Re: My First PESO - 30 years late
Loved it! Bulent - http://patoloji.gen.tr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/ http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: My First PESO - 30 years late
Worth the wait. That is a stunning photo! cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Kevin Thornsberry kevin_thornsbe...@compuserve.com Sent: November 4, 2012 11/4/12 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: My First PESO - 30 years late To the best of my knowledge, I've never submitted a PESO. But today, I was testing a new scanner and pulled out an old notebook of slide sleeves from pictures I took in Brasil almost 30 years ago and came across this picture of Rio de Janeiro. It's not a great picture and I just happened to be at this location at this time so I can't even claim much intent, but it warmed my heart for a few reasons: 1) For some reason, I didn't originally care enough for the picture to remember taking it. The slide was a little darker than this which is probably the reason. Now I get to rediscover it. 2) It revived a memory. 3) I took it with my first real camera, my Pentax K-1000. Since then I've owned a P-3N, ZX-5N, *ist-D, K-7 and a K-5. I still love that K-1000 most of all even though the K-5 is a much more practical tool for my needs and entertainment now. I still love to hear the shutter of the K-1000. It has such a satisfying mechanical combination of a click and a clunk. The K-1000 now sits, retired, on a shelf over my desk, in a collection of things that are special to me. I bought the camera with a bag, flash and a 50mm/1.8 lens in 1982 from a guy entering journalism school which required everyone to have a specific model of camera. 4) I was too poor for a tripod so I know I took the picture handheld. So, for those of you who still hold that emotional attachment to your K-1000, or LX or ME-Super I'd like to share this oldie from my K-1000. http://thornsberry.smugmug.com/photos/i-6FCN7z5/1/X2/i-6FCN7z5-X2.jpg Kevin -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: My First PESO - 30 years late
Jesus of the Pylons. A very nice shot, well worth the wait. B -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Thornsberry To the best of my knowledge, I've never submitted a PESO. But today, I was testing a new scanner and pulled out an old notebook of slide sleeves from pictures I took in Brasil almost 30 years ago and came across this picture of Rio de Janeiro. It's not a great picture and I just happened to be at this location at this time so I can't even claim much intent, but it warmed my heart for a few reasons: 1) For some reason, I didn't originally care enough for the picture to remember taking it. The slide was a little darker than this which is probably the reason. Now I get to rediscover it. 2) It revived a memory. 3) I took it with my first real camera, my Pentax K-1000. Since then I've owned a P-3N, ZX-5N, *ist-D, K-7 and a K-5. I still love that K-1000 most of all even though the K-5 is a much more practical tool for my needs and entertainment now. I still love to hear the shutter of the K-1000. It has such a satisfying mechanical combination of a click and a clunk. The K-1000 now sits, retired, on a shelf over my desk, in a collection of things that are special to me. I bought the camera with a bag, flash and a 50mm/1.8 lens in 1982 from a guy entering journalism school which required everyone to have a specific model of camera. 4) I was too poor for a tripod so I know I took the picture handheld. So, for those of you who still hold that emotional attachment to your K-1000, or LX or ME-Super I'd like to share this oldie from my K-1000. http://thornsberry.smugmug.com/photos/i-6FCN7z5/1/X2/i-6FCN7z5-X2.jpg Kevin -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: My First PESO - 30 years late
Very dramatic color! Keep posting. Cheers, Christine On Nov 4, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Jesus of the Pylons. A very nice shot, well worth the wait. B -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Thornsberry To the best of my knowledge, I've never submitted a PESO. But today, I was testing a new scanner and pulled out an old notebook of slide sleeves from pictures I took in Brasil almost 30 years ago and came across this picture of Rio de Janeiro. It's not a great picture and I just happened to be at this location at this time so I can't even claim much intent, but it warmed my heart for a few reasons: 1) For some reason, I didn't originally care enough for the picture to remember taking it. The slide was a little darker than this which is probably the reason. Now I get to rediscover it. 2) It revived a memory. 3) I took it with my first real camera, my Pentax K-1000. Since then I've owned a P-3N, ZX-5N, *ist-D, K-7 and a K-5. I still love that K-1000 most of all even though the K-5 is a much more practical tool for my needs and entertainment now. I still love to hear the shutter of the K-1000. It has such a satisfying mechanical combination of a click and a clunk. The K-1000 now sits, retired, on a shelf over my desk, in a collection of things that are special to me. I bought the camera with a bag, flash and a 50mm/1.8 lens in 1982 from a guy entering journalism school which required everyone to have a specific model of camera. 4) I was too poor for a tripod so I know I took the picture handheld. So, for those of you who still hold that emotional attachment to your K-1000, or LX or ME-Super I'd like to share this oldie from my K-1000. http://thornsberry.smugmug.com/photos/i-6FCN7z5/1/X2/i-6FCN7z5-X2.jpg Kevin -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: My First PESO - 30 years late
Thanks for sharing a great memory, Kevin. Keep it up! :-) On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Kevin Thornsberry kevin_thornsbe...@compuserve.com wrote: To the best of my knowledge, I've never submitted a PESO. But today, I was testing a new scanner and pulled out an old notebook of slide sleeves from pictures I took in Brasil almost 30 years ago and came across this picture of Rio de Janeiro. It's not a great picture and I just happened to be at this location at this time so I can't even claim much intent, but it warmed my heart for a few reasons: 1) For some reason, I didn't originally care enough for the picture to remember taking it. The slide was a little darker than this which is probably the reason. Now I get to rediscover it. 2) It revived a memory. 3) I took it with my first real camera, my Pentax K-1000. Since then I've owned a P-3N, ZX-5N, *ist-D, K-7 and a K-5. I still love that K-1000 most of all even though the K-5 is a much more practical tool for my needs and entertainment now. I still love to hear the shutter of the K-1000. It has such a satisfying mechanical combination of a click and a clunk. The K-1000 now sits, retired, on a shelf over my desk, in a collection of things that are special to me. I bought the camera with a bag, flash and a 50mm/1.8 lens in 1982 from a guy entering journalism school which required everyone to have a specific model of camera. 4) I was too poor for a tripod so I know I took the picture handheld. So, for those of you who still hold that emotional attachment to your K-1000, or LX or ME-Super I'd like to share this oldie from my K-1000. http://thornsberry.smugmug.com/photos/i-6FCN7z5/1/X2/i-6FCN7z5-X2.jpg Kevin -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: My First PESO (tm)
David, Consider this suggestion. Why wouldn't you make a regular shot of the same scene (or similar one) so that the trees would be solid black? Then you could compare the HDR variety with silhouette variety. Personally, I'd prefer the silhouette type of shot, but it would be my vision, not yours, so please accept my suggestion with a grain of salt. Boris David Bliss wrote: ...and my very first attempt at an HDR-alike (done by hand in Photoshop 6). Shadows 1/3s at f/11, highlights 1/10s at f/11, K10D at 400ASA, FA 28-105. Comments or criticisms appreciated. (As well as advice on noise-reduction software for the shadows... I meant to shoot it at 100ASA) http://keats.dbsi.org/~david/peso/IMGP3082_0.jpg Thanks, david -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My First PESO (tm)
Too large for a PESO. You should size it so that it can be viewed without scrolling. Technically, it's quite good in terms of rendering both shadow and highlight. Aesthetically, I find it uninspiring. But thanks for sharing it. Paul On Jan 7, 2007, at 2:11 AM, David Bliss wrote: ...and my very first attempt at an HDR-alike (done by hand in Photoshop 6). Shadows 1/3s at f/11, highlights 1/10s at f/11, K10D at 400ASA, FA 28-105. Comments or criticisms appreciated. (As well as advice on noise-reduction software for the shadows... I meant to shoot it at 100ASA) http://keats.dbsi.org/~david/peso/IMGP3082_0.jpg Thanks, david -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My First PESO (tm)
Hard to comment on the success of your attempt without seeing the original scene, but for me I'd expect to see more detail in the trees. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Bliss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: My First PESO (tm) ...and my very first attempt at an HDR-alike (done by hand in Photoshop 6). Shadows 1/3s at f/11, highlights 1/10s at f/11, K10D at 400ASA, FA 28-105. Comments or criticisms appreciated. (As well as advice on noise-reduction software for the shadows... I meant to shoot it at 100ASA) http://keats.dbsi.org/~david/peso/IMGP3082_0.jpg Thanks, david -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My first PESO
Works for me now. Not sure it was worth the effort. Bob On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:08 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: http://www.uandimag.com No ads. One issue so far. Pretty good -Adam Who knows the editor/publisher. I get an error message that the URL can't be found. Bob Just checked it, and it's working. -Adam
Re: My first PESO
On 11/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I probably should get a life.. Why start now? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: My first PESO
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I probably should get a life.. Why start now? I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to what I have now. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My first PESO
Mark Roberts wrote: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I probably should get a life.. Why start now? I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to what I have now. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com There were a few offered on ebay that looked pretty good - but the BIN was too high ann ann
Re: My first PESO
Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: http://www.uandimag.com No ads. One issue so far. Pretty good -Adam Who knows the editor/publisher. I get an error message that the URL can't be found. Bob Just checked it, and it's working. -Adam
Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/28/2005 10:19:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can merely portray it as an object. People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose not to tell us something of their personality, their soul, their spirit, then you objectify them. I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in my mind is what it's about. == Very good summation, frank. Marnie aka Doe Sometimes that lawyerly part of you is useful. ;-)
Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/28/2005 7:47:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tact has never been one of my strong suits. People seem to like me ayway. William Robb == Of course, you could just be fooling yourself. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: My first PESO
Key word - seem... VBG Tact has never been one of my strong suits Actually, one of my stronger suits is a nice 2 piece, dark blue with narrow grey stripes. Kenneth Waller (who just couldn't resist) -Original Message- From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My first PESO - Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: My first PESO I was getting ready to write a response, and then saw yours. I was going to be more polite in my note, but I think you said it better. Tact has never been one of my strong suits. People seem to like me ayway. William Robb PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: My first PESO
You guys need to be objective. kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My first PESO I object to your objection... David Mann wrote: On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:04 AM, William Robb wrote: Seems to me that any portrayal of someone/thing is an objectification. I object to being objectified. - Dave -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: My first PESO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/28/2005 7:47:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tact has never been one of my strong suits. People seem to like me ayway. William Robb == Of course, you could just be fooling yourself. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Oh he *is* fooling himself... (He's much more tactful than he thinks!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My first PESO
On 29 Nov 2005 at 0:00, Kenneth Waller wrote: You guys need to be objective. Apparently the only objective needed to produce a great photograph objectifying the subject or not is that from a Holga :-) 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
Re: My first PESO
Sorry, but I've had very little exposure to a Holga. ;) Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My first PESO On 29 Nov 2005 at 0:00, Kenneth Waller wrote: You guys need to be objective. Apparently the only objective needed to produce a great photograph objectifying the subject or not is that from a Holga :-) 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 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: My first PESO
On 11/29/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I gather Norm does some modelling now and again. I've witnessed it personally. It's not pretty. That tree will never be the same... LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: My first PESO
On 11/28/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My bullshit meter just pinned. Sorry Frank, but that is pompous crap. I'm flattered that you read my posts. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 29, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: You guys need to be objective. kenneth Waller I keep my objective on my microscope. Bob
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: My first PESO I'm flattered that you read my posts. I probably should get a life.. WW
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On 11/27/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. snip Mark!! -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: My first PESO
On 11/26/05, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, objectifying women does annoy me. You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. As artists we always objectify that which we depict, we make it external and objective. If I photograph a bowl of fruit, I objectify it. snip I disagree. A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can merely portray it as an object. People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose not to tell us something of their personality, their soul, their spirit, then you objectify them. I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in my mind is what it's about. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
Hmm..(?) Jack --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/27/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. snip Mark!! -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On 11/28/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm..(?) You'll find out soon enough. Mark has been compiling his favourite quotes from PDML, and each year he graces us with his pix of the year. Of course many of us are more than happy to tell him how to do his job. LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: My first PESO
Well said, Frank, and I pretty much agree with you 100%. Shel [Original Message] From: frank theriault Bob Shell said: You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. As artists we always objectify that which we depict, we make it external and objective. If I photograph a bowl of fruit, I objectify it. snip I disagree. A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can merely portray it as an object. People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose not to tell us something of their personality, their soul, their spirit, then you objectify them. I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in my mind is what it's about.
Re: My first PESO
Yes, Frank makes a good point. And because people are not objects, it's actually somewhat difficult to objectify them. The very act of photographing them is almost certain to reveal something about their personality or situation. Clothing can say a lot. The lack of clothing can sometimes say even more. The expression, whether it be a vacuous stare or a smile of enjoyment, says a lot. The position of the hands and the tilt of the head can be meaningful. Even the portrayal of a deviant sexual act says a lot about a person -- perhaps a lot more than we want to know. Paul Well said, Frank, and I pretty much agree with you 100%. Shel [Original Message] From: frank theriault Bob Shell said: You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. As artists we always objectify that which we depict, we make it external and objective. If I photograph a bowl of fruit, I objectify it. snip I disagree. A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can merely portray it as an object. People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose not to tell us something of their personality, their soul, their spirit, then you objectify them. I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in my mind is what it's about.
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: My first PESO A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can merely portray it as an object. People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose not to tell us something of their personality, their soul, their spirit, then you objectify them. I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in my mind is what it's about. Seems to me that any portrayal of someone/thing is an objectification. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 28, 2005, at 5:04 PM, William Robb wrote: Seems to me that any portrayal of someone/thing is an objectification. That was my point, which somehow seems to have zoomed right past Frank. It doesn't matter a whit if the subject is an object in the first place. As for objectifying people, that goes back at least as far as the Venus of Willendorf, no doubt the pinup of her day. Every day as I work I am overseen by a little stone figure on a shelf above my desk. She is Ishtar. Carved from sandstone by some unknown artist 5,000 years ago in Babylon. She brings me luck and inspiration. My personal little objectified goddess. Bob
Re: My first PESO
On 28/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Even the portrayal of a deviant sexual act says a lot about a person -- perhaps a lot more than we want to know. You talkin about me again?? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: My first PESO
You been bad again... Cotty wrote: On 28/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Even the portrayal of a deviant sexual act says a lot about a person -- perhaps a lot more than we want to know. You talkin about me again?? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: My first PESO
On 11/28/05, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was my point, which somehow seems to have zoomed right past Frank. It doesn't matter a whit if the subject is an object in the first place. As for objectifying people, that goes back at least as far as the Venus of Willendorf, no doubt the pinup of her day. Every day as I work I am overseen by a little stone figure on a shelf above my desk. She is Ishtar. Carved from sandstone by some unknown artist 5,000 years ago in Babylon. She brings me luck and inspiration. My personal little objectified goddess. I don't think anything zoomed by me at all. Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes, but I think I understood what you meant. I merely disagreed is all. I don't see every portrayal as objectification. Far from it. I think what I'm talking about is the difference between illustration and art, the difference between a mere likeness and a portrait. If you think that every rendering of every subject is objectification, well, I'm not going to change your mind (and I'm not trying to). I'm just telling you my point of view. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: My first PESO I don't see every portrayal as objectification. Far from it. I think what I'm talking about is the difference between illustration and art, the difference between a mere likeness and a portrait. My bullshit meter just pinned. Sorry Frank, but that is pompous crap. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: My first PESO Even the portrayal of a deviant sexual act says a lot about a person -- perhaps a lot more than we want to know. You talkin about me again?? You *really* should meet my wife.. WW
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:11 PM, William Robb wrote: I don't see every portrayal as objectification. Far from it. I think what I'm talking about is the difference between illustration and art, the difference between a mere likeness and a portrait. My bullshit meter just pinned. Sorry Frank, but that is pompous crap. I was getting ready to write a response, and then saw yours. I was going to be more polite in my note, but I think you said it better. Bob
Re: My first PESO
GFM, June 2-4, 2006. Continue discussion. Bring subjects. Partial nudes, if model agrees, what the F. Sir Dave, (The really over weight) Brooks - Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: My first PESO A bowl of fruit is already an object. You can't objectify it, you can merely portray it as an object. People are more than their physical selves. If you choose to photograph or otherwise portray them in such a way that nothing more is communicated about them than their bodies, if you ignore or choose not to tell us something of their personality, their soul, their spirit, then you objectify them. I'm not saying that objectification is necessarily bad; but that in my mind is what it's about. Seems to me that any portrayal of someone/thing is an objectification. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
some versions of IE will launch some code when opening a JPG that would overflow a buffer. a properly constructed JPG file would place code in the overflow that could execute and do anything that IE was privilege to do, i.e. anything. Herb - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: My first PESO Filters don't know nothin' but they block everything. I remember a rumor from about 5 years ago that Jpegs could carry viruses, (no explanation of how they could operate or spread), the administrators of the CSC wan decided to block all Jpegs from being downloaded system wide. It crippled web use including our own internal web sites... (They used the same warning message that inappropriate web sites displayed, it was fun).
Re: My first PESO
That code crept into the Windows code base about two maybe three years ago. Jpegs were harmless up until that point. Microsoft was forced to update their systems to correct that problem. This incident took place almost 6 years ago. Herb Chong wrote: some versions of IE will launch some code when opening a JPG that would overflow a buffer. a properly constructed JPG file would place code in the overflow that could execute and do anything that IE was privilege to do, i.e. anything. Herb - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: My first PESO Filters don't know nothin' but they block everything. I remember a rumor from about 5 years ago that Jpegs could carry viruses, (no explanation of how they could operate or spread), the administrators of the CSC wan decided to block all Jpegs from being downloaded system wide. It crippled web use including our own internal web sites... (They used the same warning message that inappropriate web sites displayed, it was fun). -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: My first PESO I was getting ready to write a response, and then saw yours. I was going to be more polite in my note, but I think you said it better. Tact has never been one of my strong suits. People seem to like me ayway. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:04 AM, William Robb wrote: Seems to me that any portrayal of someone/thing is an objectification. I object to being objectified. - Dave
Re: My first PESO
I object to your objection... David Mann wrote: On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:04 AM, William Robb wrote: Seems to me that any portrayal of someone/thing is an objectification. I object to being objectified. - Dave -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: My first PESO
William Robb wrote: Tact has never been one of my strong suits. People seem to like me ayway. Lead us not into temptation ...
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: E.R.N. Reed Subject: Re: My first PESO William Robb wrote: Tact has never been one of my strong suits. People seem to like me ayway. Lead us not into temptation ... Awww, you know you don't mean that.
Re: My first PESO
On 29/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: GFM, June 2-4, 2006. Continue discussion. Bring subjects. Partial nudes, if model agrees, what the F. I gather Norm does some modelling now and again. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: http://www.uandimag.com No ads. One issue so far. Pretty good -Adam Who knows the editor/publisher. I get an error message that the URL can't be found. Bob
Re: My first PESO
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? We are to hard to find, especially in winter(October to September)vbg Dave
Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: http://www.uandimag.com No ads. One issue so far. Pretty good -Adam Who knows the editor/publisher. The subject of ads in photo magazines comes up frequently, and often people commenting don't have a clue about the economics of magazine publishing. If you look at a photo magazine like Popular Photography, and you figure out how much it costs them to mail it to you compare to how much the subscription costs, you'll quickly see that there really isn't any profit there. Do the same with all the costs associated with news stand distribution and you'll find very little in the way of profit there. Magazines make their money from ad sales. Now if you look at those magazines with very few or no ads you'll find one thing in common, much higher cover price (and much higher subscription price if they offer subscriptions). So it's a choice between reasonably low cover and sub price and lots of ads, or high cover and sub price and few ads. Magazines have two internal divisions, editorial and advertising, often referred to in the business as church and state. The best magazines maintain a strong separation between the two, and don't let the advertising department put pressure on the editorial people. When I first entered the magazine business back in the 70s there was a Berlin wall between the two. Our publisher didn't even like to see us talking to each other. That's the only way to maintain freedom of speech for the editorial people. Obviously, chinks were driven in that wall over the years and at many magazines big holes were drilled. In some cases the wall was pulled down completely. Readers are not stupid and when a glowing review of a product faces a full page ad for the same product, something is seriously wrong. Editorial and advertising have two different missions. Editorial's job is to inform and entertain the reader. Advertising's job is to sell readers to advertisers. There is always, and should always, be a separation of these two functions. I've watched over the years as the separation has eroded. Today all but a handful of magazines are owned by giant corporations run by bankers and MBAs, not by traditional publishers, and we have seen the result. Bottom line fever. I always wished I could find a wealthy benefactor so that I could start and run a photography magazine that was not dependent on advertising. The only magazine like that was the old Swiss magazine Camera, run by Alan Porter. It was published by a printing company who used it as a showcase for their magnificent printing quality. For those who know about such things, it was printed by sheet-fed gravure. The quality was stunning. But, as with most such things, it changed hands in the late 70s and the new people switched to ordinary printing and the magazine just died. I think it was the finest photography magazine ever. Sorry for this digression which may not interest some of you at all. Bob
RE: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
[...] Now if you look at those magazines with very few or no ads you'll find one thing in common, much higher cover price (and much higher subscription price if they offer subscriptions). My main interest in photography is in photojournalism, documentary and reportage, which are not particularly well served by the magazine market, for reasons that are perhaps obvious. The few that are around (like 'ei8ht') fit this description exactly. 'Reportage' was the same, but even so couldn't keep going. I don't mind the high subscriptions to help magazines like this. Bob
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. Forgive me? Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: http://www.uandimag.com No ads. One issue so far. Pretty good -Adam Who knows the editor/publisher. The subject of ads in photo magazines comes up frequently, and often people commenting don't have a clue about the economics of magazine publishing. If you look at a photo magazine like Popular Photography, and you figure out how much it costs them to mail it to you compare to how much the subscription costs, you'll quickly see that there really isn't any profit there. Do the same with all the costs associated with news stand distribution and you'll find very little in the way of profit there. Magazines make their money from ad sales. Now if you look at those magazines with very few or no ads you'll find one thing in common, much higher cover price (and much higher subscription price if they offer subscriptions). So it's a choice between reasonably low cover and sub price and lots of ads, or high cover and sub price and few ads. Magazines have two internal divisions, editorial and advertising, often referred to in the business as church and state. The best magazines maintain a strong separation between the two, and don't let the advertising department put pressure on the editorial people. When I first entered the magazine business back in the 70s there was a Berlin wall between the two. Our publisher didn't even like to see us talking to each other. That's the only way to maintain freedom of speech for the editorial people. Obviously, chinks were driven in that wall over the years and at many magazines big holes were drilled. In some cases the wall was pulled down completely. Readers are not stupid and when a glowing review of a product faces a full page ad for the same product, something is seriously wrong. Editorial and advertising have two different missions. Editorial's job is to inform and entertain the reader. Advertising's job is to sell readers to advertisers. There is always, and should always, be a separation of these two functions. I've watched over the years as the separation has eroded. Today all but a handful of magazines are owned by giant corporations run by bankers and MBAs, not by traditional publishers, and we have seen the result. Bottom line fever. I always wished I could find a wealthy benefactor so that I could start and run a photography magazine that was not dependent on advertising. The only magazine like that was the old Swiss magazine Camera, run by Alan Porter. It was published by a printing company who used it as a showcase for their magnificent printing quality. For those who know about such things, it was printed by sheet-fed gravure. The quality was stunning. But, as with most such things, it changed hands in the late 70s and the new people switched to ordinary printing and the magazine just died. I think it was the finest photography magazine ever. Sorry for this digression which may not interest some of you at all. Bob __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. Forgive me? For what? Bob
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Bob W wrote: My main interest in photography is in photojournalism, documentary and reportage, which are not particularly well served by the magazine market, for reasons that are perhaps obvious. The few that are around (like 'ei8ht') fit this description exactly. 'Reportage' was the same, but even so couldn't keep going. I don't mind the high subscriptions to help magazines like this. The problem with starting/running a magazine like that is finding enough people like you who are willing to pay the necessary high price. That's why most of them fail. It would really require a financial angel to do one right. I searched for such a person for a long time and never found him/her. Doing a magazine right, with good paper and high quality printing/binding costs a lot. But the single biggest item in a magazine budget is always postage. Postage to mail a magazine costs more than all other costs combined! And it is scheduled to go up again soon. Also, how many realize that the Post Office dictates editorial/ advertising percentage. You have to have the right percentages or you can't get reduced postal rates. I think the current ratio is 70/30 in favor of advertising. It's averaged over the year, and we always had to do a bunch of last minute juggling to get the yearly average to come out right. Bob
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
My flare for the obvious. Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. Forgive me? For what? Bob __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/27/2005 7:23:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, how many realize that the Post Office dictates editorial/ advertising percentage. You have to have the right percentages or you can't get reduced postal rates. I think the current ratio is 70/30 in favor of advertising. It's averaged over the year, and we always had to do a bunch of last minute juggling to get the yearly average to come out right. Bob = Interesting! Didn't know that. I have done some nonprofit mailing, so I know you need a minimum (used to be 200) to make the cut on that. And, of course, there is media mail, a reduced rate for books, which has its own limitations. Truly did not know that the PO had various rates for magazines too, based on advertising content. Aha. That also explains those advertising circulars that come every Wednesday here. You know the kind that are printed on newsprint type paper, mainly from the local supermarket, but other local stores too. The ones I immediately throw in the round file. Been trying to figure out a way to stop them. They must get an extreme discount rate. Marnie aka Doe
Re: My first PESO
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Roberts I agree, but soul stealing isn't a zero-sum game, it's like an idea: If you have an idea and I have an idea and I give you mine and you give me yours, we *both* now have *two* ideas. When you take someone's photo you do, in a way, take a bit of their soul (how much depends on how good a photographer you are!) - but they don't lose anything in the process. This doesn't explain the vacant eyed fashion models. Well you have to *have* a soul for it to be stolen... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: This doesn't explain the vacant eyed fashion models. Well you have to *have* a soul for it to be stolen... This explains why I refuse to photograph politicians. Bob
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, objectifying women does annoy me. You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. As artists we always objectify that which we depict, we make it external and objective. If I photograph a bowl of fruit, I objectify it. I was drawing, painting and sculpting nudes before I took up photography. Yes, I was objectifying them. That's what representational art is all about, what it does. When I photograph a nude I am objectifying the subject. I don't have a problem with that. My models don't have a problem with that. Galleries that hang my shows don't have a problem with that. People who buy my prints and hang them in their homes and offices obviously don't have a problem with that. But there is this perception on the part of some that I am somehow harming women by creating objective images of them. I think maybe this says more about the critic than about my work. Bob
Re: My first PESO
I think the term objectifying women has lost its literal meaning. In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? Paul On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, objectifying women does annoy me. You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. As artists we always objectify that which we depict, we make it external and objective. If I photograph a bowl of fruit, I objectify it. I was drawing, painting and sculpting nudes before I took up photography. Yes, I was objectifying them. That's what representational art is all about, what it does. When I photograph a nude I am objectifying the subject. I don't have a problem with that. My models don't have a problem with that. Galleries that hang my shows don't have a problem with that. People who buy my prints and hang them in their homes and offices obviously don't have a problem with that. But there is this perception on the part of some that I am somehow harming women by creating objective images of them. I think maybe this says more about the critic than about my work. Bob
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I think the term objectifying women has lost its literal meaning. In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? To which I have to say, so what? I see women and men depicted in blatantly sexual ways all the time: in advertising. The old ad industry adage sex sells is in full flower. And it still works. Does it bother me? No, not at all. It's so hard to draw the line because there really isn't any line. What turns an artful nude into a sex object is the mind of the beholder. Beauty, art, pornography, and so many other things are in the eye and mind of the beholder. The image acts only as a mirror. People who see pornography everywhere need to look within and find the roots of their own problems rather than trying to impose their problems on society. Bob
Re: My first PESO
Well said. On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I think the term objectifying women has lost its literal meaning. In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? To which I have to say, so what? I see women and men depicted in blatantly sexual ways all the time: in advertising. The old ad industry adage sex sells is in full flower. And it still works. Does it bother me? No, not at all. It's so hard to draw the line because there really isn't any line. What turns an artful nude into a sex object is the mind of the beholder. Beauty, art, pornography, and so many other things are in the eye and mind of the beholder. The image acts only as a mirror. People who see pornography everywhere need to look within and find the roots of their own problems rather than trying to impose their problems on society. Bob
Re: My first PESO
Here, here! Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I think the term objectifying women has lost its literal meaning. In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? To which I have to say, so what? I see women and men depicted in blatantly sexual ways all the time: in advertising. The old ad industry adage sex sells is in full flower. And it still works. Does it bother me? No, not at all. It's so hard to draw the line because there really isn't any line. What turns an artful nude into a sex object is the mind of the beholder. Beauty, art, pornography, and so many other things are in the eye and mind of the beholder. The image acts only as a mirror. People who see pornography everywhere need to look within and find the roots of their own problems rather than trying to impose their problems on society. Bob __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: My first PESO I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? It used to be eye contact with the camera. In some circles now, you just have to take a saucy picture. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: My first PESO This doesn't explain the vacant eyed fashion models. Well you have to *have* a soul for it to be stolen... Footwear models have sole. WW
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: My first PESO This explains why I refuse to photograph politicians. Pentax used to make the ideal camera for them. It was only a single shot model, though. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
I'm right there with ya, Bob. Godfrey On Nov 26, 2005, at 6:04 AM, Bob Shell wrote: To which I have to say, so what? I see women and men depicted in blatantly sexual ways all the time: in advertising. The old ad industry adage sex sells is in full flower. And it still works. Does it bother me? No, not at all. It's so hard to draw the line because there really isn't any line. What turns an artful nude into a sex object is the mind of the beholder. Beauty, art, pornography, and so many other things are in the eye and mind of the beholder. The image acts only as a mirror. People who see pornography everywhere need to look within and find the roots of their own problems rather than trying to impose their problems on society. Bob
Re: My first PESO
OK, warnings required for... Nudity, Snakes, Surgical scars/wounds, anything else? How about spiders? Only one of the above will get me in trouble at work. Regards, Bob S. On 11/25/05, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E.R.N. Reed wrote: William Robb wrote: Over here, we have this thing we call common sense. it is also what tells us we should warn a person before they click on a link whose content may be offensive to some. Warnings for ophiophobics are also *deeply* appreciated. :D oops -- ophidioph ... Aw, heck, snake-phobics
Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/26/2005 5:28:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the term objectifying women has lost its literal meaning. In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? Paul == To me the term means turning women into just body parts. That's the basic feminist meaning. JUST body parts. No humanity, no individuality, no personality, no flaws, no reality, etc. Mainly to sell products. This is the way it used when originally protested by women. Madison Avenue. Sexy women on leaning cars in TV commercials to sell cars when actually the woman leaning on the car had nothing to do with the car. So it's not done as much anymore. For instance, in car commercials now, it's mainly the car -- how fast it can go, the safety features, the lines, etc. I do remember the way it was before though. So it doesn't mean just sexual, per se, although that is part of it. And men can be objectified too, but it's not done as often. However, fashion magazines still do it, for both genders. Yes, as a term, it also includes pornography. But that is a whole other issue. So basically it means turning a subject into an object. And with live subjects, human beings, turning them into just parts, lesser than the whole. Losing their... what is listed above... humanity, personality, individuality, etc., and aliveness To be admired as just objects -- not admired for their uniqueness, but their commonality. Oh, well, I knew when I said it that I would get some reactions. And yes, the line is difficult to draw sometimes. But I still felt a need to say it -- those part of my feminist stripes have not changed, although I am on a list that is 95-99% male. However, if most of the women on the list react similarly to a photograph that tells you something right there. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: OK, warnings required for... Nudity, Snakes, Surgical scars/wounds, anything else? How about spiders? Only one of the above will get me in trouble at work. Regards, Bob S. Personally I am phobic about great big green grasshoppers, so I require a warning about any photo depicting one of these disgusting beasts. Also, I am phobic about cilantro, so any photos of or recipes containing this vile herb require a warning. Bob The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. -- James Clabell in 1926
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 10:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I still felt a need to say it -- those part of my feminist stripes have not changed, although I am on a list that is 95-99% male. However, if most of the women on the list react similarly to a photograph that tells you something right there. Mostly it tells me that we need more women on this list. On all photo lists, for that matter. Camera sales are not 95% to men, but most of the photo lists I have found have few, if any, women. We had the same problem when I was Editor at Shutterbug magazine. Our readership surveys showed us that our readership was about 95% male. I tried to attract more women readers by featuring articles about women photographers, and even started a monthly feature Women in Photography and has Frances Schultz write it. She did a bangup job. But even years later after this and other efforts, there was no increase in women among the readership. We concluded that women like to do photography, but not so much read about it or converse about it. You can hang me for saying it, but I think that men tend to be more visually oriented than women. This applies even more strongly to gay men, in my experience. Bob
RE: My first PESO
I'm allergic to smoked mackerel, so please let me know before I click any links which depict the delicious creature. -- Cheers, Bob I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered --George Best -Original Message- From: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 November 2005 15:20 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: My first PESO On Nov 26, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: OK, warnings required for... Nudity, Snakes, Surgical scars/wounds, anything else? How about spiders? Only one of the above will get me in trouble at work. Regards, Bob S. Personally I am phobic about great big green grasshoppers, so I require a warning about any photo depicting one of these disgusting beasts. Also, I am phobic about cilantro, so any photos of or recipes containing this vile herb require a warning. Bob The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. -- James Clabell in 1926
RE: My first PESO
Hi Paul Maybe the filter at Kodak knows exactly when showing nudity becomes art? On the other side it blocks Bob's site ;-) greetings Markus I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? Paul On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, objectifying women does annoy me. You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. Bob
Re: My first PESO
Marnie, You and I are of about the same 'vintage', and advocates of women's rights. I supported my wife and other women as they struggled thru the '70's. My daughter has just turned 21 and is a great result, more ambitious accomplished than her brothers and will go farther too! I see fashion as a culprit now... Too much, Wow - look at me, I'm like Britany Spears. My 16 year old neice doesn't think she is selling her sexuality, but that what it amounts to. And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Regards, Bob S. On 11/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/26/2005 5:28:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the term objectifying women has lost its literal meaning. In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? Paul == To me the term means turning women into just body parts. That's the basic feminist meaning. JUST body parts. No humanity, no individuality, no personality, no flaws, no reality, etc. Mainly to sell products. This is the way it used when originally protested by women. Madison Avenue. Sexy women on leaning cars in TV commercials to sell cars when actually the woman leaning on the car had nothing to do with the car. So it's not done as much anymore. For instance, in car commercials now, it's mainly the car -- how fast it can go, the safety features, the lines, etc. I do remember the way it was before though. So it doesn't mean just sexual, per se, although that is part of it. And men can be objectified too, but it's not done as often. However, fashion magazines still do it, for both genders. Yes, as a term, it also includes pornography. But that is a whole other issue. So basically it means turning a subject into an object. And with live subjects, human beings, turning them into just parts, lesser than the whole. Losing their... what is listed above... humanity, personality, individuality, etc., and aliveness To be admired as just objects -- not admired for their uniqueness, but their commonality. Oh, well, I knew when I said it that I would get some reactions. And yes, the line is difficult to draw sometimes. But I still felt a need to say it -- those part of my feminist stripes have not changed, although I am on a list that is 95-99% male. However, if most of the women on the list react similarly to a photograph that tells you something right there. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/26/2005 7:30:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You can hang me for saying it, but I think that men tend to be more visually oriented than women. This applies even more strongly to gay men, in my experience. Bob = Yup, hang you! Hehehehe. Actually, I find the reverse re visual. OTOH, if one can generalize, which it is not safe to do, naturally, I find men to be more technical than women. IE fascination with lenses, the technical aspects of cameras, digital work flow, etc. Ergo, they fit right into this list. Hey, it would be nice -- more women on the list. But in some genres it just doesn't seem to happen. On the whole, men chat more on the Net than women anyway. And when women do chat on the Net they usually do it in different types of forums. But the times are a changing, and will continue to change. So we shall see. Seems we picked up a few more women in the last few months. I like that, personally. But I can hang with guys. Especially visual types of guys. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/26/2005 7:38:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see fashion as a culprit now... Too much, Wow - look at me, I'm like Britany Spears. My 16 year old neice doesn't think she is selling her sexuality, but that what it amounts to. And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Regards, Bob S. === Yeah, and MTV. Both. Well, sure, you're a guy. It's a guy thing. I just bought People's Sexist Men Alive issue and thoroughly enjoyed flipping through all the photos. It's a gal thing. Though, they didn't have butts. Big oversight. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: My first PESO
Most have souls, just not their own... Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: This doesn't explain the vacant eyed fashion models. Well you have to *have* a soul for it to be stolen... This explains why I refuse to photograph politicians. Bob -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: My first PESO
I'm allergic to warnings. Would the original PESO of Bob require a nudity warning? If yes my allergy is really heavy. Jack On 11/26/05, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm allergic to smoked mackerel, so please let me know before I click any links which depict the delicious creature. -- Cheers, Bob I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered --George Best -Original Message- From: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 November 2005 15:20 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: My first PESO On Nov 26, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: OK, warnings required for... Nudity, Snakes, Surgical scars/wounds, anything else? How about spiders? Only one of the above will get me in trouble at work. Regards, Bob S. Personally I am phobic about great big green grasshoppers, so I require a warning about any photo depicting one of these disgusting beasts. Also, I am phobic about cilantro, so any photos of or recipes containing this vile herb require a warning. Bob The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. -- James Clabell in 1926
Re: My first PESO
Filters don't know nothin' but they block everything. I remember a rumor from about 5 years ago that Jpegs could carry viruses, (no explanation of how they could operate or spread), the administrators of the CSC wan decided to block all Jpegs from being downloaded system wide. It crippled web use including our own internal web sites... (They used the same warning message that inappropriate web sites displayed, it was fun). Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Paul Maybe the filter at Kodak knows exactly when showing nudity becomes art? On the other side it blocks Bob's site ;-) greetings Markus I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object. Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body? Paul On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, objectifying women does annoy me. You know, I hear this comment a lot, and I just don't understand it. The main definition of objectify is exteriorize: make external or objective, or give reality to; language externalizes our thoughts. Bob -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: My first PESO Filters don't know nothin' but they block everything. I remember a rumor from about 5 years ago that Jpegs could carry viruses, (no explanation of how they could operate or spread), the administrators of the CSC wan decided to block all Jpegs from being downloaded system wide. It crippled web use including our own internal web sites... (They used the same warning message that inappropriate web sites displayed, it was fun). I had a couple of PUG viewers about then than couldn't see the PUG from work. I wonder now if that was what had haapened. I think Mike Wilson was one of them. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
At 10:37 AM 11/26/2005, Bob Sullivan wrote: And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Okay, this is what bothers me about photography involving nudes. It's not the photographs, and it's not the nudity. It's the inference the somehow there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or looking at the photographs. This certainly isn't always the case, and I'm very disappointed that so many people speak as if this were the only motivation for shooting or viewing nudes. I've seen photos of nude women that I truly loved and admired, but I felt no more sexual arousal or lust than if I had looked at a picture of a building, a colorful sunset, or a slice of white bread. I also got tired long ago, of showing some of my friends or coworkers pictures of attractive women, only to have them react with crude comments about what they would like to do that woman sexually. They never noticed the lighting, the composition, the color palette, the pose, the theme, the beautiful background, or mood of the photo. They just saw a cute girl, and that was as far as their critique ever went. It really pissed me off. I rarely show my photos to male friends these days, unless they are fellow photographers. Even then, it's still something of a gamble that they will get the photograph and not be distracted by whether they think the model is attractive or not. The other side of the coin, is having someone talk about one of your photos with disrespect, simply because they aren't personally attracted to the model in the photo. I've seen this happen a lot also. It's just as frustrating and disgusting as people freaking out over the sight of a pretty model. Sadly, this happens fairly often with photographers, as well as the general public. Once upon a time, my local camera club was trying to come up with monthly themes for their upcoming photo competitions. I suggested having an ugly subject month. The idea was, to photograph a subject that you felt most people would not find attractive -- be it human, landscape, mechanical device, whatever -- and try to actually show your skills as a photographer -- instead of trying to impress everyone with your personal taste in pretty girls, or your adoration of cute, adorable, children or cute, fuzzy, house pets. Absolutely no one was interested in my idea. No one wanted to concentrate on the photography itself, instead of on the relative beauty of the subject, not even for just one evening. take care, Glen
Re: My first PESO
On 26/11/05, Glen, discombobulated, unleashed: I've seen photos of nude women that I truly loved and admired, but I felt no more sexual arousal or lust than if I had looked at a picture of a building, a colorful sunset, or a slice of white bread. Have you ever seen Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask' ? There's a scene involving bread ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: My first PESO Have you ever seen Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask' ? There's a scene involving bread Or read Portnoy's Complaint? Poor fellow was attracted to a dead chicken.. William Robb
Re: My first PESO
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: My first PESO I agree, but soul stealing isn't a zero-sum game, it's like an idea: If you have an idea and I have an idea and I give you mine and you give me yours, we *both* now have *two* ideas. When you take someone's photo you do, in a way, take a bit of their soul (how much depends on how good a photographer you are!) - but they don't lose anything in the process. This doesn't explain the vacant eyed fashion models. William Robb Hah, hah... you should see the film clips from the latest The Jewelery Exchange ads on Los Angeles television stations. Wearing a few million dollars in set diamonds for the camera, but talk about a vacant look! It's like they got caught half-way between living and transmogrifying into a Barbie® model... I have to change the channel when it comes on... keith
Re: My first PESO
There's a scene involving bread Was it RYE? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My first PESO On 26/11/05, Glen, discombobulated, unleashed: I've seen photos of nude women that I truly loved and admired, but I felt no more sexual arousal or lust than if I had looked at a picture of a building, a colorful sunset, or a slice of white bread. Have you ever seen Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask' ? There's a scene involving bread ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: My first PESO
From a Woody Allen fan: I understand that Woody was once sort of heckled at a performance by being asked if he thought sex was dirty. His response, if you do it right it is. Jack --- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/05, Glen, discombobulated, unleashed: I've seen photos of nude women that I truly loved and admired, but I felt no more sexual arousal or lust than if I had looked at a picture of a building, a colorful sunset, or a slice of white bread. Have you ever seen Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask' ? There's a scene involving bread ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/26/2005 9:03:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Once upon a time, my local camera club was trying to come up with monthly themes for their upcoming photo competitions. I suggested having an ugly subject month. The idea was, to photograph a subject that you felt most people would not find attractive -- be it human, landscape, mechanical device, whatever -- and try to actually show your skills as a photographer -- instead of trying to impress everyone with your personal taste in pretty girls, or your adoration of cute, adorable, children or cute, fuzzy, house pets. Absolutely no one was interested in my idea. No one wanted to concentrate on the photography itself, instead of on the relative beauty of the subject, not even for just one evening. take care, Glen = Actually, that's a good idea. Marnie aka Doe But it's easier to photograph kitties.
Re: My first PESO
We did something like this one time at Shutterbug. We did an article in which we got some of the top photographers to agree to photograph differently than usual. For example, Pete Turner is famous for his wonderful color photography, so we had him shoot black and white. Jack Reznicki is famous for his photographs of children, so we had him photograph an elderly person. I don't remember now who else was in the article, but all of them got into the project enthusiastically and produced some very interesting photos. And they all said they learned from the experience. When I taught photography for a while, I gave the students an assignment to photograph an egg. The idea was to do something personal and creative with such a common, featureless object. Some surprising images resulted, and also some incredibly uninspired ones as well. Some students just couldn't get their minds around this project at all. Bob On Nov 26, 2005, at 1:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/26/2005 9:03:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Once upon a time, my local camera club was trying to come up with monthly themes for their upcoming photo competitions. I suggested having an ugly subject month. The idea was, to photograph a subject that you felt most people would not find attractive -- be it human, landscape, mechanical device, whatever -- and try to actually show your skills as a photographer -- instead of trying to impress everyone with your personal taste in pretty girls, or your adoration of cute, adorable, children or cute, fuzzy, house pets. Absolutely no one was interested in my idea. No one wanted to concentrate on the photography itself, instead of on the relative beauty of the subject, not even for just one evening. take care, Glen = Actually, that's a good idea. Marnie aka Doe But it's easier to photograph kitties.
Re: My first PESO
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no problems with biblical allusions (or illusions). I'm a Pastafarian: http://www.venganza.org/ ;-) They probably hold the most rational explanation what's inside flying saucers...:-) Jostein
Re: My first PESO
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Filters don't know nothin' but they block everything. I remember a rumor from about 5 years ago that Jpegs could carry viruses, (no explanation of how they could operate or spread), That's because it *couldn't* operate or spread. I remember this virus from a couple of years ago: When it infected your computer by the usual means (Microsoft Outhouse) it copied its own code into any JPEG's it could find. But that's all. It couldn't replicate, spread or do any harm to anyone's computer who received such a JPEG. It was, in other words, a non-issue for those receiving the JPEG's. I remember one completely unethical anti-virus software maker trying to spread FUD (and thereby enhance their sales) by claiming that this virus was something revolutionary. administrators of the CSC wan decided to block all Jpegs from being downloaded system wide. There's your FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) working. Any administration with any semblance of a clue should have seen this as a farce from the beginning. It crippled web use including our own internal web sites... (They used the same warning message that inappropriate web sites displayed, it was fun). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My first PESO
Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:37 AM 11/26/2005, Bob Sullivan wrote: And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Okay, this is what bothers me about photography involving nudes. It's not the photographs, and it's not the nudity. It's the inference the somehow there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or looking at the photographs. You realize that inference is, by definition, entirely on the part of the observer, not the photographer. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My first PESO
Men are tool orietated. Most photography literature are tool orientated. Ever seen a photography magazine that did not have camera ads in it? Men talk about things, women talk about feelings. All you have to do is thumb through a womans magazine and you will see the difference. If you made your magazine totally woman orientated all you would do is lose your male readershi, I doubt you would pick up a large following of women. Most women are not interested in the nuts and boldt end of things, even the nuts and bolts of making images. Despite the politically correct crap, men and women are different. We do have a half dozen or so women who are regular list contributers, and there are another half dozen who come and go. Who knows how many lurkers are female? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 26, 2005, at 10:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I still felt a need to say it -- those part of my feminist stripes have not changed, although I am on a list that is 95-99% male. However, if most of the women on the list react similarly to a photograph that tells you something right there. Mostly it tells me that we need more women on this list. On all photo lists, for that matter. Camera sales are not 95% to men, but most of the photo lists I have found have few, if any, women. We had the same problem when I was Editor at Shutterbug magazine. Our readership surveys showed us that our readership was about 95% male. I tried to attract more women readers by featuring articles about women photographers, and even started a monthly feature Women in Photography and has Frances Schultz write it. She did a bangup job. But even years later after this and other efforts, there was no increase in women among the readership. We concluded that women like to do photography, but not so much read about it or converse about it. You can hang me for saying it, but I think that men tend to be more visually oriented than women. This applies even more strongly to gay men, in my experience. Bob
Re: My first PESO
At 03:13 PM 11/26/2005, Mark Roberts wrote: Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:37 AM 11/26/2005, Bob Sullivan wrote: And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Okay, this is what bothers me about photography involving nudes. It's not the photographs, and it's not the nudity. It's the inference the somehow there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or looking at the photographs. You realize that inference is, by definition, entirely on the part of the observer, not the photographer. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What bugs me, is when an outside party (not the photographer, not the model, not even the current viewer of the photo in question) make remarks that suggest there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or looking at photographs involving nude people. This outside party doesn't even have to see any of the photographs in question. They are making rash assumptions about the motives and thoughts of other people, which is something I think should be avoided. take care, Glen
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: And this said, I still like looking at female nudes, even provocative ones. Me and Jimmy Carter occasionally have a little lust in our hearts. Okay, this is what bothers me about photography involving nudes. It's not the photographs, and it's not the nudity. It's the inference the somehow there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or looking at the photographs. You realize that inference is, by definition, entirely on the part of the observer, not the photographer. Precisely what I was saying earlier in this thread. Bob
RE: My first PESO
-Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 November 2005 20:17 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: My first PESO Men are tool orietated. Most photography literature are tool orientated. Ever seen a photography magazine that did not have camera ads in it? www.foto8.com
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 3:20 PM, Glen wrote: What bugs me, is when an outside party (not the photographer, not the model, not even the current viewer of the photo in question) make remarks that suggest there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or looking at photographs involving nude people. This outside party doesn't even have to see any of the photographs in question. They are making rash assumptions about the motives and thoughts of other people, which is something I think should be avoided. They are just projecting themselves onto the photographer's persona and expressing how they would act in his place. Which is not to say that it is always inappropriate for there to be an erotic charge between photographer and model during a shoot. Edward Weston's nudes of Charis are a good example of that, as are those wonderful nudes Douglas Kirkland shot of Marilyn Monroe right before her death. Eroticism can be channelled into creative energy. Bob
RE: My first PESO
You realize that inference is, by definition, entirely on the part of the observer, not the photographer. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What bugs me, is when an outside party (not the photographer, not the model, not even the current viewer of the photo in question) make remarks that suggest there must be sexual stimulation, lust, etc, involved in taking or The interview which I posted yesterday includes this about David Bailey, a man who's seen far more than his fair share of unclad pudenda: he wanted his subjects naked, he says, rather than nude because: 'Nude is more about the photographer, whereas naked is more about the people. I just looked at them as portraits without clothes on.' This is always Lucian Freud's line and I think he and Bailey have a lot in common - the same cold eye, the same whiff of misogyny, the same enthusiasm for staring very hard at genitalia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1646031,00.html I like Bailey's honesty about what he does, and his deliberate provocation. Here's more: He says that portraits are his favourite subject and his definition of a portrait is any picture of a person who knows their picture is being taken. 'I like photographing either people or at least the residue of people. I don't see the point of photographing trees or rocks because they're there and anyone can photograph them if they're prepared to hang around and wait for the light.' He did once publish a book of landscapes but he says that was 'just out of boredom really. Now and then, you do a mountain and you think, Oh that's nice, so you publish it.' I don't really like photography in as much as I hate pictures of mountains or light coming through trees and all that nonsense. From a different interview: 'Three years ago, David Bailey put out the word that he wanted naked people - lots of them. Not nudes: nudes he was bored of. All that worrying about poncy lighting, making people look like landscapes or rocks, he says. If I wanted to photograph a fucking rock, I'd photograph a fucking rock.' -- Cheers, Bob
Re: My first PESO
I like this guy. Godfrey On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:55 PM, Bob W wrote: 'Three years ago, David Bailey put out the word that he wanted naked people - lots of them. Not nudes: nudes he was bored of. All that worrying about poncy lighting, making people look like landscapes or rocks, he says. If I wanted to photograph a fucking rock, I'd photograph a fucking rock.'
Re: My first PESO
On Nov 26, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Bob W wrote: 'Three years ago, David Bailey put out the word that he wanted naked people - lots of them. Not nudes: nudes he was bored of. All that worrying about poncy lighting, making people look like landscapes or rocks, he says. If I wanted to photograph a fucking rock, I'd photograph a fucking rock.' I've always thought I'd like Bailey if I could meet him. We don't agree on many things, as is evident from the interview, but I admire him for his blunt statements. He's a man secure in his older years and no longer obligated to play social games. Bob
Re: My first PESO
Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I wanted to photograph a fucking rock, I'd photograph a fucking rock.' Easier said than done. Tried it once and when the stupid rock was at last in the right mood the light was gone. ;-) Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
