laurent-paul

<p><strong>Please suggest any tips to photograph the challenged clients</strong></p>

<p>Kabilan, your clients are people, and as is the case for any good portrait, you need to know who is the person you want to photograph.</p>

<p>If you don't know any of the persons you will have to photograph during the event, it may be a good idea to spend at least a couple of days before the event in order to meet them, spend some time with them, so that during the event, knowing them a little bit better, you won't have to think about the "right" photo : you'll just know it.</p>

<p>Quite a good footage ( not a great choice for the soundtrak though, but funny subtitles allowing to enjoy it without any sound )</p>

<p>http://www.vimeo.com/10966874</p>

<p>That really is a call for clicking your name John Resner ;-)<br>

And that is exactly when, personally, I can only be very dubitative about your judgements about "sub-average", as the only information about you is only one photo you rated 7/7, which in my very humble opinion actually is sub-average in my eyes, and three comments which can;t give any idea at all about your knowledge, even less your practice of photography.</p>

<p>I respect your post, as it is, but can't really give it any kind of credit.</p>

<p>hm :</p>

<p>Moving an object on set out of frame : 5 seconds</p>

<p>Removing an oject in photoshop, depending on your skills and equipment : from 5 minutes to 15 minutes</p>

<p>That really isn't what i would call "Lazy" ;-)</p>

<p><strong>"but just curious if anyone else is feeling nostalgic for 2001"</strong></p>

<p>Personnaly, I wouldn't know as I usually feel only nostalgic about the future<strong> ...</strong><br>

<strong><br /> </strong></p>

<p>This is a very interesting question John, and perhaps in an absolute environment, where the photographer is aware of himself and his own work, photos and ideas should "match". <br>

But if we see photography as an ever evolving approach, it may happen that we are first trying to intellectualize our research, and therefore our question may be a step or few ahead of our ability to express them with photography.<br>

The opposite may be true as well, when doing photography in a very emotional way, being better able to communicate with a photo rather than words, the intellectualization / philosophical understanding may not be as deep or as accurate as the photos themselves.</p>

<p><strong>"Please do NOT report this message to your ISP as spam"</strong><br>

Rashed Abdula, this means that you should report it to photonet admin : Because if you rreport it to your ISP, they will lock <strong>all</strong> emails incoming from Photonet but not from the real scammer</p>

<p><strong>just complain here : </strong> please contact<br /> photo.net using our Contact Us Form: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/contact-us" target="_blank">http://www.photo.net/contact-us</a> ,<br /> or forward this email to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://us.mc590.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gc-complaints@photo.net" target="_blank">gc-complaints@photo.net</a></p>

<p>classical 419 scam<br>

As Bob wrote : the first step is to report it to the admins<br>

But here are some informations and a "fun" way of dealing with the scamers<br>

http://www.419eater.com/</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>[...] In 30 years of covering astronomy, I had never heard of the Witch Head Nebula until I came across a haunting two-page spread showing it snaking across an inky black star-speckled background in “Far Out: A Space-Time Chronicle,” an exquisite picture guide to the universe by Michael Benson, a photographer, journalist and filmmaker, and obviously a longtime space buff. [...]</em><br>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/science/05books.html?hpw">Here is the link : NYT</a><br>

Some amazing images in this book !</p>

<p><strong>"When clarity and balance of vision, clarity of one's experience of reality, can truly give the artist / photographer the means to ultimately create - <em>to catch the big fish</em> </strong> <strong> - then is there any reason for the artist / photographer in wanting to still be intoxicated by vision, reality ?"</strong></p>

<p>Two ideas come into mind when reading you question, Phylo :<br>

- Experience of reality being a constant evolution, there isn't any possibilty of ultimation, i guess : the clarity I could eventually see today may be accurate acording to my own experiences, but tomorrow, with the adition of today's experiences, the clarity will be different, therefore vison as well as the expression of this reality will be different.</p>

<p>-Speaking about intoxication, I don't think we can always speak about "will" when it comes to the vision : Intoxication is inducing the visions, but in a way we can't, by definition control : it may not be about willing to be intoxicated by vision or reality, but sometimes just about having to deal with a constant intoxication of visions and realities which we can't really control or stop happening<br>

<strong><br /> </strong></p>

<p>Robert, for me, the day I can answer that question, i think it will be time to stop shooting, and do something else.<br>

Same as you : I just love it, can't stop it, have to do it .... and that's all that matters</p>

<p>making Mozilla not too happy :<br>

http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.3.2/jquery.min.js:12</p>

<p>yes sure Palminteri : homeless people are not allowed to take care of themselves, trying to have clean clothes.<br>

you are right : homeless people are very dangerous : don't look at them, don't speak to them : they are not really human are they ?!?</p>

<p>What did the lady want to say : that it was not right for you to take the picture, or that it isn't right to see people having to sleep in the streets in the 21st century !?!<br>

Now did you ask his name, did you ask him what were his needs ?<br>

It may be "only" because you didn't speak to him that you have been thinking about it for two days.</p>

<p>As Arthur mentionned : themes or subjects are highly subjective, as a photograph will makes us react according to our culture and education.</p>

<p>But I believe that "photographic merits" are as much subjectives : I can judge technical, compositional, post processing only from the little I've learned and experienced therefore the whole lot I don't know about will never come in mind when judging evaluating and commenting a photograph.</p>

<p>Probably only a very few lucky persons are able to see Art where it exists and turn everything always into Art, and from that ultimate knowledge and experience are able to give really brilliant and meaningfull critiques but they will usually never find anything worth getting a comment from them.</p>

<p>Now the very big majority of us wihtout this complete knowledge are still attracted by photography, and this passion still makes us fell stongly about a photo. I believe that we all are still allowed to say what we fell but that knowing we have limitations our comments can never be ultimates comments, and even less any kind of expression of some Truth. And that is exactly the same with the comments we receive on our photos.</p>

<p>As for ratings, I don't believe it is useless : here on PN it shows two important things in my opinion :</p>

<p>1.the ability of the photographer to create and maintain a network with other members. That is far from a "bad" thing if such a thing exist : what else do we really want when be creative than communicate with others.</p>

<p>2. How our vision of our surroundings is speaking to others : i fI get an average of 5/5 on a photo where everybody gave 5/5, it only means that this photo is not creating any feelings at all : no emotion is created with that photo. But when the 55 is an average of half the people giving 3/3 and the other half 7/7, then it starts to be a bit more interesting, because that means there is a strong reaction.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hm</p>

<p>Opening this forum, my intent was to exchange ideas, as well as trying to explain what happened with the previous thread which closed before I could answer.</p>

<p>The result being the possibility of anybody leaving the PofP forums, and especially Fred, is so far remote from the intent, that now reflecting on Twain's quote, the intent had to be a "good" one resulting to this "evil" situation.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred : "I've seen "exploitive" (in my opinion) photos of homeless people where it's clear from the photo or even made explicit by accompanying text that conversations between photographer and subject took place"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, do you really think that the simple fact of speaking with a homeless person before, during or after taking a portrait makes that photo "exploitive" ?<br /> I would think the opposite : in my opinion it is much more important to speak with a homeless person, even if that doesn't imply a portrait beeing taken. And most time, for me a photo of a homeless person taken without any direct contact, is much more exploitive.</p>

<p>A photos of a homeless person who obvioulsy looks miserable and deprived, is in my eyes "exploitive", but a portrait of a homeless person, when we can't really see if she/he is homeless, is a portrait of a human beeing, and that's it.</p>

<p>And perhpas here, again we are speaking about intentions.</p>

<p>Edit : And not speaking about photography, many people would be surprised to know that sometimes, homeless can spend days without having anybody speaking to them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 23, 2009; 06:14 a.m.</p>

<p>I wasn't aware that I was supposed to have an intention when I create a photo. I enjoy getting out there and photographing the truth of what I see</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, just a very quick one : I believe the simple fact to take our camera with us when we go out is an intention. Every morning I check if I have my camera in my pocket : there is definitely the intention of using it if the oportunity of an interesting photograph arise, even if there are many days when I don't shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, in my opinion, as photography is a very active practice, this implies an intention at some point.</p>

<p>I agree that the terms of good or bad in themselves don't mean anything, but good intentions and bad intentions relating to the active person, I think we can make the difference.</p>

<p>I don't have much time, but just one example : a war photographer who witnessed massacres, but was not able to make the photogrph of what he saw, decides to "re-enact" the scene with figurants, with the intention of showing the world the attrocities he witnessed, and which are therefore real. We may speak about "good intention" from this photographer. But as soon as the "setup" is known, the outcome becomes the opposite of what he intended.</p>

<p>( A bit more as soon as I can )</p>

<p>"<br>

On Tuesday afternoon the Home Office sent out advice to all the Chief Police Officers in the UK about the use of Terrorism laws on photographers, they say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This circular has been produced to clarify counter-terrorism legislation in relation to photography in a public place. Concerns have been raised that sections of the Terrorism Act 2000 are being used to stop people taking photographs – whether this is photographs of buildings or people – and that cameras are being confiscated during such searches. "</p>

<p>http://photographernotaterrorist.org/2009/08/home-office-issues-new-advice/</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which kind of intentions do we have when we make a photograph ?<br>

And how far from our intentions is the final result ?</p>

<p>From the definition, beeing born, living, and dying is a cliche, as everybody does just that.<br>

Therefore, can we really avoid cliche in Art ?</p>

<p>Scintillation by Xavier Chassain : 35 000 photos "mixed" together in various ways :<br>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzORIuyOA1U</p>