Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ALBINOS LOVE THE FABULOUS 5D2!
78 views
Skip to first unread message
Annika1980
Sep 11, 2012, 10:55:17 AM9/11/12
to
This is actually a leucistic Ruby-Throated Hummingbird, and not a true
albino.
Both are rare, but albinos have pink feet, bills, and eyes.
I was lucky enough to hear about one in my town this week. Naturally,
I got the shot.
http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X2.jpg
albino.
Both are rare, but albinos have pink feet, bills, and eyes.
I was lucky enough to hear about one in my town this week. Naturally,
I got the shot.
http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X2.jpg
Ron
Sep 11, 2012, 12:47:11 PM9/11/12
to
Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X2.jpg
Wow, nice one.
> http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X2.jpg
Wow, nice one.
Alan Browne
Sep 11, 2012, 4:45:58 PM9/11/12
to
--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.
Noons
Sep 11, 2012, 8:38:40 PM9/11/12
to
On Sep 12, 6:45 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
>
> >http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X...
wrote:
>
> >http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X...
>
> Very nice - but from you I would have expected 3 or 4 shots...
Would have been even nicer if the bird's head was in focus...
> Very nice - but from you I would have expected 3 or 4 shots...
Helen
Sep 12, 2012, 7:05:30 AM9/12/12
to
Just knowing the effort he put in to finding and capturing this
elusive Hummingbird is remarkable! An awesome capture Bret!
Robert Coe
Sep 12, 2012, 11:33:54 PM9/12/12
to
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:55:17 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com>
wrote:
: This is actually a leucistic Ruby-Throated Hummingbird, and not a true
Bret is to hummingbirds as former U.S. President Bill Clinton is to black
people. Asked about his exceptional appeal to black voters, Mr Clinton
replied: "It's not rocket science. Black people like people who like them!"
In almost 75 years, I've seen a hummingbird on the wing two or three times.
Bret photographs them whenever he pleases. It can't be a coincidence.
Bob
wrote:
: This is actually a leucistic Ruby-Throated Hummingbird, and not a true
people. Asked about his exceptional appeal to black voters, Mr Clinton
replied: "It's not rocket science. Black people like people who like them!"
In almost 75 years, I've seen a hummingbird on the wing two or three times.
Bret photographs them whenever he pleases. It can't be a coincidence.
Bob
gpsman
Sep 13, 2012, 9:57:17 AM9/13/12
to
On Sep 11, 10:55 am, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Naturally,
> I got the shot.
>
> http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X...
> I got the shot.
>
Talent on loan from God...
-----
- gpsman
Alan Browne
Sep 13, 2012, 7:45:44 PM9/13/12
to
uncommon here, but not so much that you can lay in wait for a reliable
shot. I only see them a few times per summer and its over in seconds.
I was in King's canyon and the hummingbirds were a nuisance there were
so many (that's where you see how aggressive they can be to one
another). (My own photos weren't very good given the lighting where
most of them were).
Robert Coe
Sep 13, 2012, 9:33:33 PM9/13/12
to
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:57:17 -0700 (PDT), gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. Bret obviously has natural artistic
ability, but it's also clear that he's worked hard to make himself a good
photographer. Hard work may not be enough - probably it isn't enough - but
it's a necessary component. Just as it is for, say, a good musician.
Bob
wrote:
ability, but it's also clear that he's worked hard to make himself a good
photographer. Hard work may not be enough - probably it isn't enough - but
it's a necessary component. Just as it is for, say, a good musician.
Bob
Noons
Sep 14, 2012, 7:18:11 AM9/14/12
to
Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 14/09/2012 11:33 AM:
> : Talent on loan from God...
>
> Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. Bret obviously has natural artistic
> ability, but it's also clear that he's worked hard to make himself a good
> photographer. Hard work may not be enough - probably it isn't enough - but
> it's a necessary component. Just as it is for, say, a good musician.
Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
> : Talent on loan from God...
>
> Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. Bret obviously has natural artistic
> ability, but it's also clear that he's worked hard to make himself a good
> photographer. Hard work may not be enough - probably it isn't enough - but
> it's a necessary component. Just as it is for, say, a good musician.
Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
Robert Coe
Sep 15, 2012, 3:26:05 PM9/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:18:11 +1000, Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Noons, all of us in this group understand that your work is far better than
Bret's. But since you refuse to show us any of it, we have no way to accord it
the fulsome praise it so richly deserves. We all live in the hope that someday
you'll relent.
After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
Bob
Bret's. But since you refuse to show us any of it, we have no way to accord it
the fulsome praise it so richly deserves. We all live in the hope that someday
you'll relent.
After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
Bob
Noons
Sep 16, 2012, 3:33:48 AM9/16/12
to
Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2012 5:26 AM:
> Noons, all of us in this group understand that your work is far better than
> Bret's.
Actually, it isn't. But that doesn't stop me from pointing out an out of focus
> Noons, all of us in this group understand that your work is far better than
> Bret's.
image when I see one.
Call me weird but I couldn't care less if the subject is extremelly rare: it is
out of focus, FFS!
Last time I looked, when appreciating photos we evaluate the technique,
execution and correct use of perspective, etcetc. The actual subject matter and
how hard it is to find is TOTALLY irrelevant. But I don't expect idiots like
you to grasp the details there...
> But since you refuse to show us any of it, we have no way to accord it
> the fulsome praise it so richly deserves.
head: they are NOT REAL!
Second: only your total stupidity and narrowminded view of the world stops you
from seeing my "work".
> We all live in the hope that someday
> you'll relent.
> After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
Annika1980
Sep 16, 2012, 11:40:54 PM9/16/12
to
On Sep 14, 7:18 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
> Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
> get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
Hey Noons, is this one in focus?
>
> Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
> Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
> get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146031169/original.jpg
How about this one?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146096093/original.jpg
Or maybe this one:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146096147/original.jpg
Suck me.
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 8:04:22 AM9/17/12
to
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2012 1:40 PM:
>> Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
>> Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
>> get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
>
> Hey Noons, is this one in focus?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146031169/original.jpg
>
> How about this one?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146096093/original.jpg
>
> Or maybe this one:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146096147/original.jpg
>
> Suck me.
>
Hey dickhead: I don't give a shit what you are showing now.
>> Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
>> Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
>> get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
>
> Hey Noons, is this one in focus?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146031169/original.jpg
>
> How about this one?
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146096093/original.jpg
>
> Or maybe this one:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146096147/original.jpg
>
> Suck me.
>
I commented that the one you posted originally has its main subject completely
out of focus and I stand by what I said.
If you think differently, then post a blown out, grossly over-sharpened crop so
that all the fawners can go goo-goo-gaa-gaa at the sharpening rings.
Don't try to change the subject, dipshit: you're not intelligent enough to do so.
Annika1980
Sep 17, 2012, 12:03:36 PM9/17/12
to
plenty sharp enough to produce 8"x10" prints.
Perhaps I could better understand your point when you show me your
shots of leucistic hummingbirds, or any hummingbirds, or any birds at
all for that matter. If you want to have a sharpness dick-measuring
contest, I'll be happy to whip out a few of mine. Not all of them of
course, just enough to win the bet.
Here's one more crop from a full frame of a hummer flying. Is that
sharp enough for your stupid ass?
http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/2012/i-fkTCf9V/0/L/MG3674fb-L.jpg
Helen
Sep 17, 2012, 12:38:32 PM9/17/12
to
Having tried to capture hummingbirds in mid-flight, let alone them
sitting on a branch, then add into that holding a heavy long lens and
limited DOF, I know how much hard work goes into it. Bret's work
rates up there with the world's top nature photographers...deserving
of praise.
rwalker
Sep 17, 2012, 2:02:43 PM9/17/12
to
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:33:48 +1000, Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>First of all there is no "us", dipshit. Stop listening to the voices in your
>head: they are NOT REAL!
>Second: only your total stupidity and narrowminded view of the world stops you
>from seeing my "work".
Had a computer crash and lost all my filters for Agent. Now I
remember why I had this numbnuts in there in the first place. Plonk
once again.
wrote:
>First of all there is no "us", dipshit. Stop listening to the voices in your
>head: they are NOT REAL!
>Second: only your total stupidity and narrowminded view of the world stops you
>from seeing my "work".
remember why I had this numbnuts in there in the first place. Plonk
once again.
rwalker
Sep 17, 2012, 2:04:24 PM9/17/12
to
tony cooper
Sep 17, 2012, 3:15:19 PM9/17/12
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:02:43 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
wrote:
Certain things we can always count on: Bret will upload a very good
image, noons will follow with some inane comments about the image,
Helen will follow slobbering over Bret's image. It's a trifecta.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
image, noons will follow with some inane comments about the image,
Helen will follow slobbering over Bret's image. It's a trifecta.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 9:55:54 PM9/17/12
to
rwalker wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2012 4:02 AM:
>
> Had a computer crash and lost all my filters for Agent. Now I
> remember why I had this numbnuts in there in the first place. Plonk
> once again.
>
Eat shit and die, arsehole.
>
> Had a computer crash and lost all my filters for Agent. Now I
> remember why I had this numbnuts in there in the first place. Plonk
> once again.
>
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 9:56:50 PM9/17/12
to
tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2012 5:15 AM:
>
> Certain things we can always count on: Bret will upload a very good
> image, noons will follow with some inane comments about the image,
So out of focus is inane to you? Great, a LOT is explained now...
>
> Certain things we can always count on: Bret will upload a very good
> image, noons will follow with some inane comments about the image,
> Helen will follow slobbering over Bret's image. It's a trifecta.
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 10:10:07 PM9/17/12
to
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2012 2:03 AM:
> The pic in question was already a tiny crop from the original and is
> plenty sharp enough to produce 8"x10" prints.
Really? Can you prove that the print is sharp? Oh, that's right: making an
> The pic in question was already a tiny crop from the original and is
> plenty sharp enough to produce 8"x10" prints.
8X10 print of a crap image is your "proof". Right...
> Perhaps I could better understand your point when you show me your
> shots of leucistic hummingbirds, or any hummingbirds, or any birds at
> all for that matter.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/5d2%20oof.jpg
> If you want to have a sharpness dick-measuring
> contest, I'll be happy to whip out a few of mine. Not all of them of
> course, just enough to win the bet.
I'll use small words to see if you understand:
you published a photo that has the main subject grossly out of focus.
As expected, your groupies fawned over it.
I pointed out the reality: it is OOF.
"contests" only exist in your stupid bipolar mind, moron!
> Here's one more crop from a full frame of a hummer flying. Is that
> sharp enough for your stupid ass?
> http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/2012/i-fkTCf9V/0/L/MG3674fb-L.jpg
Do something like this, handheld, no "crops" whatsoever, with film:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/frontage.jpg
then we'll talk. Oh, and stop right there: try and alter any of my images and
you'll lose ANOTHER internet account. Got it nice and clear?
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 10:10:47 PM9/17/12
to
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 10:11:37 PM9/17/12
to
rwalker wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2012 4:04 AM:
>
> Damn! Those are impressive!
Indeed they are. The original post one isn't, though.
>
> Damn! Those are impressive!
Indeed they are. The original post one isn't, though.
Robert Coe
Sep 17, 2012, 11:18:55 PM9/17/12
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com>
wrote:
I think we should lay off of Noons. (That includes you, Bret!) How will we all
feel if our comments cause Noons to have a stroke and his son posts an article
on his blog lamenting his father's vegetative state and blaming us for setting
him off? Oh, the humanity!!
Bob
wrote:
feel if our comments cause Noons to have a stroke and his son posts an article
on his blog lamenting his father's vegetative state and blaming us for setting
him off? Oh, the humanity!!
Bob
Noons
Sep 17, 2012, 11:34:26 PM9/17/12
to
Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2012 1:18 PM:
> I think we should lay off of Noons. (That includes you, Bret!) How will we all
> feel if our comments cause Noons to have a stroke and his son posts an article
> on his blog lamenting his father's vegetative state and blaming us for setting
> him off? Oh, the humanity!!
Dream on, stupid wank.
> I think we should lay off of Noons. (That includes you, Bret!) How will we all
> feel if our comments cause Noons to have a stroke and his son posts an article
> on his blog lamenting his father's vegetative state and blaming us for setting
> him off? Oh, the humanity!!
Guess what, I'm still here and in full work, for many years to come.
While you, are retired and ready for the big burn!
Noons
Sep 18, 2012, 12:12:52 AM9/18/12
to
Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2012 2:38 AM:
> limited DOF, I know how much hard work goes into it. Bret's work
> rates up there with the world's top nature photographers...deserving
> of praise.
>
Oh yeah? So tell us, Helen: why isn't he already a top nature photographer?
> limited DOF, I know how much hard work goes into it. Bret's work
> rates up there with the world's top nature photographers...deserving
> of praise.
>
Other than in your imagination, that is.
Heck, you've been claiming that for years now, isn't it about time it FINALLY
matched reality? Tell me: where was his work PUBLICLY acknowledged as a "top
nature photographer"?
Come on, miss fawn: for once put some reality in your idiotic tirades!
No? Then STFU, STUPID BITCH!
Annika1980
Sep 18, 2012, 11:45:48 AM9/18/12
to
On Sep 17, 10:10 pm, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> I don't comment on sharpness of 800X500 images, stupid ass.
> Do something like this, handheld, no "crops" whatsoever, with film:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/frontage.jpg
> then we'll talk. Oh, and stop right there: try and alter any of my images and
> you'll lose ANOTHER internet account. Got it nice and clear?
Oh wow, a full-sized image down-sized for the web. Anybody can make
>
> I don't comment on sharpness of 800X500 images, stupid ass.
> Do something like this, handheld, no "crops" whatsoever, with film:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/frontage.jpg
> then we'll talk. Oh, and stop right there: try and alter any of my images and
> you'll lose ANOTHER internet account. Got it nice and clear?
that look sharp, dumbass. That's why you need to post actual size
crops so we can see the actual sharpness.
And what internet account could I possibly lose, dipshit? Google?
LOL! What a moron.
Annika1980
Sep 18, 2012, 11:56:24 AM9/18/12
to
Here is the full fame image. Tell me where I missed the focus, idiot.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146129068
Noons
Sep 19, 2012, 1:45:45 AM9/19/12
to
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/09/2012 1:56 AM:
>>> Damn! Those are impressive!
>>
>> Indeed they are. The original post one isn't, though.
>
> cough*bullshit!*cough
>
> Here is the full fame image. Tell me where I missed the focus, idiot.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146129068
On the supposed main subject, moron. I've said it repeatedly for quite a while
>>> Damn! Those are impressive!
>>
>> Indeed they are. The original post one isn't, though.
>
> cough*bullshit!*cough
>
> Here is the full fame image. Tell me where I missed the focus, idiot.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/146129068
now, which part of it did you not grasp?
Noons
Sep 19, 2012, 1:50:16 AM9/19/12
to
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/09/2012 1:45 AM:
>
> Oh wow, a full-sized image down-sized for the web.
Just like ALL of yours, isn't it?
>
> Oh wow, a full-sized image down-sized for the web.
> Anybody can make
> that look sharp, dumbass.
focus". One wonders: why use such a piece of machinery as a 5dm2 when you can
show as sharp with a 4MP camera...
> That's why you need to post actual size
> crops so we can see the actual sharpness.
> And what internet account could I possibly lose, dipshit? Google?
> LOL! What a moron.
Don't say I didn't warn you...
Robert Coe
Sep 19, 2012, 9:56:11 PM9/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:55:54 +1000, Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Noons, please ask your headshrinker to post an article here explaining why you
behave as you do. I think we'll be inclined to make allowances for your
appalling attitude if we become convinced that it isn't really your fault.
Bob
behave as you do. I think we'll be inclined to make allowances for your
appalling attitude if we become convinced that it isn't really your fault.
Bob
rwalker
Sep 19, 2012, 10:49:58 PM9/19/12
to
Annika1980
Sep 20, 2012, 1:19:05 AM9/20/12
to
On Sep 19, 1:50 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > That's why you need to post actual size
> > crops so we can see the actual sharpness.
>
> And when was it that you ever did that, moron?
>
I guess you haven't been following this thread. Do try to keep up.
>
> > That's why you need to post actual size
> > crops so we can see the actual sharpness.
>
> And when was it that you ever did that, moron?
>
Noons
Sep 20, 2012, 5:51:36 AM9/20/12
to
Noons
Sep 20, 2012, 5:54:09 AM9/20/12
to
the others here live in.
Don't want to be abused? Here's a simple hint, arsehole: DO NOT START IT.
It's a two-way street and NOTHING you can do will change it. Capice?
In case you haven't noticed, NO ONE promoted you or anyone else here to "bwana".
Noons
Sep 20, 2012, 5:55:24 AM9/20/12
to
rwalker wrote,on my timestamp of 20/09/2012 12:49 PM:
>
> He's quite the piece of work, isn't he?
>
Yes, fuckwit. And guess what: there is NOTHING you and the other f...tards here
>
> He's quite the piece of work, isn't he?
>
can do to make it any better for your little "club".
Robert Coe
Sep 20, 2012, 11:09:56 PM9/20/12
to
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:09 +1000, Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Si, capisco. But surely you meant to say "capisce"?
: In case you haven't noticed, NO ONE promoted you or anyone else here to "bwana".
"Bwana" just means "sir". (Perhaps your Swahili is a trifle weak, but there's
no shame in that. In the Outback you may never have even heard of Swahili. The
deplorably crude state of your English is a larger concern, but we'll let that
pass.) So please consider yourself promoted to "bwana".
Bob
: In case you haven't noticed, NO ONE promoted you or anyone else here to "bwana".
"Bwana" just means "sir". (Perhaps your Swahili is a trifle weak, but there's
no shame in that. In the Outback you may never have even heard of Swahili. The
deplorably crude state of your English is a larger concern, but we'll let that
pass.) So please consider yourself promoted to "bwana".
Bob
Noons
Sep 20, 2012, 11:28:30 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 21, 1:12 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> : It's a two-way street and NOTHING you can do will change it. Capice?
>
> Si, capisco. But surely you meant to say "capisce"?
Hehehe! Touché. Still, capice is easier to pronounce for
> : It's a two-way street and NOTHING you can do will change it. Capice?
>
> Si, capisco. But surely you meant to say "capisce"?
"Murrikans".
> : In case you haven't noticed, NO ONE promoted you or anyone else here to "bwana".
>
> "Bwana" just means "sir". (Perhaps your Swahili is a trifle weak, but there's
> no shame in that.
easier for you to pronounce) , a variation of shona and one of the
many Bantu dialects.
Don't worry: you don't need to find where that comes from. Flash:
there is more than one language/nation in Africa.
> In the Outback you may never have even heard of Swahili.
it. Try East Africa. And no, I am not of black race - nor am I
afraid of saying "black" to mean "African aboriginal".
> The
> deplorably crude state of your English is a larger concern, but we'll let that
> pass.)
you are of Murrican extraction, to call what you speak as English is
an insult to British subjects! Still, that's OK: in the interest of
civility, I'll let that pass. Said subjects can pick up the fight if
they so wish, over here we just call them "poms" and mostly ignore
them.
> So please consider yourself promoted to "bwana".
born!
;-)
otter
Sep 22, 2012, 9:18:33 AM9/22/12
to
On Sep 11, 9:55 am, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> This is actually a leucistic Ruby-Throated Hummingbird, and not a true
> albino.
> Both are rare, but albinos have pink feet, bills, and eyes.
>
> I was lucky enough to hear about one in my town this week. Naturally,
> I got the shot.
>
> http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X...
Nice picture, but it may be time for the FANTASTIC 5D3! Or the
DELICIOUS D800!
> This is actually a leucistic Ruby-Throated Hummingbird, and not a true
> albino.
> Both are rare, but albinos have pink feet, bills, and eyes.
>
> I was lucky enough to hear about one in my town this week. Naturally,
> I got the shot.
>
> http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photos/Nursery/i-zBbdzc4/0/X2/MG2307-X...
Nice picture, but it may be time for the FANTASTIC 5D3! Or the
DELICIOUS D800!
Chemiker
Sep 22, 2012, 4:28:41 PM9/22/12
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:18:11 +1000, Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 14/09/2012 11:33 AM:
>
>> : Talent on loan from God...
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. Bret obviously has natural artistic
>> ability, but it's also clear that he's worked hard to make himself a good
>> photographer. Hard work may not be enough - probably it isn't enough - but
>> it's a necessary component. Just as it is for, say, a good musician.
was not in focus, but it is the stronger for it. Some people think
Avedon hung the moon, others call him a whore. I think Capa was more
into the image, rather than (prissy) focus.
A-
wrote:
>Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 14/09/2012 11:33 AM:
>
>> : Talent on loan from God...
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. Bret obviously has natural artistic
>> ability, but it's also clear that he's worked hard to make himself a good
>> photographer. Hard work may not be enough - probably it isn't enough - but
>> it's a necessary component. Just as it is for, say, a good musician.
>
>Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
>Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
>get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
OK, maybe it's just me, but the picture of Ruth Snyder's electrocution
>Aw c'mon! Just get along with the stupid, mindless fawning like everyone else!
>Who cares if the image is not in focus where it is important? What, you wanna
>get all technical now all, of a sudden? You, communist!
was not in focus, but it is the stronger for it. Some people think
Avedon hung the moon, others call him a whore. I think Capa was more
into the image, rather than (prissy) focus.
A-
Chemiker
Sep 22, 2012, 4:30:51 PM9/22/12
to
I see the reason there are so few participants in this NG. Too many
horses asses, and too few horses.
horses asses, and too few horses.
Savageduck
Sep 22, 2012, 6:18:53 PM9/22/12
to
either image or focus. Since only 11 of the 109 images he shot that day
survived, albeit in a damaged condition due to high developing/drying
temperatures, All he could say was they were slightly out of focus.
He captured the image, but focus was left in a Life Magazine lab in London.
His 1936 "Death of a Loyalist Soldier" was all instant capture with no
thought with regard to composition or focus. Just the instant captured.
Consider his "Lost negatives".
<
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/01/27/arts/20080127_KENN_SLIDESHOW_index.html
>
His work in Indo-China was a little more planned and somewhat focused,
so much so his last roll of 35mm, shot before he stepped on the mine
that killed him, was downright ordinary.
This was his last frame, after shooting this shot his next step
triggered the mine.
< http://www.wardogs.com/images/capa_lastframe.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Noons
Sep 23, 2012, 6:05:48 AM9/23/12
to
Chemiker wrote,on my timestamp of 23/09/2012 6:28 AM:
> OK, maybe it's just me, but the picture of Ruth Snyder's electrocution
> was not in focus, but it is the stronger for it. Some people think
> Avedon hung the moon, others call him a whore. I think Capa was more
> into the image, rather than (prissy) focus.
I don't think a mundane shot of a bird from front-up qualifies as an "artiste"
> OK, maybe it's just me, but the picture of Ruth Snyder's electrocution
> was not in focus, but it is the stronger for it. Some people think
> Avedon hung the moon, others call him a whore. I think Capa was more
> into the image, rather than (prissy) focus.
b&w shot or similar... In focus or out of focus...
Brett has much better shots than this one - which is, simply, failed.
Noons
Sep 23, 2012, 6:06:54 AM9/23/12
to
Chemiker wrote,on my timestamp of 23/09/2012 6:30 AM:
> I see the reason there are so few participants in this NG. Too many
> horses asses, and too few horses.
>
and too few photographers?
> I see the reason there are so few participants in this NG. Too many
> horses asses, and too few horses.
>
John McWilliams
Sep 27, 2012, 9:51:10 PM9/27/12
to
On 9/16/12 PDT 12:33 AM, Noons wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2012 5:26 AM:
>
>> After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
>
> Neither. But I doubt you are intelectualy equipped to understand that.
Robert is an intellectual giant compared to the gutless coward to whom
he responded.
Note that there should be two "l's" in "intellectually".
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message from John McWilliams may contain
information that is confidential, privileged and/or proprietary. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby instructed to: (a) not
read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message, any part of it,
or any of its attachments; [blah, blah, blah] (b) completely delete
this message and all of its attachments from your system and (c) notify
the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no
intent on the part of the sender to waive any privilege, including the
attorney-client, doctor-patient, mentor-mentee, employer-employee,
officer-suspect, psychiatrist-patient, or parent-child privileges that
may attach to this communication.
> Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2012 5:26 AM:
>
>> After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
>
> Neither. But I doubt you are intelectualy equipped to understand that.
Robert is an intellectual giant compared to the gutless coward to whom
he responded.
Note that there should be two "l's" in "intellectually".
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message from John McWilliams may contain
information that is confidential, privileged and/or proprietary. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby instructed to: (a) not
read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message, any part of it,
or any of its attachments; [blah, blah, blah] (b) completely delete
this message and all of its attachments from your system and (c) notify
the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no
intent on the part of the sender to waive any privilege, including the
attorney-client, doctor-patient, mentor-mentee, employer-employee,
officer-suspect, psychiatrist-patient, or parent-child privileges that
may attach to this communication.
tony cooper
Sep 27, 2012, 10:07:48 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:51:10 -0700, John McWilliams
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9/16/12 PDT 12:33 AM, Noons wrote:
>> Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2012 5:26 AM:
>>
>>> After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
>>
>> Neither. But I doubt you are intelectualy equipped to understand that.
>
>Robert is an intellectual giant compared to the gutless coward to whom
>he responded.
>Note that there should be two "l's" in "intellectually".
Yes, but I would write [two "l"s in intellectually]. I don't see a
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9/16/12 PDT 12:33 AM, Noons wrote:
>> Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2012 5:26 AM:
>>
>>> After all, you're a talented artist, not a gutless coward. Right?
>>
>> Neither. But I doubt you are intelectualy equipped to understand that.
>
>Robert is an intellectual giant compared to the gutless coward to whom
>he responded.
>Note that there should be two "l's" in "intellectually".
reason to add a quotation mark after the "s".
(Brackets used to eliminate the need for additional quotation marks.)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Noons
Sep 28, 2012, 8:12:56 AM9/28/12
to
tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 28/09/2012 12:07 PM:
>> Robert is an intellectual giant compared to the gutless coward to whom
>> he responded.
>> Note that there should be two "l's" in "intellectually".
>
> Yes, but I would write [two "l"s in intellectually]. I don't see a
> reason to add a quotation mark after the "s".
>
> (Brackets used to eliminate the need for additional quotation marks.)
Careful! You're gonna be branded a midget soon if you keep that up...
>> Robert is an intellectual giant compared to the gutless coward to whom
>> he responded.
>> Note that there should be two "l's" in "intellectually".
>
> Yes, but I would write [two "l"s in intellectually]. I don't see a
> reason to add a quotation mark after the "s".
>
> (Brackets used to eliminate the need for additional quotation marks.)
0 new messages