Care for Some Gum?

On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing and mix of color.

Actually Pollack is not pure random.

I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which
resonates.

His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the
patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very
familiar with. One
which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many
times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson,
Williams, Procter
Art Institute in Utica, NY.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg

Hijacking Snipped

Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread.

At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that.

Thread drifts in usenet are quite common. IMHO this shift seems to represent
more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes
of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both the primary and [hijacked]
secondary
threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities.
[YMMV]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing and mix of color.

Actually Pollack is not pure random.

I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which
resonates.

His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the
patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very
familiar with. One
which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many
times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson,
Williams, Procter
Art Institute in Utica, NY.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg

Hijacking Snipped

Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread.

At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that.
Thread drifts in usenet are quite common.

Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this case.

IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both
the primary and [hijacked] secondary
threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities.
[YMMV]

You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my
OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities.

What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry,
unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images.
When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled
down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do�,
along with one more “talking image�.

I responded with a stronger hint:

"...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to
an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?�

When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the
hijacking of my OP was complete.

Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with
HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am
starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of
other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic
manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that
much more deliberate.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:25:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing and mix of color.

Actually Pollack is not pure random.

I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which
resonates.

His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the
patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very
familiar with. One
which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many
times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson,
Williams, Procter
Art Institute in Utica, NY.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg

Hijacking Snipped

Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread.

At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for that.
Thread drifts in usenet are quite common.

Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this case.

IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I respect both
the primary and [hijacked] secondary
threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities.
[YMMV]

You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my
OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities.

What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry,
unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images.
When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled
down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do�,
along with one more “talking image�.

I responded with a stronger hint:

"...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to
an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?�

When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the
hijacking of my OP was complete.

Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with
HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am
starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of
other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic
manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that
much more deliberate.

You should not sound so indignant. It's not personal. People wanted to
follow PeterN's branch of the thread ....
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:25:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing and mix of color.

Actually Pollack is not pure random.

I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which
resonates.

His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the
patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very
familiar with. One
which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at
many
times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson,
Williams, Procter
Art Institute in Utica, NY.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg

Hijacking Snipped

Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread.

At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for
that.
Thread drifts in usenet are quite common.

Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this
case.

IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between
photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I
respect both
the primary and [hijacked] secondary
threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities.
[YMMV]

You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my
OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities.

What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry,
unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject
images.
When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled
down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do�,
along with one more “talking image�.

I responded with a stronger hint:

"...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck
to
an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?�

When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the
hijacking of my OP was complete.

Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble
with
HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am
starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of
other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic
manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that
much more deliberate.

You should not sound so indignant.

Why not?

It's not personal.

Sure it is.

People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread ....

Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/14/2017 12:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my
OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities.


Jackson Pollack is interpretative work. By bringing that up You
stimulated me into other types of interpretative work.


What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry,
unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject images.
When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled
down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do�,
along with one more “talking image�.

Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say
the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement.


I responded with a stronger hint:

"...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck to
an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?�

When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the
hijacking of my OP was complete.

Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble with
HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am
starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of
other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic
manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that
much more deliberate.


I am posting this at the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread:
I have been playing with ND long exposures for several years. Indeed
some of my original long exposures have been posted and commented on in
the SI. Here is a basic article on using ND filters with live view, and
exposure correction.

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/capture-magic-long-exposures-your-camera%E2%80%99s-live-view-mode-and-nd-filter-video

--
PeterN

On 10/14/2017 4:49 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote


snip

You should not sound so indignant.

Why not?

It's not personal.

Sure it is.

People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread ....

Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking.


Aw! No it was not intended to be personal. Indeed, I was happy to see
that until the above post there were no personal attacks. I repeat, I am
far more interested in discussing and creating images. I had no reason
to attack. I consider my comments as a natural extension of yours. If I
said something to insult you, it was not intentional and I apologize.
Now, let's get back to the art and craft of photography.


--
PeterN

On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/14/2017 12:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my
OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities.

Jackson Pollack is interpretative work. By bringing that up You
stimulated me into other types of interpretative work.

OK! OK! I am to blame for your actions. That makes perfect sense.

What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry,
unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject
images.
When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled
down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do�,
along with one more “talking image�.

Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say
the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement.

Perhaps I was a tad curmudgeonly. However, allegorical or not, it sounds
contrived, and weird, especially when repeated, and emphasized after my
various hints.


I responded with a stronger hint:

"...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck
to an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?�

When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the
hijacking of my OP was complete.

Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble
with HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am
starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of
other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic
manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that
much more deliberate.

I am posting this at the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread:
I have been playing with ND long exposures for several years. Indeed
some of my original long exposures have been posted and commented on in
the SI. Here is a basic article on using ND filters with live view, and
exposure correction.

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/c...-your-camera%E
2%80%99s-live-view-mode-and-nd-filter-video

Since the flavor of this thread is all shot to Hell, there will be no further
accusations.

Thanks for that. There are quite a number of long exposure/ND filter
tutorials available. I have found that Lee Filters provide a a very good set
of tutorial videos.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/14/2017 4:49 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote

snip

You should not sound so indignant.

Why not?

It's not personal.

Sure it is.

People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread ....

Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking.

Aw! No it was not intended to be personal. Indeed, I was happy to see
that until the above post there were no personal attacks. I repeat, I am
far more interested in discussing and creating images. I had no reason
to attack. I consider my comments as a natural extension of yours. If I
said something to insult you, it was not intentional and I apologize.
Now, let's get back to the art and craft of photography.

OK

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/14/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote


snip


Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say
the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement.

Perhaps I was a tad curmudgeonly. However, allegorical or not, it sounds
contrived, and weird, especially when repeated, and emphasized after my
various hints.

The chewing gum is random, Pollack is not. I did not see your statements
as hints. I took them as Socratic, which is common in exploitative
discussions.
There is nothing weird about a statement that the image tells me what to
do. I look at an image, or a scene, and decide how to process it. IOW
how should I interpret it.
This bird looked like a tough guy. So I gave him what I thought was an
appropriate treatment.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ugwubi619fbizwy/AAAC4bXd2Ze9_uIcbAcG9poja?dl=0

--
PeterN

On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/14/2017 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, PeterN wrote

snip


Either you are being crotchety, or you didn't realize that when I say
the image tells be what to do, it's an allegorical statement.

Perhaps I was a tad curmudgeonly. However, allegorical or not, it sounds
contrived, and weird, especially when repeated, and emphasized after my
various hints.

The chewing gum is random, Pollack is not.

I pretty much said as much in my comments regarding the deliberate actions in
Pollock’s work. What I said about the gum wall was that it put me in mind
of Pollock. However, they are very different.

I did not see your statements as hints.

Obviously.

I took them as Socratic, which is common in exploitative
discussions.

“Exploitive discussions�?

There is nothing weird about a statement that the image tells me what to
do. I look at an image, or a scene, and decide how to process it. IOW
how should I interpret it.

....er, OK.

This bird looked like a tough guy. So I gave him what I thought was an
appropriate treatment.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ugwubi619fbizwy/AAAC4bXd2Ze9_uIcbAcG9poja?dl=0

Not my kind of thing.You shouldn’t listen to everything your images tell
you.

....and who ever heard of “AK-47� boxing gloves?

--

Regards,
Savageduck