A Relic

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:13:08 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

On 2014-11-01 13:27:40 +0000, Bowser said:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:13:08 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

That wasn't ironic, sarcastic, or even ironically sarcastic, but Mac OS
3.0 would certainly be a relic. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014.11.01, 10:39 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-11-01 13:27:40 +0000, Bowser said:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:13:08 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

That wasn't ironic, sarcastic, or even ironically sarcastic, but Mac OS
3.0 would certainly be a relic. ;-)

Whoosh!


--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.�
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.�
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

On 2014-11-01 14:49:43 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2014.11.01, 10:39 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-11-01 13:27:40 +0000, Bowser said:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:13:08 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

That wasn't ironic, sarcastic, or even ironically sarcastic, but Mac OS

3.0 would certainly be a relic. ;-)

Whoosh!

Whoosh indeed.

There doesn't seem to be much point in even trying.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014110108375169651-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

That wasn't ironic, sarcastic, or even ironically sarcastic, but Mac OS

3.0 would certainly be a relic. ;-)

Whoosh!

Whoosh indeed.

There doesn't seem to be much point in even trying.

there was no such thing as 'mac os 3.0'.

system 3 (not mac os 3) was released in the mid-1980s and did not wipe
disks, which were mostly floppies because hard drives were not that
common back then.

the name change to 'mac os' occurred in 1997 with what would have been
system 7.6.

who knows what any of that has to do with a photo of an antique car
that needs a little restoration.

On 2014-11-01 19:08:10 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014110108375169651-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

That wasn't ironic, sarcastic, or even ironically sarcastic, but Mac OS

3.0 would certainly be a relic. ;-)

Whoosh!

Whoosh indeed.

There doesn't seem to be much point in even trying.

there was no such thing as 'mac os 3.0'.

system 3 (not mac os 3) was released in the mid-1980s and did not wipe
disks, which were mostly floppies because hard drives were not that
common back then.

the name change to 'mac os' occurred in 1997 with what would have been
system 7.6.

who knows what any of that has to do with a photo of an antique car
that needs a little restoration.

That was somewhat my point.
I am still not entirely sure what point the usually normal Bowser was
attempting to make with his Mac OS remark.

....as for Alan's "Whoosh!" Who knows?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.

I didn't realise it was some sort of mac only place now.........

https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ok then

The black space down the left of the image unbalances the whole thing,
either crop tighter to the car or have the same sort of shadowy amount past
the right hand light.
Background is too sharply in focus and distracts from the shape of the car,
you could have used your special blurring technique here to good effect.

And something that was said to me in another group a half dozen years ago on
why not put a border around our pictures

"From the semiotic point of view it's like putting your image in a meaning
limiting bracket. When you add a border it becomes part of the image and
can be 'read' just like the image. It's a signifier.

Elaborate borders and script typefaces speak of gilding the lilly, an
insecurity about the image standing on its own. They evoke official school
photographs, high street portraiture, the 1950s, and go some way to
debarring the image from consideration as serious photography. Such
presentation methods aren't used in serious exhibitions today.

That's not to say that they don't follow fashion. From the late 60s, to
the dragged out end of modernism, people generally followed Adams' idea
about the optimum presentation, myself included. Now that method would be
read as a sure sign that the photographer was of the modernist persuasion
and that would count against them with curators, unless they were dead, or
it was a retrospective of an OAP hahahaha. Robert Frank? ' }

The preferred method these days is printed BIG and mounted, full bleed, on
aluminium, fearsomely expensive, with a gap between print and wall. That
gets you a tick toward being post postmodern. ' }" (Oar Wellin 18/02/09)

--
sid

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:08:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2014110108375169651-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ah. Mac OS 3.0. AKA, "the disk wiper."

That wasn't ironic, sarcastic, or even ironically sarcastic, but Mac OS

3.0 would certainly be a relic. ;-)

Whoosh!

Whoosh indeed.

There doesn't seem to be much point in even trying.

there was no such thing as 'mac os 3.0'.

system 3 (not mac os 3) was released in the mid-1980s and did not wipe
disks, which were mostly floppies because hard drives were not that
common back then.

the name change to 'mac os' occurred in 1997 with what would have been
system 7.6.

who knows what any of that has to do with a photo of an antique car
that needs a little restoration.

It's a truck. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-11-01 21:07:48 +0000, sid said:

Savageduck wrote:

I thought I would try to slip in between the Linux invaders with a
little something.

I didn't realise it was some sort of mac only place now.........

It isn't, However, due to those last cross posted "EXIF" threads which
were aimed at alt.os.linux.ubuntu & rec.photo.digital drew in a few
more Linux users than are usually seen in r.p.d.
https://db.tt/o4Aks2b7

As usual comments are welcome.

Ok then

The black space down the left of the image unbalances the whole thing,
either crop tighter to the car or have the same sort of shadowy amount past
the right hand light.
Background is too sharply in focus and distracts from the shape of the car,
you could have used your special blurring technique here to good effect.

And something that was said to me in another group a half dozen years ago on
why not put a border around our pictures

"From the semiotic point of view it's like putting your image in a meaning
limiting bracket. When you add a border it becomes part of the image and
can be 'read' just like the image. It's a signifier.

"semiotic"?
There is nothing there other than framing the image much as an image in
a frame is best presented restrained in a matte.

Anyway, just for you:
https://db.tt/q8kr6ziG

Elaborate borders and script typefaces speak of gilding the lilly, an
insecurity about the image standing on its own. They evoke official school
photographs, high street portraiture, the 1950s, and go some way to
debarring the image from consideration as serious photography. Such
presentation methods aren't used in serious exhibitions today.

Good to know, if and when I ever hold an exhibition.

That's not to say that they don't follow fashion. From the late 60s, to
the dragged out end of modernism, people generally followed Adams' idea
about the optimum presentation, myself included. Now that method would be
read as a sure sign that the photographer was of the modernist persuasion
and that would count against them with curators, unless they were dead, or
it was a retrospective of an OAP hahahaha. Robert Frank? ' }

The preferred method these days is printed BIG and mounted, full bleed, on
aluminium, fearsomely expensive, with a gap between print and wall. That
gets you a tick toward being post postmodern. ' }" (Oar Wellin 18/02/09)

....and that I have done with some of my work, and for the results
achieved it is not over expensive for either metal prints, or gallery
wraps from folks such as Mpix.com, or BayPhoto.com.

--
Regards,

Savageduck