement Company from HELL!' Updated: August 15, 2003 "Oh my God! They've killed Teddy!" - Original Message - From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:36 PM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest > > portrayal of > > a subject when they know they are going to be photographed and start > > "performing" for the camera? I suppose it could be in some situations, > > but > > perhaps not all. What are your thoughts on that? > > I agree with that statement. McCurry has to watch out for the performers as > does/did HCB when he thought he wasn't being noticed. > > > > > I've made numerous photos by engaging the people I've photographed, and > > the > > results have often been wonderful, but it seems that you feel there's no > > time > > when a candid shot is appropriate. Let's step back to HCB for a > > moment. You > > never did address the point that much of his work (as was the work of > > many, many > > other photographers) was candid, or voyeuristic, and without that > > approach > > there'd probably be just a small pamphlet of his work, rather than > > volumes. And > > just to be clear, I am not comparing myself to HCB ... > > Honestly, of the photographs I've seen from HCB, the ones that are more > engaged or where the subjects knew their picture was being taken, appeal to > me more than his more voyeuristic shots. It's all about personal preference > here. > > > > > And then we have the situation where a photographer has been given > > permission to > > photograph some one, but still grabs some candid shots when the subject > > isn't > > "engaged." Where does that fit in? > > > > Permission was given. They knew they would be photographed in some way. > > Christian > _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Everyone seems to feel that because she's obese, that she's ashamed of her body, and hates herself, and would never agree to be photographed. Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe she's comfortable with her body image, and unlike many on this list, has no problem having herself portrayed in a photo? regards, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:08:18 -0500 It's a great shot. An interesting composition and compelling subject matter. However, I would be afraid of angering and hurting the subject. if I was caught taking it surreptitiously. I doubt if I would have the nerve to ask her to pose. She almost surely would say no. If I thought I could shoot it and get away with it, I would definitely do so. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
I suppose you could assert that it's not a random scene, but it was not planned. The woman just appeared where i happened to be, when I happened to be there with a camera. That's pretty random, especially considering it's a place I rarely frequent. Choosing to take the picture was influenced by the fact that my order hadn't arrived, that the woman sat where she did, that the light was OK, and so on. All in all, a very random happenstance. You bet there's a lot of the photographer in the photograph. That's often - perhaps always - the case when photographing people in certain situations. From what attracts one to a scene to the final print, much of what you see is the photographer's psyche and personality. A good photograph should show some of the photographer as well as showing the subject. Working with people is an emotional experience - it ain't all technical. And please don't take this the wrong way, but photographs that show inanimate objects, like cars, and sunflowers, and mail boxes, rarely show much about what's going on inside the photographer's mind. In this case, and in most of the people photographs I make, I'm a big part of the final image ... and when I'm not, the photograph often doesn't work very well. Are you saying that it's a "bad" thing that there's some of the photographer in the photograph? shel John Francis wrote: > Not really. The picture didn't just happen - it's not a random scene. > There's a lot more of the photographer in the picture than of the viewer.
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Go here: http://thecenturyproject.com/photos.htm and scroll down ... You'll see a photo that gives some support to your POV. shel > Everyone seems to feel that because she's obese, that she's ashamed of her > body, and hates herself, and would never agree to be photographed. > > Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe she's comfortable with her body > image, and unlike many on this list, has no problem having herself portrayed > in a photo?
Re: The morality of taking a photograph
It works ~sooo~ well with the "new" LX. Just take off the prism, and you can frame quite nicely looking right into the focusing screen. Got a few interesting subway shots that way... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:27:03 -0500 Cotty wrote: > On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >So, how did you sneak it? Did you actually hide the camera or did you > >do the old "I'm just checking the dials, oops, I shot off a frame, I > >wish I knew how this thing worked" routine? > > Damn, I thought i was the only one. > > Cheers, > Cotty > make it three annsan _ online games and music with a high-speed Internet connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
