A stunning image of Stonehenge

On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote:

[snip]

The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste.

I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous
insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!'
Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good
pots and pans!'


TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the
world of visual
arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness
in music.
That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and
a wrong note.
AFAIK there's no cure for it.


In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong
emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the
light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc.
After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one
element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc.

Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is
'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors,
so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so
he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have
the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done
image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit.

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was
that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche.
You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to
blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It
should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a
wall.


Someone else's wall, not mine!

--
Ken Hart

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote:

[snip]

The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste.

I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous
insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!'
Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good
pots and pans!'


TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the
world of visual
arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness
in music.
That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and
a wrong note.
AFAIK there's no cure for it.


In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong
emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the
light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc.
After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one
element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc.

Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is
'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors,
so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so
he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have
the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done
image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit.

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was
that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche.
You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to
blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It
should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a
wall.


Someone else's wall, not mine!

Nor mine.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 25/01/2019 09:19, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote:

[snip]

The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste.

I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous
insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!'
Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good
pots and pans!'


TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the
world of visual
arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness
in music.
That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and
a wrong note.
AFAIK there's no cure for it.


In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong
emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where is the
light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc.
After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy one
element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc.

Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is
'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the colors,
so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so
he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have
the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done
image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit.

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was
that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche.
You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to
blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It
should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a
wall.


Someone else's wall, not mine!

Nor mine.


How about THIS one for your wall, Eric?

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...50740_o.jp g?

--
David B.

On 25/01/2019 11:33, David B. wrote:
On 25/01/2019 09:19, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote:

[snip]

The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste.

I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous
insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!'
Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good
pots and pans!'


TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the
world of visual
arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone
deafness
in music.
That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right
not and
a wrong note.
AFAIK there's no cure for it.


In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong
emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where
is the
light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc.
After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to copy
one
element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc.

Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is
'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the
colors,
so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into one, so
he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have
the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done
image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit.

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was
that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche.
You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to
blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It
should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a
wall.


Someone else's wall, not mine!

Nor mine.


How about THIS one for your wall, Eric?

SNIP

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B

Sorry about that!

--
David B.

On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote:
On 25/01/2019 11:33, David B. wrote:
On 25/01/2019 09:19, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:35:16 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/23/19 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:02:17 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 1/22/19 7:11 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote:

[snip]

The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste.

I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous
insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!'
Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good
pots and pans!'


TheÂ* author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the
world of visual
arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone
deafness
in music.
That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right
not and
a wrong note.
AFAIK there's no cure for it.


In my photography classes (so many, many years ago!), very strong
emphasis was put on looking at other work and analyzing it: where
is the
light coming from, why did the photographer pick that angle, etc.
After learning how to 'dissect' a photo, we were encouraged to
copy one
element of a photo: similar subject but different lighting, etc.

Tone-deafness in visual arts? Maybe. I think a lot of it is
'feature-ism'. The photographer has the ability to saturate the
colors,
so he does. He has the ability to composite twelve images into
one, so
he does. The visual arts be damned whether it should be done; we have
the technology so we must use it! And if it makes a garish, over-done
image, well, we have taken the tech to the limit.

The cure? Take away the photographer's technology (all of it!) and
require him to use film- a limited quantity of it.

My first reaction to eventually seeing the Stonehenge photograph was
that it was just a variation on what has become a marine-scene cliche.
You hype up sky, place rock in the foreground, use long exposure to
blur waters, and the whole blown up by over-saturated colours etc. It
should be finished off by printing on framed canvas and hung on a
wall.


Someone else's wall, not mine!

Nor mine.


How about THIS one for your wall, Eric?

SNIP

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B


Sorry about that!


I'm not Eric, but it was my wall!

It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly
reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a
beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a
photograph of a beach.
But it's still very nice.

--
Ken Hart

Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote:

Major Snip

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B



Sorry about that!


I'm not Eric, but it was my wall!

It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly
reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a
beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a
photograph of a beach.
But it's still very nice.


That is a mediocre snapshot that is/was in dire need of an ND filter, or
much fixing to deal with those blown highlights. Certainly not worthy of
any sort of serious display,

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 1/25/2019 9:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote:

Major Snip

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B



Sorry about that!


I'm not Eric, but it was my wall!

It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly
reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a
beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a
photograph of a beach.
But it's still very nice.


That is a mediocre snapshot that is/was in dire need of an ND filter, or
much fixing to deal with those blown highlights. Certainly not worthy of
any sort of serious display,

Damn, I'm really thinking about posting one of my "artistic" cat
photos now. :-)
....or maybe not. :-)
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

Ron C wrote:
On 1/25/2019 9:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/25/19 6:35 AM, David B. wrote:

Major Snip

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...&oe=5CBE4F 5B



Sorry about that!


I'm not Eric, but it was my wall!

It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly
reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a
beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a
photograph of a beach.
But it's still very nice.


That is a mediocre snapshot that is/was in dire need of an ND filter, or
much fixing to deal with those blown highlights. Certainly not worthy of
any sort of serious display,

Damn, I'm really thinking about posting one of my "artistic" cat
photos now. :-)
....or maybe not. :-)

Why not? ;-)

A photograph is just a photograph after all, some are great, some are
cliché, some are tuly awful, and some are truly awful clichés.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/blqwlsvhhdwlfx6/IMG_4285.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 26/01/2019 01:39, Ken Hart wrote:
[....]
I'm not Eric, but it was my wall!

It's a very nice beach scene. If I wanted an image that was slightly
reminiscent of Monet, I'd go for it. But if I wanted a _photograph_ of a
beach, I would pass. I've seen photographs of beaches, and that's not a
photograph of a beach.
But it's still very nice.


You are absolutely right, Ken .....

It was NEVER a photograph! It has always been a painting by a real-life
artist.

You may view more of his work he-
https://www.facebook.com/andrewgiddensart/

I really shouldn't tease! ;-)

--
David B.

In article ,
wrote:

I am not a Facebook member and have no password, nor do I want
to be a member.

except that you already are, and there's no way to delete it.