Jump to content

VisualEntropy

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

9 Neutral
  1. Every time I've tried to reply to a thread in the last few days, the following message appears: Your content can not be submitted. This is likely because your content is spam-like or contains inappropriate elements. Please change your content or try again later. Advised to post here by a moderator. Please help!
  2. I figure one serious post is owed, so here's a depressive take on bicycle symbolism:
  3. Too obvious? Hyères, France, 1932 Where are the Dutch when you need them...
  4. These threads keep chasing me from symbol to symbol, inspiring half baked photos. (This one is actually 9 months old...ready to be pushed into the world?)
  5. Sorry, Julie and David...new features are bound to be awkward at first. I've removed my "Likes" to avoid further confusion.
  6. <p> <br> Julie as Mel Brooks and Alan as Carl Reiner...now <em>that</em> is worth revisiting again and again!<br> </p>
  7. <blockquote> <p>I really like those fat pipes, for some reason (have you seen the movie <em>Brazil</em> -- the scene where Robert DeNiro as plumber goes into Jonathan Pryce's apartment wall ... ?). Almost more than the creatures. I'm not crazy about the thought-balloon porcupine (and if that doesn't get the rest of you to look, you need another cup of coffee).</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, <em>Brazil</em> is pretty unforgettable. If I remember correctly, that scene introduces a new level of surreality that continues through the rest of the movie. The photo definitely takes me to a similar place, and Terry Gilliam has cited Bosch as a major influence on his style, so I got to geek out for a moment about you making that connection. :)</p> <p> </p>
  8. <p>Not long ago, I was viewing Noah Weiner's "<a href=" Through Trees 008</a>" for quite a while, on a tablet. I found that the parallax effect was greatly enhanced by zooming in quickly, then back out slowly. It made the entire viewing experience more immersive, putting me into a sort of dream state...driving along half asleep and watching those skeletal trees go by over and over again. As I wrote to him, I'm not sure if I could or would have tried that with a print, or if it's something that was revealed through that particular combination of content and delivery method.</p> <p>Another recent image that held my attention for considerably more than 10 seconds was A.Ola Schmidt's "<a href=" Alive</a>". It's a nightmare in beige, connecting our world to Hieronymus Bosch's through writhing tentacles and matching tones. Is that inadequate fence keeping something horrible out, or in?<br> <br /></p>
  9. VisualEntropy

    _G106381 Wood Eye

    Burning, rusty nail stares out from a rough-hewn plank ends charred by vignette
  10. <p>Doesn't the symbiotic nature of content quality & technical quality mean that OP's question mainly applies when the latter is being used as a tiebreaker between very similar images? "I like the black dog's pose better than the brown dog's pose, but the brown one is in better light." or "The expression in this photo conveys the exact emotion I was trying to capture, but it's not as sharp as that one I don't connect with quite as much."<br> Most practical compromises come down to getting the shot vs. missing it entirely, while having to choose between one form of reduced technical quality or another (diffraction/noise/blur). When accepting such limitations, you've already decided that content matters most. </p> <p>There is a more personal scenario that springs to mind, which is the temptation to re-shoot images taken when my gear, knowledge, or skill were inferior to what they are now. My feeling has almost always been that the inspiration I felt originally is of greater value (if only to me) than any technical improvements could be. I don't believe that kind of excitement is as much about content as it is about discovery or presence, so it's very difficult to recapture or improve upon. </p> <p>A few more idle questions:<br> How would you (anybody) classify the unquantifiable characteristics of a particular piece of equipment? For example, do the qualities of bokeh fall under content, technique, or both? What about IR conversion or filters that affect all content? Does it depend on how thoughtfully an effect is used, or whether it was applied during post processing? If I use intentional camera movement, there will likely be a meaningful difference between blur (unidentifiable object) and blur (low resolution), but aren't they both a seamless blend of content & technique?</p>
  11. VisualEntropy

    HAWTWAWTAH

    Artist: Picasa; Exposure Date: 2016:04:30 03:21:15; Make: Canon; Model: Canon EOS 20D; ExposureTime: 15/1 s; FNumber: f/16; ISOSpeedRatings: 100; ExposureProgram: Manual; ExposureBiasValue: 0/2; MeteringMode: Average; Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode; FocalLength: 51 mm; Software: Picasa; ExifGpsLatitude: 48 49 48 48; ExifGpsLatitudeRef: R03;
  12. VisualEntropy

    Cowschwitz

    Artist: Picasa; Exposure Date: 2016:04:26 10:55:14; Make: Canon; Model: Canon EOS 20D; ExposureTime: 1/400 s; FNumber: f/5; ISOSpeedRatings: 100; ExposureProgram: Manual; ExposureBiasValue: 0/2; MeteringMode: Average; Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode; FocalLength: 100 mm; Software: Picasa; ExifGpsLatitude: 48 49 48 48; ExifGpsLatitudeRef: R03;
×
×
  • Create New...