Photo Album: Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
John Sisker
This is a continuation of the photos that we took while on our cruise
vacation. Therefore, this particular album contains 65 pictures of Puerto
Vallarta, Mexico.
As was said before, one thing to keep in mind while looking at these
pictures, is the objective that we had in mind in taking and in now
presenting these particular pictures. And that is strictly for our own
pleasure and memory, not meant or intended to be view as award winning
shots. After all, and for the most part, were were on the go most of the
time; more of an aim and shoot schedule, and not even meant for any other
purpose. After all, one still needs to know the true objective with any
photo assignment.
Just click here to get started...
http://share.shutterfly.com/share/received/welcome.sfly?fid=d374b07d6bcadf95&sid=9AZsmzVo3bqODw
We hope your enjoy.
John Sisker & Deborah Lawson-Sisker
"POSE & GO" Photography - www.tinplatedesign.com
(714) 536-3850
Charles E Hardwidge
news:N92dnba-SpTME63W...@earthlink.com...
> As was said before, one thing to keep in mind while looking at these
> pictures, is the objective that we had in mind in taking and in now
> presenting these particular pictures. And that is strictly for our own
> pleasure and memory, not meant or intended to be view as award winning
> shots. After all, and for the most part, were were on the go most of the
> time; more of an aim and shoot schedule, and not even meant for any other
> purpose. After all, one still needs to know the true objective with any
> photo assignment.
What a steel jawed pseud. You've got a dissonance thing going on with aping
"professionals" while airily excusing shit photos. Seriously, the only thing
I'd hire you for is carrying the tripod (and I could hire a local for
cheaper than ferrying your lead lined ass around).
Just show me one creative and competently produced photo. ONE. Don't
flounce, and whine, and bitch. C'mon, Mr (Bankrupt) Gallery Manager who
professes to be on top of his "target market". Show something that has a
hint, a whiff, an *atom* of potential this side of hell freezing over.
Every time you click that send button you have a change to prove you're not
some daydreaming bullshitting foot-dragging deadwight timewaster. After
picking through your bigging yourself up and snowstorming a million shit
photos, I'm pressed to find anything in the audience of the ballpark.
GET A GRIP.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
dadiOH
> Hi all once again,
>
> This is a continuation of the photos that we took while on our cruise
> vacation. Therefore, this particular album contains 65 pictures of
> Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
>
> As was said before, one thing to keep in mind while looking at these
> pictures, is the objective that we had in mind in taking and in now
> presenting these particular pictures. And that is strictly for our own
> pleasure and memory, not meant or intended to be view as award winning
> shots.
You succeeded.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
celcius
news:Xx0Ym.17812$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Charles,
Really...
Are you all this obtuse in Bristol?
What's your problem?
The OP said he didn't intend these to be "award winning".
There is a possibility of NOT commenting instead of being insulting.
Sometimes wisdom resides in abstention, not your case I'm afraid.
Your intrusion in this matter is more of a problem and a pain than the
original poster.
Too bad you're such a poor contributor...
Take care,
Marcel
Charles E Hardwidge
news:hgrhj2$6lg$1...@celcius.motzarella.org...
> Charles,
> Really...
> Are you all this obtuse in Bristol?
> What's your problem?
> The OP said he didn't intend these to be "award winning".
> There is a possibility of NOT commenting instead of being insulting.
> Sometimes wisdom resides in abstention, not your case I'm afraid.
> Your intrusion in this matter is more of a problem and a pain than the
> original poster.
> Too bad you're such a poor contributor...
> Take care,
> Marcel
I reserve it for petty arrogant twats who don't pay attention. If John stops
being a control freak and making snide swipes, and takes advice onboard
he'll get a lot further a lot faster.
John's the one who banged on about "professionalism", and "creativity" and
"target markets". But, he's the guy who bulldozed in here, pissed everyone
off, then blamed other people.
There's a lot of high value information in my posts on this if you want to
understand goals and people. You might not understand it or feel it's
relevant to you but it's all there.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
pbromaghin
>
> This is a continuation of the photos that we took while on our cruise
> vacation.
> As was said before, one thing to keep in mind while looking at these
> pictures, is the objective that we had in mind in taking and in now
> presenting these particular pictures. And that is strictly for our own
> pleasure and memory, not meant or intended to be view as award winning
> shots. After all, and for the most part, were were on the go most of the
> time; more of an aim and shoot schedule, and not even meant for any other
> purpose. After all, one still needs to know the true objective with any
> photo assignment.
As an extremely unaccomplished amateur who barely understands half of
the technical talk that goes on here, and minus the hide-scorching
insults, I have to agree with Charles. There really were not more
than a couple I would bother to print, let alone show off in a
worldwide photography forum. If those were the only 2 rolls of film
that I came home with, I would be very disappointed and doubting my
abilities to ever take a decent picture. But you use digital so I
assume you chose these as the best out of hundreds.
Yes, you qualify them as just vacation pictures for your own
pleasure. But my wife, who knows even less about photography than I,
takes better vacation pics with her superzoom. And you want these out
in public where potential customers will see them? I would not hire
the person who took those pictures to do my daughter's wedding.
tony cooper
That may be your opinion, but the gripe with Charles is that he hasn't
made any comments about the photographs. He's playing armchair
psychologist and yattering on about John's supposed personality
disorders.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Sisker
news:fob7j55tch5nu37a9...@4ax.com...
> <pbrom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>As an extremely unaccomplished amateur who barely understands half of
>>the technical talk that goes on here, and minus the hide-scorching
>>insults, I have to agree with Charles. There really were not more
>>than a couple I would bother to print, let alone show off in a
>>worldwide photography forum. If those were the only 2 rolls of film
>>that I came home with, I would be very disappointed and doubting my
>>abilities to ever take a decent picture. But you use digital so I
>>assume you chose these as the best out of hundreds.
>>
>>Yes, you qualify them as just vacation pictures for your own
>>pleasure. But my wife, who knows even less about photography than I,
>>takes better vacation pics with her superzoom. And you want these out
>>in public where potential customers will see them? I would not hire
>>the person who took those pictures to do my daughter's wedding.
>
> That may be your opinion, but the gripe with Charles is that he hasn't
> made any comments about the photographs. He's playing armchair
> psychologist and yattering on about John's supposed personality
> disorders.
>
Tony,
I knew somewhere along the line, a shill for Charles would surface, and sure
enough, here it is - and almost word for word. Yet, there was still no
constructive help or advice, just insults. However, I have been in business
and politics long enough to know when you put something out for evaluation,
good or bad, people will respond. The trick is to separate the gold from the
dross. You and others accomplished this, while Charles and his shills
obviously did not.
John Sisker - Huntington Beach, California
Charles E Hardwidge
> I knew somewhere along the line, a shill for Charles would surface, and
> sure enough, here it is - and almost word for word. Yet, there was still
> no constructive help or advice, just insults. However, I have been in
> business and politics long enough to know when you put something out for
> evaluation, good or bad, people will respond. The trick is to separate the
> gold from the dross. You and others accomplished this, while Charles and
> his shills obviously did not.
WTF? You just *copied* that opinion from my posts. LOL.
Oh, man. I fucking knew it. PARROT. ROTE LEARNER. COPYCAT.
Guys, until Sisker gets a clue you're wasting your time.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
pbromaghin
> I knew somewhere along the line, a shill for Charles would surface, and sure
> enough, here it is - and almost word for word. Yet, there was still no
> constructive help or advice, just insults. However, I have been in business
> and politics long enough to know when you put something out for evaluation,
> good or bad, people will respond. The trick is to separate the gold from the
> dross. You and others accomplished this, while Charles and his shills
> obviously did not.
>
> John Sisker - Huntington Beach, California
Shill for Charles? Hardly.
Word for word with what?
I've been here barely longer than you and have established no
relationships with anybody. Stating my opinion that the general
quality of the photographs was very low is an insult? Unsupported
opinion it may be, but saying I insulted you only makes you sound as
thickheaded and thin-skinned as he paints you.
You want constructive advice? How's this?
Pretend I'm going through the rolls I just got back from the
developer.
1) Cool rusty old boat that I wouldn't want to go to sea in. I am
disappointed in the lack of interesting detail and the bad
background. No composition to speak of. Into the drawer.
2) I think all boats are interesting, the haze grey paint makes me
want to ask if it was originally a PT boat or something. But this
photo adds no interest beyond what the boat itself brings. No need to
scan.
3) Boy, that's a great view of the air conditioning units. I won't
be scanning that.
4) Oh, I love the outfits. I wish I could have gotten a picture of
the doing something besides standing around yacking in the shade.
Maybe next year.
5) Nice view we had there. Maybe if I made it part of a pano there
would actually be something interesting in the picture. Somewhere.
6) Hmm. Detail of a church with no details. Not sparse enough to be
minimalist, but not enough there to be interesting, either. Maybe I
should have backed up a bit and got more context.
7) Nice flower, but maybe I should have zoomed in and got more detail
or backed out and got the planting. Nothing interesting here.
8) Oh, that interesting little Catholic chapel decorated for
Christmas. I wish I could have actually captured any of the
decorations. I wish I had brought my monopod to get a longer
exposure.
9) Barrels. Oh boy. Maybe I should have gotten in closer to get rid
of the background and get some actual detail of the workmanship.
10) Was I taking a picture of the big fern? Or was it the barrels?
Why did I let that tree trunk get in the way?
11) Maybe I'll print it. The curve of the palm sort of repeats the
arch, the trunk repeats the fountain. Some detail in the walkway.
Not exactly what I wanted, but print it anyway.
12) This one works only when paired with the previous pic. Couldn't
I have gotten a better background?
13) Shoot. I cut off the flowers on top and the cacti bases on the
bottom.
14) Print it and send it anonymously to somebody I don't like.
15) Did you know you can buy cigars in Mexico? Maybe I should have
gotten a closer pic of that beer belly in the wife beater.
16)......
I'm tired of this. I'll say something nice.
I like number 32. You caught her beautifully smilling face,
highlighted by her well-done makeup. The still face and blurred dress
shows movement. The guy to the right is caught in a semi-awkward
potion adds interest and motion, especially when half-cropped out.
The green background sets off the white and pink, the repeat of the 3
colors in the hanging decorations frames her. This picture is almost
there. Not high quality art, but a very printable vacation picture.
48 might be cool in B&W. And with a little more contrast, maybe?
62 has potential. Straighten it and tone down the distracting
reflection in lower center and it will be a keeper.
My most general criticism is that these look a lot like pictures I
would have taken 15 years ago, before I started trying to learn how to
take photographs. Quick shots from where I am standing, with no
thought to where I might stand to get a better capture. Poles in the
way. Muddled backgrounds. Not what I would expect from a
professional photographer, even on vacation.
pbrom...@aol.com
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:00:49 -0800 (PST), pbromaghin
> >the person who took those pictures to do my daughter's wedding.
>
> That may be your opinion, but the gripe with Charles is that he hasn't
> made any comments about the photographs. He's playing armchair
> psychologist and yattering on about John's supposed personality
> disorders.
Thank you Tony, but I am aware what the gripe is. I don't agree with
what Charles is doing to Mr Sisker, but the guy did walk onto the
playground and effectively say "I'm new in town. Can I join your
game? I'll make the rules. Can I play with your toys? If you are
nice I will let you play with me."
Amongst the psychoanalysis, Charles did include the opinion that the
pictures were shit. I agreed that they were not good and suddenly Mr.
Sisker accused me of being a shill for Charles. Charles needs no
shill.
Will there ever be a response to my follow up post with the specific
criticisms? The opinions I expressed about his photograph are exactly
how I judge my own. For example, there are places we have repeatedly
visited on vacation and there are shots I have tried for several years
to get, but simply have not been able to capture on film. They are
every bit as lacking in quality as Mr Sisker's photostreams, but I
don't show my shitty pictures to the world and tell them not to
criticise me.
John Sisker
"pbromaghin" <pbrom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbc60d74-f3d2-42c9...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Pbromaghin,
It's good to know that supposedly you're not just a shill for Charles, or
even you at least you can see no benefit of becoming one. Getting out from
his shadow as quickly as possible in indeed a wise choice. In your repeat
e-mail to this one you were hoping that I would respond, for you did
supposedly rise to the level that I was hoping for. Yet, first I do
apologize that I did not respond sooner. It was Christmas, and at least for
some of us, that takes propriety.
Second, even though it has been repeated at least three time now, it
supposedly just keeps falling on deaf ears; and that is... "the objective
that we had in mind in taking and in now presenting these particular
pictures is strictly for our own pleasure and memory, not meant or intended
to be view as award winning shots. After all, and for the most part, were
were on the go most of the time; more of an aim and shoot schedule, and not
even meant for any other purpose. After all, one still needs to know the
true objective with any photo assignment." In addition, you may be wise to
read the response from Alan Browne (12/24/2009 10:36 AM) in reference to my
'Photo Album: Cabo San Lucas, Mexico' post. It's obvious that you have never
been on a cruise vacation, of which Alan summed up that perspective quite
well.
Yet, it would be a natural for some to want to judge the merits of each
photo anyway, instead of just looking at the whole group as what we did and
what we saw. Obviously, the nature of this newsgroup would warrant this type
of reaction, and this is alright. We welcome positive and constructive
input, if it can certainly help us in that aspect as well. Based on this,
your input and feedback was most welcome; for this helps turn this into a
photo lesson of sorts as well. In addition, we would certainly not expect
every picture to be top notch, you certainly pointed that out. That wasn't
even our intention. On the other hand, even you did find a few pictures that
seemed to have at least some merit, with a bit of some additional tweaking
of course. Now, that a positive.
However, this particular dialogue did give me another idea, which perhaps is
more in keeping with what this particular newsgroup wants and expects to see
anyway. Therefore, in the future, I may just take one of the pictures from
each group, incorporating the comments and suggestions received from others,
and just look at these individually one-on-one. As to presenting all these
in a group photo album format to begin with, it would naturally mix the good
in with the not so good. While it was not my objective to actually be
selective with this presentation at this time, some obviously though I
should have been, some even pointing out that they took similar pictures
year ago, but were smart enough not to present them here.
Yet, the fact remains that they originally did take such pictures, no-doubt
hoping for more that they supposedly got. Yet, photography, like many other
things, is rather subjective, and also as has been seen here in this
exercise, comments have ranged from "some are quite good" to "they're all
crag." So one never knows what others may be looking for. What one may like,
someone else may hate, and for a whole variety of reasons. And then of
course, some only want to stir the pot and/or add fuel to the fire, just for
spite. That's the last person I will cater too, hence the format this was
presented in in the first place.
Charles E Hardwidge
> It's good to know that supposedly you're not just a shill for Charles, or
> even you at least you can see no benefit of becoming one. [...]
> Second, even though it has been repeated at least three time now, it
> supposedly just keeps falling on deaf ears; and that is... "the objective
> that we had in mind in taking and in now presenting these particular
> pictures is strictly for our own pleasure and memory, not meant or
> intended to be view as award winning shots. [...]
> Yet, it would be a natural for some to want to judge the merits of each
> photo anyway, instead of just looking at the whole group as what we did
> and what we saw. [...]
> However, this particular dialogue did give me another idea, which perhaps
> is more in keeping with what this particular newsgroup wants and expects
> to see anyway. [...]
> And then of course, some only want to stir the pot and/or add fuel to the
> fire, just for spite. That's the last person I will cater too, hence the
> format this was presented in in the first place. [...]
If you'd made your comment without insisting other people were too dumb to
see what you /intended/ and stopped making /spiteful/ comments you'd get
further. People often judge others through the lens of their own mind and
that's what you're doing. Focusing on "assignments" and taking swipes is a
narrowing and dividing perspective. I'm sorry, John, but as long as you keep
/insisting/ the world be /just like you/ you'll *never* be creative or
professional. You'll be stuck as a deadweight timewaster.
Yippee ki-ay motherfucker.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
nm...@wt.net
>
> Pbromaghin,
>
> It's good to know that supposedly you're not just a shill for Charles, or
> even you at least you can see no benefit of becoming one. Getting out from
> his shadow as quickly as possible in indeed a wise choice.
As a relative newcomer to this group I'll point out a few things..
It's statements like this that are causing you grief.
Why would pbro....... be a shill for Charles? What purpose would
it serve? He just gave his 29 cents worth. Just because some of
the comments might have been negative does not mean he is a
shill for someone else.
>In your repeat
> e-mail to this one you were hoping that I would respond, for you did
> supposedly rise to the level that I was hoping for.
What level was that? A level where none of the comments are
negative?
>
> Second, even though it has been repeated at least three time now, it
> supposedly just keeps falling on deaf ears; and that is... "the objective
> that we had in mind in taking and in now presenting these particular
> pictures is strictly for our own pleasure and memory, not meant or intended
> to be view as award winning shots. After all, and for the most part, were
> were on the go most of the time; more of an aim and shoot schedule, and not
> even meant for any other purpose. After all, one still needs to know the
> true objective with any photo assignment." In addition, you may be wise to
> read the response from Alan Browne (12/24/2009 10:36 AM) in reference to my
> 'Photo Album: Cabo San Lucas, Mexico' post. It's obvious that you have never
> been on a cruise vacation, of which Alan summed up that perspective quite
> well.
That's all fine, but when one goes on a snap spree with such a limited
time for carefully setting up ones shots, one does not usually post
loads of them for world wide consumption. I would have picked only the
ones I thought came out the best, and I would have left the rest on
the
puter. I've got tons of photo's I would not even consider posting, and
I'm
a rank amateur, not a pro. And no.. I don't go on cruises. Spending a
few days on a boat with a bunch of people that keep their teeth in a
cup is not my idea of a real vacation. :/
But to each their own in that regard...
>
> Yet, it would be a natural for some to want to judge the merits of each
> photo anyway, instead of just looking at the whole group as what we did and
> what we saw.
Well of course. They are single images and you posted them for
comments. What do you expect?
>Obviously, the nature of this newsgroup would warrant this type
> of reaction, and this is alright. We welcome positive and constructive
> input, if it can certainly help us in that aspect as well.
You need to learn to welcome the negative comments too.
If I post a picture and someone says it's a turd, I wouldn't
care less. It's their opinion, and they have the right to have
that opinion. I sure wouldn't whine about it.
>
> However, this particular dialogue did give me another idea, which perhaps is
> more in keeping with what this particular newsgroup wants and expects to see
> anyway. Therefore, in the future, I may just take one of the pictures from
> each group, incorporating the comments and suggestions received from others,
> and just look at these individually one-on-one.
Danged.. Why didn't I think of that... :/
>
> Yet, the fact remains that they originally did take such pictures, no-doubt
> hoping for more that they supposedly got. Yet, photography, like many other
> things, is rather subjective, and also as has been seen here in this
> exercise, comments have ranged from "some are quite good" to "they're all
> crag." So one never knows what others may be looking for. What one may like,
> someone else may hate, and for a whole variety of reasons. And then of
> course, some only want to stir the pot and/or add fuel to the fire, just for
> spite. That's the last person I will cater too, hence the format this was
> presented in in the first place.
You should cater to yourself, and ignore what anyone else thinks.
As far as the pictures, I saw some that were not too bad. There was
one of a girl dancing in a white-pink dress that I thought was pretty
good.
But there was quite a few that amounted to no more than vacation
snap shots. Nothing wrong with that, but displaying them all to round
up opinions from a "photography" group may not pan out like you would
hope.
Another comment.. I'd find a better server to post pictures. Those
small
samples are not large enough to do any picture justice. They look
like
avatars on steroids.
Myself, I use my own server. That way I can do any danged thing I
want.
And as further proof that I'm not a shill, and actually do take
pictures
of my own, here are two samples. I actually took many pictures of this
bird in the tree. He posed for me using various positions, and even
let me take some HD video of him. Quite a ham..
Note that I'm not a pro, don't claim to be a pro, and use a semi
crappy point and shoot camera at this time. But *I* liked most
of the series of pictures I took from this subject so that's all
that really matters to me.
Some might like em. Some will probably think they suck.
I could care less either way. No one is going to like everything,
and plenty are not afraid to speak their mind about it.
I say, well, OK then... Let the arrows fly where they may,
I wear body armor. Probably spelled armour in certain parts of the
world. :/
These pictures are about as small as I will post for consumption.
I don't want people to strain their eyes trying to view them. :/
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/bird3.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/bird5.jpg
Just my $2.78 worth.
Happy Holidays.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:041f0d68-cb81-47c6...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> Thank you Tony, but I am aware what the gripe is. I don't agree with
> what Charles is doing to Mr Sisker, but the guy did walk onto the
> playground and effectively say "I'm new in town. Can I join your
> game? I'll make the rules. Can I play with your toys? If you are
> nice I will let you play with me."
>
> Amongst the psychoanalysis, Charles did include the opinion that the
> pictures were shit. I agreed that they were not good and suddenly Mr.
> Sisker accused me of being a shill for Charles. Charles needs no
> shill.
>
> Will there ever be a response to my follow up post with the specific
> criticisms? The opinions I expressed about his photograph are exactly
> how I judge my own. For example, there are places we have repeatedly
> visited on vacation and there are shots I have tried for several years
> to get, but simply have not been able to capture on film. They are
> every bit as lacking in quality as Mr Sisker's photostreams, but I
> don't show my shitty pictures to the world and tell them not to
> criticise me.
I've done politics and business, and I know how these things shake down when
real business and lives are at stake. They can end badly if a timewasting
deadweight gets their hands on the levers. People may not understand or
agree with my position but it's done for a reason and proportional.
People like John respond to "authorities" and "popularities". Sucking up to
Alan and trying to turn Tony with snarky digs just reinforces that model. By
waffling and treading water he will *never* be "creative" or "professional".
He needs to accept that or *change*. This the *only* way.
John keeps *insisting* that he's on an "assignment" and makes *excuses* for
not preparing in advance. Instead of absorbing lessons on newsgroup
behaviour and being graceful about misunderstandings he's taken petty digs.
He's all front and evasive when it matters.
I've got my own goals and dropped a few clangers in here. But, I can see the
realities and accept that. I'm open to change and, yes, do judge my own
performance and attitude as severely as I judge others. Sometimes, I have to
calm my own ambition or STFU. This is respectful and polite, yes?
We've had topics here on tripods, galleries, and creativity. Some have been
upfront. Others, indirect. All of them will be useful and, I'm sure, people
will return to them. Similar lessons, or what Sisker calls "bullshit" and
"spite", keep Harvard and established Zen monasteries in business.
"This cannot be taught." -- Miyamoto Musashi.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Pete
> These pictures are about as small as I will post for consumption.
> I don't want people to strain their eyes trying to view them. :/
> http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/bird3.jpg
> http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/bird5.jpg
> Just my $2.78 worth.
> Happy Holidays.
The over-exposed dead flowers strained my eyes while trying to view the bird
:-)
Pete
nm...@wt.net
Yep, and not quite as focused as I would prefer.. :( Wasn't using a
tripod. I was using the full 5x zoom "140mm 35mm equal" for those and
trying to get a decently focused image while holding that dinky camera
was
an effort. The varying distance to all the tree branches wasn't
helping the
AF either.
I've since made a home made "handle" that I can attach to the camera
so
I've got a better and wider grip on it. I also rigged up a tripod but
wasn't using
it that day. Those were just random shots that came along when I was
in the
backyard walking around and happened to notice the bird up in the
tree.
That tree is a Loquat. Has fruit in the spring.
The EXIF data is intact on those I think..
Speaking of dead flowers..
Take these quite color saturated critters,
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/te1.jpg
and then add a rare for this location snow fall, and you get these.
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/toast.jpg
Ouch.. :(
Pete
I feel moved to express my opinion.
The statement "People like John..." is the pigeonhole principle: if n items
are put into m pigeonholes with n > m, then at least one pigeonhole must
contain more than one item.
The brain of higher animals is hard-wired to pigeonhole; it's one of a
plethora of short-cut mechanisms that is essential for survival: no brain
has advanced enough to accommodate the fact each member of the species is
unique. The mental processing required without short-cuts would overwhelm
the brain thereby causing a very early death to the individual.
Every object in the Universe has two basic qualities: attributes and
behaviour. Only when there is complete understanding of a particular object
can one deduce some of its attributes from its behaviour. Higher-form
objects also exhibit behaviour by responding to messages. Higher-form
objects have so many attributes (which are affected by many external
influences) that their complexity is not fully understood.
Personally, I would never wish to be treated by a clinical psychologist whom
based his/her assessment of me on reading my input to alt.photography. I
would find it very amusing, of course.
As you've said about yourself, I'm also open to change. I judge my
attributes and behaviour more harshly than I judge that of others. I'm
frequently not as polite as I should be; at other times I'm too polite and
end-up harming myself. Finding balance isn't easy, but it is rewarding.
I've bitten my tongue and not replied to the very harsh replies Alan Brown
had from his "Merry Christmas" message. His sentiment touched my heart,
especially the last phrase - he gave me much to think about and learn from,
for which I am forever thankful.
My message "My Time to Reflect" was also a simple gift - an act of giving,
because I prefer to give than to receive. During 2010 perhaps I will manage
to balance the acts of giving and receiving. If not, 2011...
May we have many more discussions about tripods, galleries, creativity, even
crap photos. Let's face it, if we all had the same opinion this newsgroup
would be pointless.
Pete
Pete
> Speaking of dead flowers..
> Take these quite color saturated critters,
> http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/te1.jpg
> and then add a rare for this location snow fall, and you get these.
> http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/toast.jpg
> Ouch.. :(
Thanks for those: made my day - illustrating what cold weather does to us
all.
You and your Sony camera can take some lovely pictures.
Regards,
Pete
Charles E Hardwidge
news:0ysZm.9$Ec...@newsfe19.ams2...
People can pigeonhole, get defensive, and be impatient but this is were
understanding the universality of things, a sense of context, and acceptance
help. Clinging to opinions with certainty or feeling that someone is trying
to get you down can miss the point and avoid responsibility. As the ego
inflames itself and we strive to "win" irony bites us in the ass, and we
come toppling down like a pile of child's bricks or destroy what we intended
to create. Appreciating this is a /beginning/ of wisdom.
Next year (why is it always next year?) I'll be working towards not messing
up my camera settings, poking my eye out with my own tripod, or dropping the
camera like some juggling clown. I'll also try and avoid bearing down like
some long haired monster in a leather jacket and boots, and causing old
ladies to clutch their handbags to their chests and cross themselves. This
requires a certain unlearning of habit and reactivity. Who knows, I may even
acquire some measure of competence.
Knowledge and self, or what be believe and who we are, are just an illusion.
Clinging too hard to this, and judging too harshly, being too opinionated,
or carrying hurts is just so much flim-flam. It's the Chow Yun-Fat of our
own minds playing on the silver screen not the balding and overweight
middle-aged reality. But the now and the real is where we live. In letting
go we can better grasp that. Zen is one way. Tripods are another. In time,
one masters this and acts as appropriate in the moment.
*click*
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Peter
Another well reasoned comment:
Just a suggestion, perhaps you should consider this:
http://atheism.about.com/c/ec/6.htm
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4b368662$0$19452$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> Another well reasoned comment:
> Just a suggestion, perhaps you should consider this:
>
> http://atheism.about.com/c/ec/6.htm
I always recommend people read "Logic" by Wilfred Hodges. Almost anything on
epistemology is a good follow-up. Gave a lecture on that once and had people
buzzing. (I'm not sure who was more surprised. Them, or me.)
http://wilfridhodges.co.uk/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Wilfrid-Hodges/dp/0141003146
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Peter
Form you postings, I couldn't tell that you have any understanding of
logic.Or, if you have such understanding, that you had the ability to apply
it.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
> Form you postings, I couldn't tell that you have any understanding of
> logic.Or, if you have such understanding, that you had the ability to
> apply it.
You're getting snarky again. I noticed you doing that with Wolfgang in an
earlier post which is when I wondered if you'd be getting around to me in a
later post. Apparently so.
Good job I'm so understanding and tolerant, eh?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Peter
Yup! The news server would probably start to smoke if you did not exhibit
the degree tolerance you do.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
Yeah, but the ironic thing is all the chix start smoking their panties.
Who can figure it? *wide shrug* Beats me!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
nm...@wt.net
> n...@wt.net wrote:
> > Speaking of dead flowers..
> > Take these quite color saturated critters,
> >http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/te1.jpg
> > and then add a rare for this location snow fall, and you get these.
> >http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/toast.jpg
> > Ouch.. :(
>
> Thanks for those: made my day - illustrating what cold weather does to us
> all.
It's weird to have snow when all the plants, grass, and trees are
green. :/
>
> You and your Sony camera can take some lovely pictures.
Well, thank ya, thank ya, vurrry much.. I won't be having delusions
of
grandeur though.. I know a few wildlife shooters that make my pix
look like the screen of Elvis's TV after he shoots it with a .38.. :
(
I know of one guy in particular that gets some super duper images
of birds, eagles, hawks, etc.. But he's probably a "pro" and I'm
pretty
sure he still uses film for the most part. His pictures of birds in
flight
are awesome. You can see every tiny detail of the bird.
But hey, maybe I could start a gallery showing images of dead
stuff. :/
It's probably an overlooked target.
I am fairly happy with the camera for what it is, and how much
I paid for it. "$87+tax for that one". The zeiss lens seems to be
fairly decent once you get it focused, and the dynamic range ain't
too awful bad for a point and shooter. It can be a little soft
compared
to some cameras, but I just have to live with it.
For the price, I'm not complaining.. I wish I had a good DSLR though..
Maybe I'll break down and get one eventually. The main drawback to
the present camera so far, is grain in low light areas. That's
about the most glaring fault to me at this point. But if the light is
good,
it does OK.
The 720p video is pretty good for a P&S, and the compression is a
fairly good mix of quality vs time per GB..
I'm using a 8 GB stick right now, and that's good for almost 2 hours
of the highest quality video setting.
This is a screen capture of the 720p video shrunk down.. It's 1280x720
originally. Same bird as the stills..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/hdtv1.jpg
This particular W290 is going to be built into a trail cam this
spring.
But I have another one like new in the box, and it'll be my hand held
once this one is modified. They are both identical silver ones.
Another example of toast I snapped just a while ago. Chortle..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/toast2.jpg
Pete
> But hey, maybe I could start a gallery showing images of dead
> stuff. :/
> It's probably an overlooked target.
Contrasting the live and dead, as you have done, I find most interesting.
I've just tried an experiment with your picture:
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/toast.jpg. I applied a custom "Curves" in
an old version of Photoshop (v5), which has turned it into a surreal picture
that you may like.
I have no means of posting the Photoshop .ACV file or modified image, but
let me know if I can be of any help.
Pete
krishnananda
"Pete" <available....@aserver.com> wrote:
You can upload any file (of any type) to RapidShare
<http://rapidshare.com/> for free and anyone can then download it with
the correct link.
No connection with them, just have used the service many times.
Pete
> You can upload any file (of any type) to RapidShare
> <http://rapidshare.com/> for free and anyone can then download it with
> the correct link.
Thanks for that, very useful to know.
Pete
pbrom...@aol.com
Sorry for the delay, system problems.
>
> It's good to know that supposedly you're not just a shill for Charles, or
> even you at least you can see no benefit of becoming one. Getting out from
> his shadow as quickly as possible in indeed a wise choice.
So the condescension and pomposity start. I live in nobody's shadow.
> In your repeat
> e-mail to this one you were hoping that I would respond, for you did
> supposedly rise to the level that I was hoping for.
Oh great one, I aspire to fulfill the hopes you have for me.
> Yet, first I do
> apologize that I did not respond sooner. It was Christmas, and at least for
> some of us, that takes propriety.
But for miserable sinners like me who happen to have a spare 10
minutes to post a note? I guess, for some people, Christmas does take
"propriety".
>
> Second, even though it has been repeated at least three time now, it
> supposedly just keeps falling on deaf ears; and that is... "the objective
> that we had in mind in taking and in now presenting these particular
> pictures is strictly for our own pleasure and memory, not meant or intended
> to be view as award winning shots. After all, and for the most part, were
> were on the go most of the time; more of an aim and shoot schedule, and not
> even meant for any other purpose. After all, one still needs to know the
> true objective with any photo assignment."
Rightly ignored as nothing more than pompous self-justification for
bad photography, an attempt to control the commentary in advance. I
still don't understand what you thought you were doing by presenting
quick and dirty vacation photos to a forum generally meant for serious
photography discussion.
> In addition, you may be wise to
> read the response from Alan Browne (12/24/2009 10:36 AM) in reference to my
> 'Photo Album: Cabo San Lucas, Mexico' post.
Oh, such wisdom as I may never attain.
> It's obvious that you have never
> been on a cruise vacation, of which Alan summed up that perspective quite
> well.
Is it also obvious that it is about the last thing I would ever want
to do? For the 1st 10 years of marriage we just couldn't afford it.
For the 2nd 10 years I successfully steered us away from it. For the
3rd 10 years, my wife has thankfully decided that she wouldn't like
it.
I grew up in an area of hunting, fishing and lake cabins. Although I
love to travel (and with the free train travel from my father's day
job and my school teacher mother having summers off, I was more well-
travelled then most small-town hick kids you would meet), I did
acquire a mild contempt for tourists.
A 2-week bus tour of some of the finest military dictatorships that
South America had to offer in the mid-70s cured any desire for the
kind of disneyfied, a-city-a-day, once over lightly tourism that
cruises represent.
The deal was absolutely sealed when I got the rare privilege of a
locals view of it while doing business in the Caribbean. There is
little that is more ridiculous than big, fat, gringo Packer fans,
green and gold from head to toe, walking through a market, smoking
gigantic, locally-made counterfeit Cuban see-gars, thinking they are
king shit because their team won a "world" championship to which the
rest of the world was not invited.
> Yet, it would be a natural for some to want to judge the merits of each
> photo anyway, instead of just looking at the whole group as what we did and
> what we saw. Obviously, the nature of this newsgroup would warrant this type
> of reaction, and this is alright.
> We welcome positive and constructive
> input, if it can certainly help us in that aspect as well. Based on this,
> your input and feedback was most welcome; for this helps turn this into a
> photo lesson of sorts as well.
Which is why I came here in the first place. I never thought I would
be giving the lesson, though.
<snip>
> However, this particular dialogue did give me another idea, which perhaps is
> more in keeping with what this particular newsgroup wants and expects to see
> anyway. Therefore, in the future, I may just take one of the pictures from
> each group, incorporating the comments and suggestions received from others,
> and just look at these individually one-on-one.
Sha-zaamm! An epiphany.
> As to presenting all these
> in a group photo album format to begin with, it would naturally mix the good
> in with the not so good. While it was not my objective to actually be
> selective with this presentation at this time, some obviously though I
> should have been, some even pointing out that they took similar pictures
> year ago, but were smart enough not to present them here.
Actually, I pointed that out.
<snip more boring pomposity>
John Sisker
news:ef988fdf-aa5a-4ad0...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Sha-zaamm! An epiphany.
<snip more boring pomposity>
Most of this type of feed back is just boring speculations; therefore, of
little point in even responding to. The bottom line is that I have no
intention to even attempt to talk anyone into a cruise vacation, when they
seemingly have no desire or interest to do; having determined that they
definitely won't like it - even though they never actually gave it a try. In
reality, we basically felt the same way as well, that is, before we finally
put our money where our mouth is, and went on our first cruise. This just
shows how wrong one can be. Yet, this was not the goal or intention of
putting photos on this newsgroup in the first place, but it does show the
underlining mindset of some who just can't see the forest through the trees.
Fortunately, many others could, and were indeed willing and able to not just
look for the worst in the album, thus lumping everything else into their
pre-determined category, but saw beyond this and provide some helpful
suggestions on the better shots. This is even further evidenced by the fact
that fewer negative comments were received from the pictures of Cabo San
Lucas, and none at all from Mazatlan. Enough said on this, and likewise,
more than enough helpful suggestions have been received from those who do
apparently do know what they're talking about, so responding to anyway else
in this reference would be useless.
nm...@wt.net
> n...@wt.net wrote:
> > But hey, maybe I could start a gallery showing images of dead
> > stuff. :/
> > It's probably an overlooked target.
>
> Contrasting the live and dead, as you have done, I find most interesting.
I do too. I'm weird I guess.. :/
>
> I've just tried an experiment with your picture:http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/toast.jpg. I applied a custom "Curves" in
> an old version of Photoshop (v5), which has turned it into a surreal picture
> that you may like.
>
> I have no means of posting the Photoshop .ACV file or modified image, but
> let me know if I can be of any help.
>
> Pete
I wouldn't mind checking it out if you can find a way to post it some
day.
I did a surreal type of thing with a shot of the moon a while back..
Made it look like a gazillion tiny stars in the sky surrounding the
moon..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/blufrac.jpg
Pete
> I wouldn't mind checking it out if you can find a way to post it some day.
> I did a surreal type of thing with a shot of the moon a while back..
> Made it look like a gazillion tiny stars in the sky surrounding the
> moon..
> http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/blufrac.jpg
I like that picture, it's a shame about the JPEG artefacts, but that's life.
Sorry for such a long URL - here are my surreal versions of your toast
pictures. Let me know when you've downloaded them and I'll delete the share
("my Picturetown" requires cookies enabled). If you can't access it, I'll
try RapidShare as kindly suggested by Krishnananda.
Respectfully, we ought to start a new thread if you wish to correspond
further.
Pete
nm...@wt.net
> n...@wt.net wrote:
> > I wouldn't mind checking it out if you can find a way to post it some day.
> > I did a surreal type of thing with a shot of the moon a while back..
> > Made it look like a gazillion tiny stars in the sky surrounding the
> > moon..
> >http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/blufrac.jpg
>
> I like that picture, it's a shame about the JPEG artefacts, but that's life.
If you are referring to mine, I'm not sure if it's jpeg artifacts that
you
are seeing. That was a result of going way overboard with the
"sharpening"
tool. :/
>
> Sorry for such a long URL - here are my surreal versions of your toast
> pictures. Let me know when you've downloaded them and I'll delete the share
> ("my Picturetown" requires cookies enabled). If you can't access it, I'll
> try RapidShare as kindly suggested by Krishnananda.
>
> http://a05-b05.mypicturetown.com:80/P2PwebCmdController/share.jsp?x=7...
>
> Respectfully, we ought to start a new thread if you wish to correspond
> further.
>
> Pete
I got em. Those look pretty neat. I think I like the first one the
best maybe.. IE: toast1, the darker of the two..
Almost gives the illusion that it's a painted metal sculpture or
something.
Like the way the red color comes out on the tip of the flower.
Almost looks like a glowing ember..
Have a happy new year.
Pete
> I got em. Those look pretty neat. I think I like the first one the
> best maybe.. IE: toast1, the darker of the two..
> Almost gives the illusion that it's a painted metal sculpture or
> something.
> Like the way the red color comes out on the tip of the flower.
> Almost looks like a glowing ember..
> Have a happy new year.
Glad you got them, I've deleted the share. I liked toast1 better for the
same reasons.
Thanks for sharing your pictures, you've given me another project for 2010.
Happy New Year to you too and I hope it's a good one for you.
Pete