Twelve Hours in Paris

[paulstenquist]

A twelve hour walk through Paris with my Leica iiif and a Summicron 50/2:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=311283

[michaelging]

Paul ,,Very nice slice of life photos. As I am sure you would admit 12 months is not

enough time , let alone 12 hrs.

[dominic_.]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=311283">Paul's Folder.</a>

[paulstenquist]

Thanks Dominic. I was hoping someone who understands these things would do that :-).

Paul

[grant_.]

it took you 12 hours to get that stuff?

[paulstenquist]

Yes Grant. If it didn't take twelve hours I probably wouldn't have titled the folder "Twelve

Hours in Paris." That was a clue Grant. How long did it take you to shoot that frame full of

straw?

[grant_.]

about 1/8 of second....

[kevin m.]

Or, in other terms, about twice as long as your parents spent teaching you any manners.

[ivan_dzo]

A great folder and well worth the 12hours invested. Aren't people rude!!!

[paulstenquist]

Thanks for the comments. Since these photos were the result of a single walkaround, I've

included some that I might not have otherwise. For example, I added a few landmarks just

to establish a sense of place. As far as the rude comment is concerned, I should have just

ignored it. I don't see anything posted for this "Grant" other than a few silly comments

here and there. I obviously shold have considered the source.

Paul

[fate_faith_change_chains]

I see something in 'Waiting for Mona' and 'Sunbeam'.

[steve_collins2]

It looks like you were very busy that day. Nice looking photos.

[EricM]

Paul, hope you had a good time! here's some htmlm. Just submit as html and not plain text

 

<a href="COPY AND PASTE THE URL HERE">click here</a>

[paulstenquist]

Thanks for the html tip.

I had a great time. I must have walked at least 20 miles. I started at Montparnasse and

criss-crossed through residential and shopping areas until I found my way to the Eifel

Tower. All along the way, I would step into stores and get a shot of two. From the tower

I headed across the river, up the Champs Elysees (sp?) to the Louvre. I then crossed

back over the river and wandered around the Latin Quarter. I found my way back to

Montparnasse by evening and shot some pans on the street. I finished up by walking back

toward the Latin Quarter on some commercial streets. I've been a photographer for thirty

years. This was by far the most fun I've ever had in one day.

[EricM]

I love Paris. Most expensive but also the most friendly cosmo city I've ever been to. Why only 12 hours Paul? Flight stop over?

[paulstenquist]

It was a business trip, and I stayed over an extra day. Had to be back at the grindstone the

next day.

[michael s.]

Paul said: "...I've been a photographer for thirty years. This was by far the most fun I've ever had in one day."

 

That alone should bring a smile to the face of every photographer and novice/enthusiast (like me) on this forum.

 

Well done, Paul.

[andrew_miller_gresham]

not very exciting, the scans look of low quality....does not really capture the city...except

for a few landmarks it could be anywhere..sorry, but even the leica did not capture the

essence of paris in those 12 hours....

[paulstenquist]

Andrew,

Where are your photos? I don't see anything here.

[EricM]

"That alone should bring a smile to the face of every photographer and novice/enthusiast (like me) on this forum."

 

couldn't have said it better Micheal.

[akochanowski]

Homeward Bound and Phone Call work for me, Paul. 2 out of a shooting expedition is a very acceptable ratio.

[paulstenquist]

Those are two of my favorites as well. Thanks for the comments.

[Spearhead]

<i>Andrew, Where are your photos? I don't see anything here.</i><p>

 

One's photographs have nothing to do with their ability to critique someone else's. This is basic, although there is this naive assumption on these forums that having a photo somewhere automatically qualifies you to criticize, and conversely, that if you don't have any photos posted, you can't criticize.<p>

 

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Criticism comes from an ability to look at things, not to photograph.

[Spearhead]

<i>simply reflect the reflexive responses of the viewer - reflecting their current state of mind/prejudice(s) and natural biases.</i><p>

 

This is true, but it's true of positive and negative comments. You'll see that the original poster only attacked a negative poster for not having photos posted, and ignored the three posters before that with positive comments and no pictures posted. The only explanation is that there was no interest in the response of the viewer unless it was positive. And the negative poster was the only one to offer any specific comments!

[paulstenquist]

I responded to many of the positive comments as well. However, as you say, most of them

were non specific and didn't really call for much of an answer. My response to Andrew was

inappropriate in that I mentioned only his lack of photos on photo.net. As you say, that's

irrelevant. I should have said that I disagree with his statement that these could have been

taken anywhere, and I don't think they are bad scans. It's pretty hard to judge a small scan

on the web. However, I generally look at a contributor's page before replying. A lot of

good work does tend to lend credibility. I was surprised to see nothing, and I mentioned it.

I apologize for that.