Welcome back Norm! (Was:Re: Best pix of 2003)
Really good to see you back Norm! Lasse - Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:53 PM Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > Except that this plane is showing contrails...generally denotes high > altitude. > Norm > > Bob W wrote: > > > In the late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon was generally very > > low in the sky > > > >and planes were coming in once a minute exactly as you see in that photo. > > > > > > >
Re: Best pix of 2003
It also has to be nudged back into a higher orbit at some point. At least NASA is currently planning on a controlled reentry date. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/28/04 09:11PM >>> Maybe NASA will sell the Hubble (well, the codes), seeing as they don't plan on repairing it anymore. I would be cool if someone bought it and sold time slots to use it. r - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with > the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version > . ..? > >
Re: Best pix of 2003
Maybe NASA will sell the Hubble (well, the codes), seeing as they don't plan on repairing it anymore. I would be cool if someone bought it and sold time slots to use it. r - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with > the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version > . ..? > >
Re: Best pix of 2003
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 29 Jan 2004 at 10:03, Keith Whaley wrote: > >> Sounds to me those images were chosen because of universal appeal, and >> excellence of the process of recording the image, all of which exhibited >> to a fine degree. >> >> I liked them! > >Exactly, does every photo have to have "meaning" or give "insight"? Some are >just pretty pictures, nice to look at, maybe a brief pictorial glimpse of the >world the photog saw and wanted to share. Oh... you mean ART! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Best pix of 2003
> Exactly, does every photo have to have "meaning" or give "insight"? Some are > just pretty pictures, nice to look at, maybe a brief pictorial glimpse of the > world the photog saw and wanted to share. Finally, someone who shares my philosophy!!! Thanks Rob
Re: Best pix of 2003
Just to repeat what someone said earlier: these were voted on, apparently by members of the general public. So, they (whoever they are), voted for what they liked. Rob, I disagree with you. Every photo does have "meaning" and "insight" However, "sunsets are pretty" is meaningful. And, "sunsets are pretty because God made them that way" is insightful. (although, IMHO, wrong). It's a matter of degree, I guess... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:08:37 +1000 On 29 Jan 2004 at 10:03, Keith Whaley wrote: > Sounds to me those images were chosen because of universal appeal, and > excellence of the process of recording the image, all of which exhibited > to a fine degree. > > I liked them! Exactly, does every photo have to have "meaning" or give "insight"? Some are just pretty pictures, nice to look at, maybe a brief pictorial glimpse of the world the photog saw and wanted to share. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Best pix of 2003
You call some excellent photography "pap?" No, it isn't reportage or documentary. Must "good" photography be one or the other to you? I guess we have different viewpoints about what is good. Not that that's a problem, but I'm surprised you find it hardly worth your time, because "Surprisingly lacking by comparison is reportage or documentary work." That compilation was apparently not an announced contest, for which national or international awards were given, to become a place where a photographer made his mark. . . Sounds to me those images were chosen because of universal appeal, and excellence of the process of recording the image, all of which exhibited to a fine degree. I liked them! keith whaley Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few > "nice" pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is > reportage or documentary work. > > Doug Brewer wrote: > > > > Just had this link sent to me. Some excellent stuff. > > > > http://www.fifth-essence.com/archive/bestpix2003/index.htm
Re: Best pix of 2003
Steve Desjardins wrote: >I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken >with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax >version. ..? There was but they canceled it because there was too much bitching about it not being compatible with K and M lenses. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Best pix of 2003
> I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was > taken with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going > to be a Pentax version . ..? Bayonet type still to be decided :-) Dario
Re: Best pix of 2003
Hi, Jostein wrote: > > If the boeing/moon is a double, it's well done. The light angle fits very > well, and the plane is slightly blurred. > But it seems almost too good to be true, though. I've seen this happen at night, so all I could see were the contrails' shadows behind a black jet shape. The proportions are about right, from memory. If this is real and the light was as it appears, I have nothing but admiration for the photographer. Even as a composite, it is excellent. > Actually, I'm more suspicious about the authenticity northern pike picture. > To my knowledge, the pike always takes its prey head first. Otherwise the > prey would live longer and be able to put up much more struggle, and would > be more difficult to swallow because of the fins and gills pointing the > wrong way. It behaves like me in a supermarket - in, grab and go - so it may not always get hold of the prey in the way that it would like best. In addition, really small prey would be able to turn in the mouth as they are often still alive. mike
RE: Best pix of 2003
Ya, but does the hubble have SMC - I think not! > -Original Message- > From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 January 2004 21:07 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > > > I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was > taken with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going > to be a Pentax version . ..? > >
Re: Best pix of 2003
It seems to be human nature to want to know there are those worse off than you are. At least the news media seems to believe that. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Brigham posted, among other things: I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though... Then again I am more into "nice" pics than reportage/docupics so I guess I would, wouldn't I? I liked the pics Doug shared, too. Especially with the "relative lack" of reportage/documentary photos -- Yesterday my copy of "News Photographer" arrived, with the Best of Photojournalism 2003 photos contained therein. War, war, war, plague, plague, war, hard times -- Seemed to me an even more depressing collection of photographs than usual. This group of pics (that Doug shared) was a nice little antidote. One other depressing point about the News Photographer collection too -- so very many images with muddy blotchy shadows, even muddy, blotchy midtones. Seems another drawback to digital taking over the press photogs' kit: the images are technically ghastly. But perhaps in just a little more time, those problems will disappear. Doubtful we can say the same about wars and plagues and Man's Inhumanity To Man. -- 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: Best pix of 2003
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:33:12 -0500, Christian Skofteland wrote: > Ralph Schumacher, Australia 2002 > http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelk1/mpegs/2002/aus-car.wmv Yep, that was nasty. About a week later they interviewed the widow of that corner worker. She was sad, of course, but said "it's the way he'd have wanted to go" or something to that effect. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Best pix of 2003
> -Original Message- > From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > I don't think the ones I watched had vapour trails - I didn't > really think about that when I write the email. > > When considering whether or not any of the pictures have been > 'sexed up' it seems useful to me to look at the source. While > it's not an infallible guide it can be helpful. Most of them > seem to be from reputable sources like Reuters, AP and other > quite well-known, well-established news organisations. Right, and I'd have some level of trust if these images appeared on the AP website, or CNN or something like that, but I don't know what the hell this http://www.fifth-essence.com/ thing is. Anyway, I went so far as to see if the guy who shot the Palestinian kid was a real AP photographer. I found some Reuters references to his name, and some shots credited to him of various Palestinian/Israeli conflict shots. The fish shot seems to be real - http://www.lavrakas.com/ProServ/contest.html Looks like the plane/moon was shot in 2001 - http://www.airliners.net/open.file/132340/L/ http://www.vinland.com/MoonPlane.html tv
Re: Best pix of 2003
Steve wrote: I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version . ..? Steve, I think it's safe to say that even if Pentax makes a version of the Hubble, none of us will buy it. But whomever could submit to the PUG. :) Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Best pix of 2003
Also happens at high humidity. I've seen vortex trails off the rear wings of race cars, which generally run at a fairly low altitude :-) > Except that this plane is showing contrails...generally denotes high > altitude. > Norm > > Bob W wrote: > > > In the late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon was generally very > > low in the sky > > > >and planes were coming in once a minute exactly as you see in that photo. > > > > > > >
Re: Best pix of 2003
If the boeing/moon is a double, it's well done. The light angle fits very well, and the plane is slightly blurred. But it seems almost too good to be true, though. Actually, I'm more suspicious about the authenticity northern pike picture. To my knowledge, the pike always takes its prey head first. Otherwise the prey would live longer and be able to put up much more struggle, and would be more difficult to swallow because of the fins and gills pointing the wrong way. The most manipulated images I think must be the false-colour astro images by Hubble. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: "Thomas Stach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:30 PM Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > Hi list, > ... > > t> Just out of curiousity...do any of these looked dovtored to you? > > What do you think about the 747 passing the moon? > > I think with a focal lenght of about 1600mm equiv., > one of the two should be out of focus...depth of field is very flat...or > is it already hyperfocal at 35.000 feet? > ;-) > > Thomas > > > > > Bruce Dayton schrieb: > > > > Hello tom, > > > > Yes, some of them do. I have become more skeptical of amazing > > technical shots because it can be so easy to alter and combine images. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Bruce > > > > Wednesday, January 28, 2004, 9:46:32 AM, you wrote: > > > > t> Just out of curiousity...do any of these looked dovtored to you? > > > > t> My mom had sent me this link and I sort of dismissed it. She sends me a lot > > t> of doctored crap. > > > > t> tv > > > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:07 PM > > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Subject: RE: Best pix of 2003 > > >> > > >> Ya don't say! > > >> > > >> I almost sent a sarcastic reply to your comment aimed at > > >> Sylwester, but when two similar comments came in together I > > >> figured 'give the guy a break - he is obviously having a bad day!' > > >> > > >> I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though... > > >> > > >> Then again I am more into "nice" pics than reportage/docupics > > >> so I guess I would, wouldn't I? > > >> > > >> Hope things get better as the day progresses... > > >> > > >> If not, follow Cotty's advice - "HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK! > > >> HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK!" - maybe things will improve then! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -Original Message- > > >> > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > Sent: 28 January 2004 17:01 > > >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Well, maybe "pap" was too strong a word. I'm real cranky this > > >> > morning. > > >> > > > >> > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > but I don't think that any of these are "pap." > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
Re: Best pix of 2003
Except that this plane is showing contrails...generally denotes high altitude. Norm Bob W wrote: In the late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon was generally very low in the sky and planes were coming in once a minute exactly as you see in that photo.
Re: Best pix of 2003
Hi, > The airplane and moon shot is highly suspect. I disagree. A few years ago I did a contract in West London, near Heathrow airport. I used to get the train home from Syon Lane. In the late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon was generally very low in the sky and planes were coming in once a minute exactly as you see in that photo. I never took a photo of it because I didn't want to bring a honking great tripod, 400mm lens etc. to work. I always meant to go back and do it at the end of the contract, but never have. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Best pix of 2003
Hi list, ... t> Just out of curiousity...do any of these looked dovtored to you? What do you think about the 747 passing the moon? I think with a focal lenght of about 1600mm equiv., one of the two should be out of focus...depth of field is very flat...or is it already hyperfocal at 35.000 feet? ;-) Thomas Bruce Dayton schrieb: > > Hello tom, > > Yes, some of them do. I have become more skeptical of amazing > technical shots because it can be so easy to alter and combine images. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > Wednesday, January 28, 2004, 9:46:32 AM, you wrote: > > t> Just out of curiousity...do any of these looked dovtored to you? > > t> My mom had sent me this link and I sort of dismissed it. She sends me a lot > t> of doctored crap. > > t> tv > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:07 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: RE: Best pix of 2003 > >> > >> Ya don't say! > >> > >> I almost sent a sarcastic reply to your comment aimed at > >> Sylwester, but when two similar comments came in together I > >> figured 'give the guy a break - he is obviously having a bad day!' > >> > >> I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though... > >> > >> Then again I am more into "nice" pics than reportage/docupics > >> so I guess I would, wouldn't I? > >> > >> Hope things get better as the day progresses... > >> > >> If not, follow Cotty's advice - "HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK! > >> HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK!" - maybe things will improve then! > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: 28 January 2004 17:01 > >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > >> > > >> > > >> > Well, maybe "pap" was too strong a word. I'm real cranky this > >> > morning. > >> > > >> > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> > > >> > > but I don't think that any of these are "pap." > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>
Re: Best pix of 2003
Hi, > Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few > "nice" pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is > reportage or documentary work. it was a vote. It's why there are no great mass-circulation documentary magazines any more. Only about 13 people on the planet are interested. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Best pix of 2003
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version . ..?
RE: Best pix of 2003
Rob Brigham posted, among other things: > > I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though... > > Then again I am more into "nice" pics than reportage/docupics so I guess > I would, wouldn't I? > I liked the pics Doug shared, too. Especially with the "relative lack" of reportage/documentary photos -- Yesterday my copy of "News Photographer" arrived, with the Best of Photojournalism 2003 photos contained therein. War, war, war, plague, plague, war, hard times -- Seemed to me an even more depressing collection of photographs than usual. This group of pics (that Doug shared) was a nice little antidote. One other depressing point about the News Photographer collection too -- so very many images with muddy blotchy shadows, even muddy, blotchy midtones. Seems another drawback to digital taking over the press photogs' kit: the images are technically ghastly. But perhaps in just a little more time, those problems will disappear. Doubtful we can say the same about wars and plagues and Man's Inhumanity To Man.
RE: Best pix of 2003
Just out of curiousity...do any of these looked dovtored to you? My mom had sent me this link and I sort of dismissed it. She sends me a lot of doctored crap. tv > -Original Message- > From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Best pix of 2003 > > Ya don't say! > > I almost sent a sarcastic reply to your comment aimed at > Sylwester, but when two similar comments came in together I > figured 'give the guy a break - he is obviously having a bad day!' > > I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though... > > Then again I am more into "nice" pics than reportage/docupics > so I guess I would, wouldn't I? > > Hope things get better as the day progresses... > > If not, follow Cotty's advice - "HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK! > HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK!" - maybe things will improve then! > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 28 January 2004 17:01 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > > > > > > Well, maybe "pap" was too strong a word. I'm real cranky this > > morning. > > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > but I don't think that any of these are "pap." > > > > > > > > >
RE: Best pix of 2003
Ya don't say! I almost sent a sarcastic reply to your comment aimed at Sylwester, but when two similar comments came in together I figured 'give the guy a break - he is obviously having a bad day!' I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though... Then again I am more into "nice" pics than reportage/docupics so I guess I would, wouldn't I? Hope things get better as the day progresses... If not, follow Cotty's advice - "HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK! HAVE A DRINK!" - maybe things will improve then! > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 January 2004 17:01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003 > > > Well, maybe "pap" was too strong a word. I'm real cranky > this morning. > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > but I don't think that any of these are "pap." > > > >
Re: Best pix of 2003
Well, maybe "pap" was too strong a word. I'm real cranky this morning. Paul Stenquist wrote: > but I don't think that any of these are "pap." >
Re: Best pix of 2003
I said "lacking by comparison," not lacking. Brewer wrote: > > At 10:48 AM 1/28/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few > >"nice" pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is > >reportage or documentary work. > > The mother and child escaping from the fighting in Macedonia and the > Palestinian youth launching rocks at Israeli soldiers don't count as reportage? > > yuh. Whatever.
Re: Best pix of 2003
Hi Shel, I think what you have to remember here is that tthis is a gallery of "People's Choice" photos. I think that's why it's largely comprised of work that entertains rather than informs. I too appreciate pictures that tell a deeper story, but I don't think that any of these are "pap." They're all well composed, well framed, and well executed. And some are quite striking: the woman and daughter through the wet window, the plane flying past the moon (is it a composite?), and the rainbow over the village -- to name just a few. There are many subjects worthy of the photographer's skill. Pretty pictures can certainly be as artistic as documentary or reportage. If we draw parallels to the world of painting, it's obvious that many artists who have passed the test of time produced pretty pictures. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few > "nice" pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is > reportage or documentary work. > > Doug Brewer wrote: > > > > Just had this link sent to me. Some excellent stuff. > > > > http://www.fifth-essence.com/archive/bestpix2003/index.htm
Re: Best pix of 2003
At 10:48 AM 1/28/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few "nice" pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is reportage or documentary work. The mother and child escaping from the fighting in Macedonia and the Palestinian youth launching rocks at Israeli soldiers don't count as reportage? yuh. Whatever.
Re: Best pix of 2003
Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few "nice" pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is reportage or documentary work. Doug Brewer wrote: > > Just had this link sent to me. Some excellent stuff. > > http://www.fifth-essence.com/archive/bestpix2003/index.htm
Best pix of 2003
Just had this link sent to me. Some excellent stuff. http://www.fifth-essence.com/archive/bestpix2003/index.htm
