[SI] New Mandate: B&W
BÔwser
meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
white photos. If you can come up with another interpretation of "B&W,"
please feel free to do so. Of course, if you want to submit three photos
that showcase what truly constitutes a successful black and white photo,
like composition, texture, and lighting, that's OK too. The shoot-in is
here:
I'll update the Rulz pages sometime today or tomorrow, so be patient.
Lastly, the deadline for this mandate is January 4th, 2009. I went an extra
week to allow people to recover from New Year's Eve. Please try to submit
your photos by 6PM Eastern Time (USA).
Please limit your submissions to 300K each, three submissions per person.
Fire at will!
TylerRights
Just out of curiosity, what about duo-tones and other 2-color effects that came
from historical B&W processing? Such as sepias, gold tone (chrysotype),
cyanotype, polysulfides, kallitype, tetenal copper processing, etc. These were,
after all, standard B&W methods.
BÔwser
"TylerRights" <tri...@spamfree.net> wrote in message
news:t83dj4563vha5pt9f...@4ax.com...
Sounds OK to me...
Eric Stevens
>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>white photos.
Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
on two counts.
I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
>If you can come up with another interpretation of "B&W,"
>please feel free to do so. Of course, if you want to submit three photos
>that showcase what truly constitutes a successful black and white photo,
>like composition, texture, and lighting, that's OK too. The shoot-in is
>here:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>
>I'll update the Rulz pages sometime today or tomorrow, so be patient.
>Lastly, the deadline for this mandate is January 4th, 2009. I went an extra
>week to allow people to recover from New Year's Eve. Please try to submit
>your photos by 6PM Eastern Time (USA).
>
>Please limit your submissions to 300K each, three submissions per person.
>
>Fire at will!
Eric Stevens
Alan Browne
> By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the
> posters meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only
> black and white photos. If you can come up with another interpretation
> of "B&W," please feel free to do so.
Given many of the characters around here,
the B&W mandate could be "B!tching & Whining."
Perhaps we could interpret "Beatings & Whippings"?
Or "Beaches & Wenches" ?
"Bratz & Whores"
"Booze & Wine"
"Bikes & Wheels"
"Boron & Tungsten"
"Bimbos & Wackos"
"Brickbats and Wombats"
....
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
BÔwser
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:qutdj4d3cs2at1b65...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>
>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>white photos.
>
> Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
> on two counts.
>
> I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
Sounds nice. Where is it?
BÔwser
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:__idnSSxPaChkarU...@giganews.com...
BÔwser wrote:
> By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
> meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
> white photos. If you can come up with another interpretation of "B&W,"
> please feel free to do so.
>Given many of the characters around here,
>the B&W mandate could be "B!tching & Whining."
>Perhaps we could interpret "Beatings & Whippings"?
>Or "Beaches & Wenches" ?
>"Bratz & Whores"
>"Booze & Wine"
>"Bikes & Wheels"
>"Boron & Tungsten"
>"Bimbos & Wackos"
>"Brickbats and Wombats"
Beaches and Wenches! Yes! Does Brett live near a beach? I do , but they're
kinda cold right now.
All these sub-themes are fully acceptable. Even some brand names, like
Bowers & Wilkens or Babcock & Wilcox qualify.
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:qutdj4d3cs2at1b65...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
>>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>>white photos.
>>
>> Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
>> on two counts.
>>
>> I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
>
>Sounds nice. Where is it?
Damn!
Perhaps I was trying to keep it secret. :-)
Here it is
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2809436834_da5fae71f4.jpg?v=0
>
>>
>>
>>>If you can come up with another interpretation of "B&W,"
>>>please feel free to do so. Of course, if you want to submit three photos
>>>that showcase what truly constitutes a successful black and white photo,
>>>like composition, texture, and lighting, that's OK too. The shoot-in is
>>>here:
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>>>
>>>I'll update the Rulz pages sometime today or tomorrow, so be patient.
>>>Lastly, the deadline for this mandate is January 4th, 2009. I went an
>>>extra
>>>week to allow people to recover from New Year's Eve. Please try to submit
>>>your photos by 6PM Eastern Time (USA).
>>>
>>>Please limit your submissions to 300K each, three submissions per person.
>>>
>>>Fire at will!
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
PaytonT
>On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:01:25 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:qutdj4d3cs2at1b65...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>>
>>>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
>>>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>>>white photos.
>>>
>>> Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
>>> on two counts.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
>>
>>Sounds nice. Where is it?
>
>Damn!
>
>Perhaps I was trying to keep it secret. :-)
>
>Here it is
>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2809436834_da5fae71f4.jpg?v=0
>
Methinks you should have kept it a "secret". No POI, ergo no interesting
composition.
If I was that company I'd even have a difficult time selecting that for a
monthly flier. It says nothing, conveys nothing, is nothing.
I don't think I've seen a more boring photo.
Sorry, dem's da fac's.
Oh wait, I take that back. On an outing to Yerkes Observatory (the largest
refracting telescope in the world, even today) when I was 7 years old and had my
Brownie Box Camera, I took a photo similar to yours. (true) I still have a print
from that photo to remind myself of what to never do again.
George Kerby
On 12/4/08 4:28 AM, in article r3cfj41r75k5r0ske...@4ax.com,
"PaytonT" <p...@honestasdirt.org> wrote:
You should have kept that camera. I don't think too many Brownies had view
camera rising standards like the one that made this image. Probably be a
collector's item today. Too bad you were too dumb to let it go.
Just the facts, Jack...
PaytonT
wrote:
Uh, for the sake of educating an idiot .... you are aware that view camera
perspective-correction benefits can also be duplicated 100% in the dark-room,
are you not?
Amazing. You wasted a view camera on a useless, boring, and meaningless scene
like that? How pathetic can one get. You must have run out of cats to photograph
or something and were trying to expand your photographic horizons -- sadly
missed finding all possible new horizons.
bowser
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:01:25 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:qutdj4d3cs2at1b65...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>>
>>>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the
>>>>posters
>>>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>>>white photos.
>>>
>>> Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
>>> on two counts.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
>>
>>Sounds nice. Where is it?
>
> Damn!
>
> Perhaps I was trying to keep it secret. :-)
>
> Here it is
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2809436834_da5fae71f4.jpg?v=0
Ignore the trolls. I like the shot since I like photos of large industrial
objects and scenes. But that's just me.
Frank ess
PaytonT wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:25:40 -0600, George Kerby
> <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[ ... ]
>> You should have kept that camera. I don't think too many Brownies
>> had view camera rising standards like the one that made this
>> image. Probably be a collector's item today. Too bad you were too
>> dumb to let it go.
>>
>> Just the facts, Jack...
>
> Uh, for the sake of educating an idiot .... you are aware that view
> camera perspective-correction benefits can also be duplicated 100%
> in the dark-room, are you not?
>
> Amazing. You wasted a view camera on a useless, boring, and
> meaningless scene like that? How pathetic can one get. You must
> have run out of cats to photograph or something and were trying to
> expand your photographic horizons -- sadly missed finding all
> possible new horizons.
While I should let you two shoo-ins in the arseholery sweepstakes
continue to shred each other, which I'm sure you're both enjoying way
out of proportion to the wit you can muster, I'll take a turn for my
own amusement. Seems to me it will be very like "educating an idiot",
but not so, uh, inappropriate as those last two paragraphs.
If you are old, you have the misfortune of living this far through
your life without developing any empathy, or even understanding, that
others can be "good" and "non-idiotic" without accepting your
definitions of those things; that they can be "interesting" and
"interested" without being interesting in your (apparently) narrow
perception; that you penalize yourself, perhaps justifiably, by
denying yourself the pleasure of appreciating myriad things that might
not fit the jumbled jigsaw of your views of life and the world.
If you are young, take a breath: in the war between you and everything
else, bet on anything else. In the not-very-exciting, blanc
mange-but-true words of Carlos Castañeda:
"We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same."
Cheers!
--
Frank ess
Darthfeeble
"Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:G7mdnS1MlN0fvKXU...@giganews.com...
desmond r.
Feel better now? It still doesn't make that photograph any better nor compensate
a person for the time they have wasted in going to look at it. But nice try.
Every time it is suggested to go look at someone's photography on the net, and
then I foolishly do (hope springs eternal), I feel like I've just had the
displeasure of trying to get out of watching someone's slide-show of their
uninteresting tourist-tailored vacation.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:05:55 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:01:25 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:qutdj4d3cs2at1b65...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
>>>>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>>>>white photos.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
>>>> on two counts.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
>>>
>>>Sounds nice. Where is it?
>>
>>Damn!
>>
>>Perhaps I was trying to keep it secret. :-)
>>
>>Here it is
>>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2809436834_da5fae71f4.jpg?v=0
>>
>
>Methinks you should have kept it a "secret". No POI, ergo no interesting
>composition.
You miss the point. It's B&W (black and white) photograph of a B&W
(Burmeister and Wain) engine.
>
>If I was that company I'd even have a difficult time selecting that for a
>monthly flier. It says nothing, conveys nothing, is nothing.
>
>I don't think I've seen a more boring photo.
>
>Sorry, dem's da fac's.
>
>Oh wait, I take that back. On an outing to Yerkes Observatory (the largest
>refracting telescope in the world, even today) when I was 7 years old and had my
>Brownie Box Camera, I took a photo similar to yours. (true) I still have a print
>from that photo to remind myself of what to never do again.
Eric Stevens
bowser
And you just reminded me that I have several black and white shots of a
Babcock & Wilcox reactor vessel. I'll have to dig one out for this mandate.
And they didn't miss the point, they're just simple trolls. Best ignored.
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:9qafj4lti6sqdaf1j...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:01:25 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:qutdj4d3cs2at1b65...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the
>>>>>posters
>>>>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>>>>white photos.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a B&W photograph of a B&W engine on test. It seems to qualify
>>>> on two counts.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not going to enter it as it's not my photograph.
>>>
>>>Sounds nice. Where is it?
>>
>> Damn!
>>
>> Perhaps I was trying to keep it secret. :-)
>>
>> Here it is
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2809436834_da5fae71f4.jpg?v=0
>
>Ignore the trolls. I like the shot since I like photos of large industrial
>objects and scenes. But that's just me.
Well, this one should interest you (even though the engine photographs
are lousy).
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2006/12/biggest-ships-in-world-part-3.html
Eric Stevens
bowser
Holey crap! What pistons! Now that's a big engine. Nice link, thanks.
McPhotos
Here's a slightly larger image of what those muthas drive:
(there's also a link from the site Bowser cited.)
<http://www.jtashipphoto.dk/jtashipphoto.dk%201/Emma%20Maersk/emma_maersk.htm>
--
john mcwilliams
George Kerby
On 12/4/08 10:54 AM, in article 972gj4dh34fhh2ql9...@4ax.com,
"PaytonT" <p...@honestasdirt.org> wrote:
Very much so. But the Durst Laborator that could do it would also be a
professional piece of equipment. So you argument is moot, moron.
> Amazing. You wasted a view camera on a useless, boring, and meaningless scene
> like that? How pathetic can one get. You must have run out of cats to
> photograph
> or something and were trying to expand your photographic horizons -- sadly
> missed finding all possible new horizons.
>
Perhaps you have not a brain to understand that this kind of photography can
only be done with a trained eye and the correct tools to make it happen. You
and your Brownie are out of this league.
BTW: In all your confusion, you missed the fact that the O.P. Said it wasn't
his work. Somehow, off your meds, you assummed that I produced this. So I
must announce: "ATTENTION-RETARD: George Kerby did NOT make this image".
Better now? Now run along and play on the freeway...
George Kerby
On 12/4/08 12:31 PM, in article
prudnZpjVZuXv6XU...@giganews.com, "Darthfeeble"
So, tell us, Frank Ass, just how many socks you got on these days?