Photo of Book

On 2/15/10 3:45 PM, in article ,
"LOL!" wrote:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:55:14 +0100, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 17:34, LOL! wrote:
Oh, if only this moron would read a book or two on
photography instead, we wouldn't all have to suffer his "righteousness".

Look who's talking!

****in' useless, piece of ****, **** of a troll.

Excellent. I couldn't have described your résumé any better.

On 2/15/10 5:00 PM, in article ,
"Charles" wrote:


"mmyvusenet" wrote in message
...
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

It would seem that your agenda is not about photography.

Technical? It's a photograph. Decent. Could be better, could be worse.


And YOUR agenda is?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:55:04 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:29:41 -0800 (PST), Draco
wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:42 am, "mmyvusenet" wrote:
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in
close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

--
MMYVhttp://www.mmyv.com

The image you made is okay for a documentation of the entire bible,
But not very good as to copy the page.

I had the impression that he was attempting to capture the book as a
subject of interest and not capturing the book to document or copy
pages.

Some books are interesting subjects because of the binding and general
interest of their appearance. In the case of the photo he's trying to
capture, the photographer should be closer to straight-on but still be
able to include the body of pages.

As usual with mm's photos, the background should be better. He
doesn't seem to have a sense of being able to "pose" his subject in
either an appropriate background or a neutral background. This book
would photograph better on a solid color cloth with, perhaps,
something like a chalice or a votive candle in the scene.



To be blunt, you and others have been giving the OP some excellent advice
since I have been lurking on this list. His failure to show any signs of
attempting to follow it, leads me to wonder why he bothers. Even more
interesting is why anyone bothers.

Wow. A semi-smart-person. Who'da thunk it possible in this newsgroup!

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:04:47 -0800 (PST), Rich
wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:42*am, "mmyvusenet" wrote:
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

--
MMYVhttp://www.mmyv.com

The background (cable, wall transitions) are disruptive. I'd re-shoot
it against a blank wall, maybe face-on. But that is also
conventional, so you might want to try a number of positions with the
book to see what comes of it.

Make it something interesting. Photograph it soaking in a large tank of
urine or something like Mapplethorpe did with that useless crucifix. Or how
about 12 Apostles ****ing or ****ting on it! Yeah, that'd make the news at
least. Make that book finally mean something.

"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:55:14 +0100, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 17:34, LOL! wrote:
Oh, if only this moron would read a book or two on
photography instead, we wouldn't all have to suffer his "righteousness".

Look who's talking!

There's that amazing photography advice and expertise we've all come to
know and expect from you with every post you ever make!

****in' useless, piece of ****, **** of a troll.

LOL!


What would Mrs Palmer say to that, you seem to have lost the plot Mr Palmer.

In article ,
says...

Make it something interesting. Photograph it soaking in a large tank of
urine or something like Mapplethorpe did with that useless crucifix. Or how
about 12 Apostles ****ing or ****ting on it! Yeah, that'd make the news at
least. Make that book finally mean something.


Look, I get the impression that that guy is a deeply pious person and
taking pictures of things symbolic to his religion really seems to light
his candle (unfortunately it wreaks havoc with his composition also).
What you're saying is just going to look like blasphemy to him, I
reckon. He probably won't even get the gist of what you're driving at.

Otherwise, I'm with Tony on this one

f.w.i.w. -P.

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


And YOUR agenda is?

I was simply wondering about the purpose of this post? Did you read the
caption? If not, here it is:

"Several years ago I bought this Bible illustrated, and in this opportunity
seemed me interesting to practice close-up photography, showing the image of
the Burning Fiery Furnace, that according says the Book of Daniel in the
Holy bible, there were protected the friends of the Prophet Daniel, that
unjustly had been envoys there by the King Nabucodonosor, like also It says
later in the Scriptu The righteous is delivered out of trouble (Proverbs
11:8a, King James Version)"

The shot (for me) provided no justice or support for the above diatribe.

So, what's your agenda, George?

On 2/16/10 7:22 PM, in article ,
"Charles" wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


And YOUR agenda is?

I was simply wondering about the purpose of this post? Did you read the
caption? If not, here it is:

"Several years ago I bought this Bible illustrated, and in this opportunity
seemed me interesting to practice close-up photography, showing the image of
the Burning Fiery Furnace, that according says the Book of Daniel in the
Holy bible, there were protected the friends of the Prophet Daniel, that
unjustly had been envoys there by the King Nabucodonosor, like also It says
later in the Scriptu The righteous is delivered out of trouble (Proverbs
11:8a, King James Version)"

The shot (for me) provided no justice or support for the above diatribe.

So, what's your agenda, George?


Freedom of Worship. Freedom of Speech.

Stuff like that, ya know?

You DO know - right?!?

I've been lurking on this one for days...
Have you all noticed?
Everyone comments ... and he hasn't added one iota ;-))))
He must be ROTFL!!!!
I hesitated before writing, because I'm doing exactly what I know we
shouldn't be doing: CONTRIBUTING TO HIS POSTS.
Just an idea.
Marcel

On 2/17/10 10:42 AM, in article ,
"celcius" wrote:

I've been lurking on this one for days...
Have you all noticed?
Everyone comments ... and he hasn't added one iota ;-))))
He must be ROTFL!!!!
I hesitated before writing, because I'm doing exactly what I know we
shouldn't be doing: CONTRIBUTING TO HIS POSTS.
Just an idea.
Marcel

Interesting observation. Maybe so?