Somewhere out there, a monkey just got his drivers licence...
Dudley Hanks
"Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
and took another picture of him.
You be the judge:
MichOnBus-:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg (quick
loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original RAW)
Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
2009, all rights reserved.
You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself for
any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
publication.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message news:...
BTW, if you like the pic and you know a dog lover who'd just die to see such
a handsome dog having so much fun, why not forward a link to your friend.
I'd really appreciate it if you could also suggest that a donation be given
to Guide Dogs for the Blind. If the link gets passed around enough and
enough people donate, GDB will have a lot easier time coping with this nasty
economic slump.
People can go to: http://www.guidedogs.com
Then, they just need to click on the Donate link.
Thanks,
Dudley
Paul Furman
>
> You be the judge:
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
> (quick loading)
Well done!
> Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
Ha, yeah right, like you are ever going to know <evil grin>.
BTW as mentioned, that was the P&S troll the other day...
PS are you going to post these to the blog? The link above goes to what
appears to be a dead domain, if I clip off the details... so no way to
find these other than your posts here.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Dudley Hanks
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:8KLsl.1560$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>> You be the judge:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
>> (quick loading)
>
> Well done!
>
>
>> Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
>
> Ha, yeah right, like you are ever going to know <evil grin>.
Did I forget to mention that click activated virus embeddede in the image?
In graphical terms, it helps embellish the glint in his eye, but, I wouldn't
want to be on the wrong end of a copyright violation... :)
>
> BTW as mentioned, that was the P&S troll the other day...
Yeah, I know. He actually makes a nice whipping boy for some long-standing
frustrations... :)
>
> PS are you going to post these to the blog? The link above goes to what
> appears to be a dead domain, if I clip off the details... so no way to
> find these other than your posts here.
Yep, I'm in the final stages of moving my blog from blogspot to my own
site -- this pic will probably accompany my first article. Also, I've got
sstreaming video ready to go, so I should be doing some short video clips
(with the help of my daughter's new video cam, another Canon).
But, what pleases me the most is that my XSi finally feels good in my hands.
The mindset has changed from "Can I do it?" to "I can do it!" So, I don't
overthink pics as much. I've always been more of a reactive shooter than a
studio dweller, so I do the best work when a scene pops up in front of my
lens.
I've had to reprogram a few "muscle memories," but I think my shooting days
have definitely gotten their second wind.
Take Care,
Dudley
Justin C
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
At the risk of upsetting another, focus should be on the eye(s), not the
back of the head. But it look like a shot you didn't take through the
viewfinder, more likely at arms length, maybe without even being able to
see the display.
It's a great shot. I especially like the out of focus woman(?) in the
background. There's enough detail in her face to see her enjoying seeing
you enjoying the dog - or at least, that's how I see it. Shame about
your(?) legs and jacket in the shot, but I really like the portrait.
Have you looked at Elliot Erwitt's work? He enjoyed taking photos of
dogs - among other things.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Get Real
Commercial use? You're losing your mind along with your sight.
This is better, how? Another ordinary snapshot like any school-kid would
take with their cell-phone camera when on a field-trip bus outing. To top
it off your P&S camera focused on the dog's ear and leash around its neck,
putting the main features of the dog's face out of focus, including the
eyes. If you were going to do it right you would have focused somewhere on
the dog's snout just in front of the eye, so the nose to ear were all in
focus. Unless you are trying to portray a vehicle out of control then you
should have at least held the camera more level, or straightened and
cropped in editing. The exposure is wrong, you lost valuable detail in all
the shadows and didn't properly expose for the highlights. That's what
people get for wishfully depending on a "fancy" camera do all the work for
them.
The woman with chin in hand in the background of the image is just as
amused as everyone else being subjected to your carnival sideshow act.
Watching a blind guy trying to pretend he can do photography. "Awwww....
isn't that cute, look at what the monkey is trying to do ..." To bad that
she didn't get to see the results too--more flung feces.
Consumer camera technology is not going to replace your eyes. Grow-up and
face reality. If I lost my eyesight I would face it like an adult and
switch gears; probably devote more to my music interests; taking another
stab at honing my skills on shakuhachi or maybe some other instrument I
haven't tried yet. Maybe go back to sculpting or some other artistic
interest that's not wholly vision dependent. There are thousands of things
that one can pursue without eyesight. It wouldn't bother me in the least if
I lost my eyesight. Just as a personal test I lived that way once for two
weeks, alone, to see what it would be like and if it would bother me. I
found hundreds of things to do while living without eyesight. But at least
I wouldn't make a public fool of myself trying to pretend to do what I
would now be incapable of doing. Or in your case, could never do to begin
with, your skills so far have proved that you never were talented with a
camera.
Want some constructive criticism? In case you refuse to grow up and face
realty. Quit trying to use shallow DOF in your photography. You can't see
well enough to make proper use of it. Any time that you try you only
destroy the photo that you were hoping to capture. Auto-focus is not
intelligent enough to do it for you, in any camera. Set your camera to
manual focus and leave it set on a hyperfocal setting, turn it into even
more of an Instamatic snapshot camera so all your faults and limitations
aren't so blatantly obvious to those with functional eyes. Make composition
your goal, not the individual subjects. I'm not sure what you'll do about
your dependency on auto-exposure too, other than to learn the faults of
your camera and count how many EV button presses it should take to override
the camera designer's stupidity. Learn to hide your limitations with your
camera. Then it won't look like you're an insecure idiot trying to be what
you can never be. Instead you'll only be one of the many millions of
mundane snapshot photographers with a grade-school level of field-trip
cell-phone-camera talent. You're only amplifying your faults and
limitations and then broadcasting them to the world with what you are doing
now. You're looking like a delusional dwarf running around on the
basketball court who is hoping to be drafted by a pro team. Embarrassingly
entertaining.
Find something else you might be good at one day because it's never going
to be photography. I'm doing you a huge favor in being the only one here
who is completely honest with you. The rest are only amusing you out of
their own personal fears, insecurities, and the worst self-serving motive
of all--pity. Grow up and deal with it.
Get Real.
Mark Thomas
Dudley - that's a corker. Everything works well in that image. Print
it big and display it!
And as pointed out by others, ignore the troll. He's well known and
completely out of his tree.
Mark Thomas
(abuse deleted)
> Get Real.
Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
aware of his background.
"Get Real" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.
He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
withdrawn posts and images. He doesn't like leaving a trail, but is too
incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..
Stands out like the proverbial puppy nuts.. (O:
For further details, google "keoeeit minnesota". You'll see his posts
are often lamenting about how he lives alone...
Umm, any questions?
Feel free to follow his sad path of self-destruction by searching on the
names above, but you may need a strong stomach..
If anyone is in Minnesota and sees him (here's a picture!):
http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369
..maybe you can pass on my thoughts, which are probably similar to yours
after reading that vomit he just posted..
George Kerby
On 3/9/09 6:56 AM, in article gp3057$n0q$1...@reader.motzarella.org, "Mark
Thomas" <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought it might have been Ray Fischer - since he advocates the "Brokeback
Mountian" lifestyle.
Dudley Hanks
"Mark Thomas" <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gp2vk9$m1e$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
Thanks, Mark, appreciate the comments. I'm going to print it later this
week, on my trusty laser printer.
Regarding the resident Troll, he's no prob. He just gives me a reason to
vent...
Sadly, though, I've encountered 'people' just like him, face-to-face.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Get Real" <g...@spambegone.org> wrote in message
news:fnk9r454g4rrv25gk...@4ax.com...
Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.
Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
"point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)
http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg
This pic, although shot on a P&S at a wider aperture than the one with
shallow DOF, definitely has more DOF. Most knowledgeable shooters know that
you can't do shallow DOF with a P&S, but I'm flattered you think I have the
skills to get that shallow DOF from a P&S cam.
Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.
Second, you seem to think it is an acceptable goal for a sighted shooter to
tilt a camera in order to portray a bus out of control. So, why can't I use
that technique, or lost detail in shadows for that matter, to depict an
event experienced by a blind individual, after all, I lose way more shadow
detail than that when I look at a scene. You operate on the wrong premise
that the picture you would have tried to capture in my situation is the same
image I want to capture. You're wrong. The image I WANT is drastically
different than any image you would shoot. I'd go so far as to say that YOU
CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE AN IMAGE I WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE, which will always
result in my shooting pics you can't understand. But, hey, you might at
least TRY to exercise your imagination in order to tentatively ponder
alternative interpretations of my work? Or, is your mind so narrow you are
incapable of that. I guess that's why you are critiquing pics here in
Usenet, as opposed to getting paid for your opinions by a media outlet /
trades newsletter.
Regarding the shallow DOF, many of my current pics use it because it yields
a result I am after: rendering visible a world that isn't perfectly
focused. After all, I DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY
FOCUSED.
And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
pics.
By your logic, Beethoven should have stopped his hammerings long before
composing his 5th symphony; Hellen Keller should have given up and
committed suicide; and Governor Patterson should be working for a charity.
Fortunately, some of us can see past our limitations.
It was once pointed out that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Well,
in my case, it takes a team to make a photograph, which isn't all that much
different than for sighted shooters, most just don't realize it.
When learning their trade, photographers learn from others what works, what
doesn't and how to interpret scenes they are confronted by. They then apply
that knowledge to future pics. And, especially in the early days, they
learn a great deal from feedback they receive from friends, family members
and clients after each pic is reviewed (either formally, or informally).
Why should I be denied the benefit of feedback simply because I have a
vision limitation? According to your logic, people shouldn't be given
wheelchairs when they lose their legs, because their pathetic attempts to
get around their community is an embarrassment to the able-bodied people
they meet strolling down the sidewalk?
The biggest hurdle I have to overcome when displaying my work is to educate
my viewers that I am NOT trying to photograph images in a traditional
fashion. Instead, I am trying to use traditional techniques to photograph
scenes which REPRESENT small slices of my world.
You seem to think that your twisted logic is superior to others. But, what
you fail to realize is that your comments simply highlight your lack of
empathetic development. According to Stephen Covey (in Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People), achieving symbiotic relationships with others is
preferable to self-sufficiency because it allows each individual to not only
benefit from their own skills and talents, but to achieve an even higher
standard of living because each member of the relationship gains from
others' abilities.
But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.
I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
say).
I was aware of some of what you wrote, in particular that the camera wasn't
level, and that the face isn't entirely in focus. But, if you could just
hold your attitude in check for a moment, you might understand, as I've
explained, that my pics SHOULD NOT look like pics of sighted shooters. I
have always shot with the premise that my pics should contain a bit of me in
each, because it is that personal touch which makes pics unique /
indellible.
Hence, if I want to shoot pics about a blind person's world, why would I
want to remove all indications that the shooter is blind? That would defeat
my purpose and would truly reduce my work to run-of-the-mill snapshots.
Right? But, when you can look at my shots and see my stamp and think, "Hey,
his world is kind of neat, even though it is a bit unstable." Then, I have
conveyed a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's world. I can't
say it enough: If a sighted shooter shot pics like these and said, "Hey,
I'm trying to portray a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's
world," he'd probably get tons of critical acclaim and awards would roll in.
Right? I'd bet on it. Why can't I use the technique when I'm an actual
blind person trying to shoot pics that portray that same reality?
Regarding the woman looking at us, how do you know that she is looking at us
because I'm trying to take a picture. Believe me, when I step onto a bus
(where dogs are not allowed) with my rather large shepherd, all eyes are on
us. And, they continue to watch us simply because we are a distraction from
the daily humdrum of their lives.
I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a previous
shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."
At first, I thought he was glad because he got to experience my wonderful
wit and fluent small talk, but he set me straight when he added, "...
because when you are sitting there with that big shepherd, everyone is so
well behaved."
So, once again, your interpretation of my work is based on your projecting
your dissatisfaction with your own existance onto my reality. If I can make
people smile, whether it be because of bringing a dog into a place where it
isn't normally found, or whether it is because they find my antics amusing,
pathetic, or whatever, great! I've made the world a more beautiful place,
even if it is just for a moment, or for a few minutes.
You said you tried living as a blind person for a short time, by
blindfolding yourself. But, that doesn't give you the whole picture. You
KNEW you weren't actually blind, so it is easy for you to think, hey, I can
do this. The fact that you can take the blinders off should you truly face
a life and death situation is always in the back of your mind, whether you
admit that to yourself or not. Things look WAY different when that safety
net is removed, and you TRULY have to face reality. Ask any blind person
who has had to confront a sightless future.
Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
interacting with.
When it comes to photography, I get to experience a bit of that interaction.
In many of my pics, there are people watching me, or my dog, or both of us
together. To experience a bi-species team at work, communicating with each
other and solving a problem is something I hope you get to experience in
your life time. For me, I have been fortunate enough not only to watch such
a team, but to actually be an integral part of three teams.
For me, having my dog help me find my way to the mall is no different than
asking people for information about a scene I want to shoot, or for feedback
about shots I've already taken. It is all part of the process, and, while
it becomes an integral component in my work, it does not void my work. Just
like any other photographer's talent is not negated by his mentors /
instructors / clients' feedback, even though the photog makes adjustments
based on their comments and ideas.
As I've told other detractors in the past, please, keep the feedback coming.
I may use it; I may not. But, whatever you say, it gives me something to
think about, and it gives me very valuable details about my images, details
I couldn't use (even if I wanted to) if I didn't get it.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
links should be:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip-small.jpg (quick
loading)
"Get Real" <g...@spambegone.org> wrote in message
news:fnk9r454g4rrv25gk...@4ax.com...
Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
Dudley Hanks
"Justin C" <justi...@purestblue.com> wrote in message
news:slrngr8l1l.9...@satori.local...
You're right, I had the camera at arm's length taking the shot, with my
wrist twisted around a railing support. For more info about the actual
taking of the shot, see:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/blindapertures
Your post is a perfect example of why I love posting images here: each
person who responds tells me something new about my image. In this case,
that part of me is showing -- my jacket and pants.
When still in the camera, I asked a few people if I am visible, everybody
said no, possibly because the LCD image is too small for them to notice, or
they didn't look at it close enough.
If the image were cropped to remove that part, would it cut into Mich or the
woman?
Regarding the focus, these candid shots aren't meant as a formal, or even an
environmental, portrait. They're just pics I take to show people what my
world is like. Obviously, the shots will never truly demonstrate my
reality, but I hope they get people thinking.
Over the next few months, I want to shoot a number of shots on this theme
and put together a display. With a little luck, maybe a gallery will pick
up on the idea and feature it.
Regarding Elliott Erwitt, I haven't heard of him, but I'll try to check out
his work.
Take Care,
Dudley
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:IKftl.16120$Db2.11733@edtnps83...
What I especially like about dogs, it's their loyalty, and thay can be
trained, too, which, of course, is impossible with cats. Don't worry about
the troll, it's a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black,
Trying to reason with him is tantamount to emptying the Atlantic Ocean with
a bucket, better ignore him. I also liked very much the B&W photo you took
of your dog, that is another good thing with dogs, taking a good photo of a
cat is almost impossible, mine always came close to the camera out of
curiosity, to see what it is.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Get Real
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
>Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
>"point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
Too bad that you're an idiot and don't realize when someone is using the
string "P&S" to refer to someone who can't use their DSLR in anything but
point and shoot camera mode, like any typical snapshooter. My first reply
already acknowledged that you are using a DSLR in nothing but brain-dead
point and shoot mode. But then that P&S behavior/lack-of-talent is typical
of anyone who buys a DSLR thinking that it's the camera that's going to
improve their photography.
>you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
>show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
>cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:
Actually they can achieve that shallow DOF and even better than that. If
you knew what you were doing. Clearly you don't.
Your continual hindsight justifications, after your faults are shown to
you, are ... laughable. To say the least.
Well, I paid my five-cents to this sad and sadder carnival sideshow act --
overpaid. Too bad there's no ticket-office to demand my money back.
Dudley Hanks
>>cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:
>
> Actually they can achieve that shallow DOF and even better than that. If
> you knew what you were doing. Clearly you don't.
You can, of course, prove it with shots you've taken?
Take Care,
Dudley
Get Real
Yes, I can. But as explained, I've already overpaid to watch your
embarrassingly sad and trollish carnival act.
Dudley Hanks
Bang! Another bullet hole in your foot...
Just a quick aside:
From your comments about my "hindsight justification," it sounds like you
actually understand that I am not trying to be a traditional photographer,
shooting traditional pics, within traditional style norms, and that seems to
make sense to you. Too bad you didn't think along those lines before
posting your vitriolic dribble in the first place...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Another afterthought:
It's too bad you feel the need to insult when you give feedback. As noted
previously, you HAVE given me info others haven't, and I have found that
rather helpful.
I hope you won't quit critiquing my work just because I bite back when you
insult my motives and intelligence.
Take Care,
Dudley
Justin C
You'll ruin the shot if you crop yourself out of it. You're just going
to have to go back and do it again. :-)
> Regarding Elliott Erwitt, I haven't heard of him, but I'll try to check out
> his work.
He has an exceptional eye for a shot, sometimes great humour in his
images too. Really worth checking out - as are most Magnum photogs.
Dudley Hanks
>> the
>> woman?
>
> You'll ruin the shot if you crop yourself out of it. You're just going
> to have to go back and do it again. :-)
>
I ride the bus a lot, so no shortage of opportunities to reshoot. Staging
it so we have enough room could be tricky, though... BUT< HEY< I love a
challenge!
>
>> Regarding Elliott Erwitt, I haven't heard of him, but I'll try to check
>> out
>> his work.
>
> He has an exceptional eye for a shot, sometimes great humour in his
> images too. Really worth checking out - as are most Magnum photogs.
>
I read Mr. Erwitt's bio and was greatly impressed. I'll check out one (or
two) of his books at earliest opportunity. Thanks for pointing him out.
Take Care,
Dudley