A Relic

On 2014-11-01 21:41:20 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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. :-)

Somebody noticed. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

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

Funnily enough my distaste for your border has more than a bit to do with
the size of my browser window and only a little to do with how dropbox
displays photos. see screen shot

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../snapshot2.png

Imagine my suprise when I downloaded the said photo and opened it in gimp, I
thought the black border in the screen shot was also your doing but it's
not. It's not so bad after all!


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

Now you're just being silly!

--
sid

On 2014-11-02 00:17:48 +0000, sid said:

Savageduck wrote:

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

Funnily enough my distaste for your border has more than a bit to do with
the size of my browser window and only a little to do with how dropbox
displays photos. see screen shot

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../snapshot2.png

Imagine my suprise when I downloaded the said photo and opened it in gimp, I
thought the black border in the screen shot was also your doing but it's
not. It's not so bad after all!

Yup! I guess that extra black border would have been a bit much.


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

Now you're just being silly!

I am here to serve and entertain.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-11-01 23:59:51 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 21:07:48 +0000, sid wrote:

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.

I kinda agree with this. At first glance, I only see the truck. The
more I look at it, though, it does seem heavy on the right side.

I guess I was trying to establish some sort of mood.

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.

I like the background as-is because it places the truck with earlier
models of transportation...the buggy and what looks like - in the
window's reflection - a covered wagon.

As a photographer myself, I look at the background and think "There's
more things there to photograph!".

There are.
That is the Paso Robles Historic Society, Pioneer Museum. It is crammed
with a rather mixed mass of vehicles dating well back to the 19th
Century. It is so packed it is tough to separate out individual subject
vehicles and wagons. Included is a Landau owned and used by Phoebe
Hearst, W.R. Hearst's mother, to travel between Paso Robles and Hearst
property at San Simeon.
The Hearst Landau:
https://db.tt/WAh6POPk
....and a few other things:
https://db.tt/nBYtqHVS
https://db.tt/ik8lvmeI
https://db.tt/tV5N7cZD


I think it would improve the image a bit to do something with the
yellow crate with hardware cloth and the angled thing in front of it,
but it's not a major problem. Maybe a few passes with the Burn tool.


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

Horses for courses. Linked images show up on my screen on a black
background. Consequently, I always use a 3 pixel white border around
the image so it's clear where the image ends and the background
begins.

The Duck's borders are a bit wider than I like, but they do set the
image off on the black background.

"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.

Yes, but sometimes that's what's desired.

Yup!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-11-02 02:18:54 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:10:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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"?

If you hung out in groups in which linguists post - as I do - you'd
recognize the term. I've never seen it applied to *part* of a
photograph created in the editing process before, but it's not that
far a stretch. Symbolism is included in the field of semiotic study,
and photographs often contain symbolism both intentional and
unintentional.

I was thinking of the odd usage of "semiotic" in the context of framing
an image.

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

You went the wrong direction. Leave the right, crop on the left.

Ok! Here is the shot without the strong vignette.
https://db.tt/9d8677ZY

Over on the right is the tram seen in this shot, and you can see the
truck's box bed in the background, and the reason for the green light
field on the left of the Ford truck shot.
https://db.tt/nBYtqHVS

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

Mac OS 3, or 3.0 did indeed wipe HDs clean, whether or not you wanted
it to. It was a disaster for Apple.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:45:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Hey! Normal? Me?

Take that back.


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

In article , Bowser
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.

Mac OS 3, or 3.0 did indeed wipe HDs clean, whether or not you wanted
it to. It was a disaster for Apple.

again, there was no such thing as mac os 3.

system 3 in the mid-80s did not wipe hard drives, mainly because there
weren't very many of them back then.

On 11/2/2014 11:30 AM, Bowser wrote:
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.

Mac OS 3, or 3.0 did indeed wipe HDs clean, whether or not you wanted
it to. It was a disaster for Apple.

And that relates to (highly) functional antique vehicles ...how?

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 11/2/2014 12:36 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:34:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-11-02 02:18:54 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:10:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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"?

If you hung out in groups in which linguists post - as I do - you'd
recognize the term. I've never seen it applied to *part* of a
photograph created in the editing process before, but it's not that
far a stretch. Symbolism is included in the field of semiotic study,
and photographs often contain symbolism both intentional and
unintentional.

I was thinking of the odd usage of "semiotic" in the context of framing
an image.

I think the tie-in to semiotics is weak. He's saying that the border
is a signifier of induced containment, but overlooking that the
*intent* can be containment.

He reminds me of a fellow I overheard at an art gallery who was
evidently trying to impress his girlfriend. They were looking at a
painting and he very pompously asked her "What do you think the artist
was trying *say* here?".

He didn't realize that the artist was standing behind him. The artist
leaned forward and said "He's trying to say 'Buy the ****ing thing. I
need the money.'.

DAMN!!! If I read this in the morning there would have been coffee
ALL over the screen, key board, etc., along with a lot of clean up.

Thanks for the perspective ...and big laugh!

==
Later...
Ron C
--