time of day for your shooting

"dadiOH" wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day,
but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce ****.

Personally, I found his photographs interesting. True, they aren't "art"
but, then, neither are the vast majority of photos made. A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.

Anyone expecting to find "art" on my website, is looking in the
wrong place. There is *no* intention of it being artistic.

Or, at least not "art" in the way it is defined when it has to
be enclosed in parens! Which is to say, the art on my website
is not the "fine art of photography" as such. It is the art of
documentation, which is to say an exhibition of the art of
providing informative, or the art of communications.

And of course that is an art where Randall can't produce '****'!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

dj_nme wrote:
_You_ may think that a plain, simple photo used as an
illustration on a website isn't art;

You are not wrong... but what he was talking about was "art",
not art. The quotes denote a limited definition that is not
generally accepted. He is quite correct, in that documentation
need not be a demonstration of the fine art of photography. If
you want the ultimate example, take a picture of a page of text.
Art? sure! But it is not photographic art, it's just a
photocopy... made on a common copy machine.

I can guarantee that
some-one, some-where will believe that it is and treat it as
though it's an art object.

Maybe, maybe not. But your comment (while not necessarily
strictly true) does make a valid point. Art, like beauty, is in
the eye of the beholder. We can see that readily in the
photography newsgroups where anyone who posts even so much as a
single image (or hundreds), will find an equal number of critics
who say "horrible, amateurish", and another group who say
"wonderful art!". And the makeup of the two groups will change
for different sets if images!

Basically, anyone who says "*I* am an artist, and he isn't!",
probably isn't worth listening to. I can't imagine paying
attention to someone who cannot recognize art different than
their own.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Roger Whitehead wrote:

In article , Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

Read his posts, then look at his images. Quacks like this abound in any
hobby/profession.


And that justifies your adding to the effluvium?

Roger


Usenet's a throw-away. The advice you get is worth pretty much what you
paid for it.

Sometimes good entertainment value though.

Kernix wrote:

dadiOH wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.


There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. Yeah, no need to
strive for artistic quality pics - just point and shoot and say, "Ah,
that's a pretty picture.


I'll disagree.

Art and quality are not the same thing. Quality images may not be
artistic and artistic images may have no discernable quality.

Either alone may be worthwhile and informative.

Or some worthwhile and informative images have neither art nor quality.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_antietam.jpg

The above image is neither artistic nor of good quality (although it may
once have been).

Nevertheless, the image is worthwhile and informative.

Roger Whitehead wrote:

In article .com, Kernix
wrote:

There's a statement made by obviously an amateur.


Ugh! That's certainly a sentence not made by a professional.

ESL perhaps?

"no_name" wrote in message news:_jqbg.730

Usenet's a throw-away. The advice you get is worth pretty much what you
paid for it.

Actually, you can get excellent advice from it. But it does cost you. In
many hours of reading and posting on it in order to find out who knows what.
Once you have paid that price, however, you can use it for much fine
information about photography, and the equipment involved with
photography......

"no_name" wrote in message
...
Kernix wrote:

dadiOH wrote:

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.


There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. Yeah, no need to
strive for artistic quality pics - just point and shoot and say, "Ah,
that's a pretty picture.


I'll disagree.

Art and quality are not the same thing. Quality images may not be artistic
and artistic images may have no discernable quality.

Either alone may be worthwhile and informative.

Or some worthwhile and informative images have neither art nor quality.

Yes. I don't know how to be, "artistic". I don't think it is something that
can be learned from a book. So, I only strive for the best quality image I
can get. If some of them are artistic, or show good composition, well,
that's great, and I will take as much credit for it as possible, but I will
have to admit that all I was trying to do was to get a good clean image of
whatever it was that interested me.

William Graham wrote:

Yes. I don't know how to be, "artistic". I don't think it is something that
can be learned from a book.

Depends on the book. You won't find out how to make a beautiful image
from the vast majority of how-to photography books. You *can* learn it
from a book full of beautiful images once you re-learn how to see. You
don't even have to invest in a book, there are hundreds of excellent
websites to look through.

So, I only strive for the best quality image I
can get. If some of them are artistic, or show good composition, well,
that's great, and I will take as much credit for it as possible, but I will
have to admit that all I was trying to do was to get a good clean image of
whatever it was that interested me.

Well, if this is what you strive for, it is undoubtedly what you will
achieve.


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 8, 9, X Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

"William Graham" wrote:
"no_name" wrote in message news:_jqbg.730

Usenet's a throw-away. The advice you get is worth pretty much what you
paid for it.

Actually, you can get excellent advice from it. But it does cost you. In
many hours of reading and posting on it in order to find out who knows what.
Once you have paid that price, however, you can use it for much fine
information about photography, and the equipment involved with
photography......

It requires, however, developing a very effective filtering
system, which must be of the "very thick hide" variety.

All Usenet advice comes as a mixture of good and bad, and there
are no flags to make it easy for people who cannot distinguish
between them.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

And of course that is an art where Randall can't produce '****'!

Yeah, I only made a living at it for 16+ years.