«

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:41:28 -0500, Peter N
<> wrote:

>On 2/13/2011 1:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 12:11:03 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011.02.13 11:46 , tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mocking "LOL" - by any of his names - is cruel and aggravating. He's
>>>> like the chimp in the cage, though, and it is kinda fun to get him all
>>>> worked up.
>>>
>>> Does nothing for your dignity, reputation or well being.
>>
>> I really don't worry about my dignity as represented in this group.
>> I've been humbled in real life too many times to worry about my online
>> life. It started one day in grade school when I went to the restroom
>> and returned to class having forgotten to zip up my fly and with a bit
>> of my shirt-tail poking through...right in front of a girl I had a
>> crush on.
>
>Were you bragging?

At that age, I didn't know what there was to brag about. Luckily, the
girls didn't either.
>>
>> I don't know what kind of reputation I have here. Pedant? Mediocre
>> photographer? Troll-baiter? A person uninterested in the
>> overly-technical aspects of the photographic medium? (I don't care
>> how the size of a pixel is defined; I care how the pixels are arranged
>> in what I photographed.)
>
>Well said. While you accurately state the goal, one must have some
>technical understanding of what went wrong in order to make meaningful
>corrections. Problem is for some here technical perfection is their
>goal, not pixel arrangement.

To some degree, yes. When I see those long "discussions" where Floyd
or someone is pontificating on some subject that really doesn't matter
in composing, taking, and processing a photograph, I think the effort
is just as wasteful as baiting the Troll.

I'm still at the stage where I think the primary objective is to be
able to *see* what is photographable. I know I walk past things that
I don't think are worth photographing because my mind isn't processing
that while the object looks uninteresting, it could be interesting if
photographed from a different angle, at a different time of day where
the light falls differently, or from closer or further away.

Not to beat our now-departed dead horse, but Sisker's major fault was
that he didn't see the scene photographically. He'd see a harbor,
think it was pretty, and just point his camera in the general
direction and shoot. The next stage, that he never got to, is seeing
the scene and sensing what part of the scene makes for a good
photograph, and shooting from the position and the settling that best
captures that scene.

Not all pretty scenes come across as interesting photographs. The
trick I'm working on is finding the interesting part of the larger
scene and how to position myself and set the setting to best capture
it.

With my camera lenses, I couldn't take a (single exposure) photograph
of the Grand Canyon that would be interesting. I could, though, take
an interesting photograph of the sun rising/setting over a boulder on
the edge or of a tourist riding down into the canyon on a burro.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2/13/2011 6:57 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:41:28 -0500, Peter N
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2011 1:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 12:11:03 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011.02.13 11:46 , tony cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mocking "LOL" - by any of his names - is cruel and aggravating. He's
>>>>> like the chimp in the cage, though, and it is kinda fun to get him all
>>>>> worked up.
>>>>
>>>> Does nothing for your dignity, reputation or well being.
>>>
>>> I really don't worry about my dignity as represented in this group.
>>> I've been humbled in real life too many times to worry about my online
>>> life. It started one day in grade school when I went to the restroom
>>> and returned to class having forgotten to zip up my fly and with a bit
>>> of my shirt-tail poking through...right in front of a girl I had a
>>> crush on.
>>
>> Were you bragging?
>
> At that age, I didn't know what there was to brag about. Luckily, the
> girls didn't either.
>>>
>>> I don't know what kind of reputation I have here. Pedant? Mediocre
>>> photographer? Troll-baiter? A person uninterested in the
>>> overly-technical aspects of the photographic medium? (I don't care
>>> how the size of a pixel is defined; I care how the pixels are arranged
>>> in what I photographed.)
>>
>> Well said. While you accurately state the goal, one must have some
>> technical understanding of what went wrong in order to make meaningful
>> corrections. Problem is for some here technical perfection is their
>> goal, not pixel arrangement.
>
> To some degree, yes. When I see those long "discussions" where Floyd
> or someone is pontificating on some subject that really doesn't matter
> in composing, taking, and processing a photograph, I think the effort
> is just as wasteful as baiting the Troll.
>
> I'm still at the stage where I think the primary objective is to be
> able to *see* what is photographable. I know I walk past things that
> I don't think are worth photographing because my mind isn't processing
> that while the object looks uninteresting, it could be interesting if
> photographed from a different angle, at a different time of day where
> the light falls differently, or from closer or further away.
>
> Not to beat our now-departed dead horse, but Sisker's major fault was
> that he didn't see the scene photographically. He'd see a harbor,
> think it was pretty, and just point his camera in the general
> direction and shoot. The next stage, that he never got to, is seeing
> the scene and sensing what part of the scene makes for a good
> photograph, and shooting from the position and the settling that best
> captures that scene.
>
> Not all pretty scenes come across as interesting photographs. The
> trick I'm working on is finding the interesting part of the larger
> scene and how to position myself and set the setting to best capture
> it.
>

Funny we had that very same discussion during our Sunday morning field
trip. We went to a State Park that has melting snow, melting ice and
lots of animals. One of the guys has a great eye and is very sharing. He
was seeing a confluence of misty sunlight with the reflection of that
light that I and others had completely missed.
As he was pointing his camera two swans decided to fly in and just the
right angle. Was it luck or anticipation?
He has a high percentage of things like that happening so I strongly
suspect the latter.

> With my camera lenses, I couldn't take a (single exposure) photograph
> of the Grand Canyon that would be interesting. I could, though, take
> an interesting photograph of the sun rising/setting over a boulder on
> the edge or of a tourist riding down into the canyon on a burro.
>

Funny. this morning

--
Peter

In article <>,
tony cooper <> wrote:

<good stuff snipped>

> With my camera lenses, I couldn't take a (single exposure) photograph
> of the Grand Canyon that would be interesting. I could, though, take
> an interesting photograph of the sun rising/setting over a boulder on
> the edge or of a tourist riding down into the canyon on a burro.

Like real estate, sometimes it comes down to location, location,
location.

Many years ago I was on a flight from NYC to LA. When we hit the
southwest the sky was perfectly clear for tens of thousands of feet
altitude. We were flying very high, probably somewhere in the 45,000'
neighborhood.

The captain came on the P.A. and said he had asked for and received
permission from Air Traffic Control to make a wide "S" turn The effect,
he said, was to give us a spectacular view of the Grand Canyon.

Typical pilot, he understated just how dramatic a view it would be. The
first part of the turn was to the left (I was sitting on the left side)
-- a turn with so dramatic a roll I found myself staring perfectly
vertically down to the bottom of the Canyon, adding an extra mile to the
distance I could see.

Not only was the sky clear, but the canyon was free of its usual smog --
an amazing view. The only camera I had was an Olympus Stylus Epic p&s
with a 35mm f/2.8 lens. I got better pics from that flight than I had
ever gotten on actual trips to the canyon towing full camera bags that
out-weighed my car (almost).

On 02/14/2011 07:10 AM, SneakyP wrote:
> Ofnuts<> wrote in news:4d584457$0$10079
> $:

>
> ::looks in bozobin peephole at P&S Sybil troll.
>
> Ah, there's the miscreant! and lookee at who's recently joined him!
> Jeffypoo et al. THey're really bouncing off the walls, eh?
>

Maybe it's an optical illusion and there is only one monkey..

--
Bertrand

On 02/14/2011 09:42 AM, LOL! wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:36:22 +0100, Ofnuts<>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/14/2011 07:10 AM, SneakyP wrote:
>>> Ofnuts<> wrote in news:4d584457$0$10079
>>> $:
>>
>>>
>>> ::looks in bozobin peephole at P&S Sybil troll.
>>>
>>> Ah, there's the miscreant! and lookee at who's recently joined him!
>>> Jeffypoo et al. THey're really bouncing off the walls, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it's an optical illusion and there is only one monkey..
>
> The only ones I see bouncing off the walls here are all the usual resident
> trolls. All nicely contained in just one thread, jumping to the occasion,
> as they always do. How nice for you to ALL list your names so clearly to
> the world. THANKS! But then, none of you have ever been too bright.
>
> LOL!

Yet another case of a monkey thinking that the people on the other side
of the bars are the prisoners, and those rattling the cage just want to
escape...

--
Bertrand

On Feb 13, 5:11*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2011.02.13 11:46 , tony cooper wrote:
>
> > Mocking "LOL" - by any of his names - is cruel and aggravating. *He's
> > like the chimp in the cage, though, and it is kinda fun to get him all
> > worked up.
>
> Does nothing for your dignity, reputation or well being.

Does for me

tony cooper wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:15:47 -0500, Alan Browne
> <> wrote:
>
> > On 2011.02.13 11:06 , Jake wrote:
> >
> >> But it has to be said.
> >>
> >> *Both these newsgroups are infested with*
> >> *Trolls and their many SockPuppets.*
> >
> > It doesn't need to be said at all.
> >
> > Trolls simply need to be starved.
> >
> > Only known starvation: Do not reply to them. (And, yes, I make
> > the mistake of doing so from time to time).
>
> There are some things we shouldn't do, but we do them because they
> entertain us. For example, it is not at all nice to aggravate the
> monkeys in the zoo by standing in front of their cages and pulling
> faces at them and making noises. It's cruel to bait them like this.
>
> Mocking "LOL" - by any of his names - is cruel and aggravating.
> He's like the chimp in the cage, though, and it is kinda fun to
> get him all worked up.


Don't mix up primates, pal!

Chimpanzees are apes (tailless, therefore) and our simian friends
(i.e., monkeys) aren't.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>