Model bailed on me 30 mins before shoot! Had to do a selfie instead!

[jowensphoto]

Implied nudes. IMPLIED nudes!

 

[bazooka]

Implied nudes. IMPLIED nudes!

Humorous, but excellent example. Often times, some clothing is more exciting than none, as it causes the mind to generate what is not there. It exercises the imagination instead of feeding everything to the eyes. I believe a more interesting photo is one that engages the imagination... not one that only feeds the eyes.

 

[jowensphoto]

It exercises the imagination instead of feeding everything to the eyes.

Exactly the point I've been trying to make the entire time. Thank you!

 

[kundalini]

Dear Lightspeed,

<< snip >>

Cheers

Paul

This is the best post I've read in a long time.




Out of curiosity Paul, in a previous life, was your moniker Job?

 

[LightSpeed]

Dear Lightspeed,

I have managed to knock off early so have more time to devote to your reply! I appreciated your comment ‘be safe’ as I do a lot of driving in my line of work so it was very relevant –thank you.
Looking at the posts, I realise that this is a very large topic for one man to attempt to clarify, however, bear with me and I will do my best in answering you. In order for me to feel I am making a valid point, I am going to have to start at basics –please do not take this as a sleight on you, it just helps me think clearer.

I think Light's point is, he can't allow others having a different opinion from his.

All I can do is laugh at this little spin.

I mean dude, seriously : " Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph."

Admit it. You were being funny, right?

Wait!!!!
Hmmm......since you already pictured it, " What was the rest of the body doing?
lol

When we are born and growing up, we are learning about our environment and our bodies within that environment. The human brain is bombarded with huge amounts of information everyday. In order for humans to function effectively when carrying out our day, our brain generalises to save time and energy. Eg, learning to open a door. A toddler will learn how to do this consciously, and then after repetition, this will become a subconscious learned skill. So as the toddler approached different doors, this generalisation will mean that they do not have to consciously think ‘what is this’ and then ‘how can I interact with this’. When you or I approach a door, we don’t even think about it, we just operate it easily. These generalisations help humans exist in an information rich environment. As we experience more stimuli, patterns form and more generalisations are established. Eventually we subconsciously assume the reality of our environment based on these experiences and learnings.
When I look at this picture I cannot see any bullets:

I did not see the gun being loaded, I do not even know if the gun is real, I do not even know that this is not some roleplay that the guy and his wife like to do before getting it on. But based on my experiences and learnings, when I look at this image, I assume that the gun IS loaded with bullets even though I cannot see them. To me this appears to be a reasonable assumption based on the information in the rest of the image. I am generalising to make sense of what I see.

Now look at this picture of a magic trick:

Do you just see a cartoon man and 3 cups? Literally of course you do. But do you also have the expectation that a ball is likely to be under one of the cups? Based on a generalisation this is what I expect. It seems reasonable as in all my experiences with three cups in similar situations, a ball or an object of some kind has ALWAYS been present. I can’t see a ball, but my imagination is filling in the gaps based on my experiences.

Final example:

Now, can you see the driver of the green car? No.
Based on this image, is it reasonable to assume that the green car has no driver?
Do you think that, even though you cannot see the driver, you can think how he is feeling in this photo? Ballpark will do.

Now lets look at my original photo:

A leap of faith by The Paul Reid, on Flickr
So when Molested cow said
They are actually saying that based on their experiences of people jumping, they can generalise and assume that a) The person in the photo has a head. –This is reasonable as in order for a person to jump, they need a brain to tell their muscles to execute the movement. In order to have a brain you need a head to keep it in so it can function correctly. B) the person in the photo has two arms. This is hard to prove from the photograph, but not unreasonable to believe. So it is logical that molested cow can indeed picture what the rest of the body is doing. They cannot guarantee that the jumping person is not in fact headless wearing an invisible rocket pack whilst holding a frankfurter in each hand, but it is a reasonable assumption to make based on the rest of the image. If the viewers assumptions about the rest of the body are inaccurate, it is unlikely that this will be out by an order of magnitude. And if so, no harm done!

This is harder to answer. We do not need cameras to be able to communicate images, although it is much more efficient. Ultimately, they provide the photographer the ability to create a 'baseline' image which will then be interpreted by the viewers. We then know that everyone is interpreting the same baseline image.

I record images with a camera because I enjoy the process. I accept the fact that the resulting photo will be interpreted in many different ways by all viewers. Even the with the exact same image each viewer will find their own likes and dislikes. I realise this could be potentially frustrating as, if the photo stays consistent, how can there be such varied views and opinions from it? Surely it is good or bad. I will come to this in a moment.

If I write, this : I was and then I went over to the park and while I was doing that it fell off the edge of the table, and I picked it up but then they came over and knocked it down.
Does this make me an effective writer?

I think the point that you are making here is that if a photo or text or whatever, is too ambiguous then is it really saying anything at all? -Have I got your drift??

You are correct in that if we look at the text you wrote, the information content is poor. What were you doing? What fell off the table? And who knocked it down again? For me I do not think this means that the text is a poor story. It comes down to people types. Some people like to have a very prescriptive photo, book…etc… some people like ambiguity –like the text you wrote. First off, all people are unique, we have unique physiology and have all had different learnings, upbringings and experiences of life. These things shape our preferences. You like barbecue beef flavour chips, I like salt and vinegar. But that’s cool –we have different palettes!
So for me (I am an ambiguity guy) when I go to a restaurant I like to avoid the set menu and pick different things. I like the surprise and the not knowing if this is going to be nice or not. And because of this I find it more engaging. And this is the crux of any artform, does it engage YOU?
Some people need a very prescriptive artform for them to feel engaged and gain value from it. I prefer ambiguity and the freedom to generalise and daydream about what an image is and what the story could be. Let’s take it to the extreme, what about those people that look at splashes of paint on a white canvas. They see animals in there and all sorts! Are there really animals there? NO!! But the fact that they think they can see a humming bird engages them and they enjoy it. Do you want to look for humming birds in paint splashes?? Probably not, but thats OK as you are probably engaged by more prescriptive types of work.

Can I justify my writings with, " well the spatial bla bla implemented in the last sentence leads one to his own imagination of what the hell I was writing."
Does this mean I'm a literary genius and have just written a best seller?

You can justify things any which way you want to. It’s what others derive from your work that will define whether you are a literary genius. Personally I really liked the text you wrote.

It’s the start to a best seller.

Cheers

Paul

Sir you have earned my respect, regardless of the image.
As stated previously, you certainly are capable of better.
Very well written, very well explained.

I have one objection, however. No one could possibly like or find interest in that babble, I wrote. lol
Furthermore, I find you to be a gentleman.
In light of this, I prefer not to argue this with you. I'd rather keep my arguments with some of the clowns here
that I'm accustomed to arguing with, rather than a seemingly decent fellow having fun with a camera.
Accept my apologies for anything you may feel was harsh, on my part.

It was a pleasure to meet you and correspond with you, via this medium and I look forward to seeing more of your work.
I have taken the liberty of adding you as , friend.
I hope you don't mind.

I am LightSpeed,
And I approve this message.

 

[thepaulreid]

Dear Lightspeed,

I have managed to knock off early so have more time to devote to your reply! I appreciated your comment &#8216;be safe&#8217; as I do a lot of driving in my line of work so it was very relevant &#8211;thank you.
Looking at the posts, I realise that this is a very large topic for one man to attempt to clarify, however, bear with me and I will do my best in answering you. In order for me to feel I am making a valid point, I am going to have to start at basics &#8211;please do not take this as a sleight on you, it just helps me think clearer.

All I can do is laugh at this little spin.

I mean dude, seriously : " Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph."

Admit it. You were being funny, right?

Wait!!!!
Hmmm......since you already pictured it, " What was the rest of the body doing?
lol

When we are born and growing up, we are learning about our environment and our bodies within that environment. The human brain is bombarded with huge amounts of information everyday. In order for humans to function effectively when carrying out our day, our brain generalises to save time and energy. Eg, learning to open a door. A toddler will learn how to do this consciously, and then after repetition, this will become a subconscious learned skill. So as the toddler approached different doors, this generalisation will mean that they do not have to consciously think &#8216;what is this&#8217; and then &#8216;how can I interact with this&#8217;. When you or I approach a door, we don&#8217;t even think about it, we just operate it easily. These generalisations help humans exist in an information rich environment. As we experience more stimuli, patterns form and more generalisations are established. Eventually we subconsciously assume the reality of our environment based on these experiences and learnings.
When I look at this picture I cannot see any bullets:

I did not see the gun being loaded, I do not even know if the gun is real, I do not even know that this is not some roleplay that the guy and his wife like to do before getting it on. But based on my experiences and learnings, when I look at this image, I assume that the gun IS loaded with bullets even though I cannot see them. To me this appears to be a reasonable assumption based on the information in the rest of the image. I am generalising to make sense of what I see.

Now look at this picture of a magic trick:

Do you just see a cartoon man and 3 cups? Literally of course you do. But do you also have the expectation that a ball is likely to be under one of the cups? Based on a generalisation this is what I expect. It seems reasonable as in all my experiences with three cups in similar situations, a ball or an object of some kind has ALWAYS been present. I can&#8217;t see a ball, but my imagination is filling in the gaps based on my experiences.

Final example:

Now, can you see the driver of the green car? No.
Based on this image, is it reasonable to assume that the green car has no driver?
Do you think that, even though you cannot see the driver, you can think how he is feeling in this photo? Ballpark will do.

Now lets look at my original photo:

A leap of faith by The Paul Reid, on Flickr
So when Molested cow said
They are actually saying that based on their experiences of people jumping, they can generalise and assume that a) The person in the photo has a head. &#8211;This is reasonable as in order for a person to jump, they need a brain to tell their muscles to execute the movement. In order to have a brain you need a head to keep it in so it can function correctly. B) the person in the photo has two arms. This is hard to prove from the photograph, but not unreasonable to believe. So it is logical that molested cow can indeed picture what the rest of the body is doing. They cannot guarantee that the jumping person is not in fact headless wearing an invisible rocket pack whilst holding a frankfurter in each hand, but it is a reasonable assumption to make based on the rest of the image. If the viewers assumptions about the rest of the body are inaccurate, it is unlikely that this will be out by an order of magnitude. And if so, no harm done!

This is harder to answer. We do not need cameras to be able to communicate images, although it is much more efficient. Ultimately, they provide the photographer the ability to create a 'baseline' image which will then be interpreted by the viewers. We then know that everyone is interpreting the same baseline image.

I record images with a camera because I enjoy the process. I accept the fact that the resulting photo will be interpreted in many different ways by all viewers. Even the with the exact same image each viewer will find their own likes and dislikes. I realise this could be potentially frustrating as, if the photo stays consistent, how can there be such varied views and opinions from it? Surely it is good or bad. I will come to this in a moment.

I think the point that you are making here is that if a photo or text or whatever, is too ambiguous then is it really saying anything at all? -Have I got your drift??

You are correct in that if we look at the text you wrote, the information content is poor. What were you doing? What fell off the table? And who knocked it down again? For me I do not think this means that the text is a poor story. It comes down to people types. Some people like to have a very prescriptive photo, book&#8230;etc&#8230; some people like ambiguity &#8211;like the text you wrote. First off, all people are unique, we have unique physiology and have all had different learnings, upbringings and experiences of life. These things shape our preferences. You like barbecue beef flavour chips, I like salt and vinegar. But that&#8217;s cool &#8211;we have different palettes!
So for me (I am an ambiguity guy) when I go to a restaurant I like to avoid the set menu and pick different things. I like the surprise and the not knowing if this is going to be nice or not. And because of this I find it more engaging. And this is the crux of any artform, does it engage YOU?
Some people need a very prescriptive artform for them to feel engaged and gain value from it. I prefer ambiguity and the freedom to generalise and daydream about what an image is and what the story could be. Let&#8217;s take it to the extreme, what about those people that look at splashes of paint on a white canvas. They see animals in there and all sorts! Are there really animals there? NO!! But the fact that they think they can see a humming bird engages them and they enjoy it. Do you want to look for humming birds in paint splashes?? Probably not, but thats OK as you are probably engaged by more prescriptive types of work.

Can I justify my writings with, " well the spatial bla bla implemented in the last sentence leads one to his own imagination of what the hell I was writing."
Does this mean I'm a literary genius and have just written a best seller?

You can justify things any which way you want to. It&#8217;s what others derive from your work that will define whether you are a literary genius. Personally I really liked the text you wrote.

It&#8217;s the start to a best seller.

Cheers

Paul

Sir you have earned my respect, regardless of the image.
As stated previously, you certainly are capable of better.
Very well written, very well explained.

I have one objection, however. No one could possibly like or find interest in that babble, I wrote. lol
Furthermore, I find you to be a gentleman.
In light of this, I prefer not to argue this with you. I'd rather keep my arguments with some of the clowns here
that I'm accustomed to arguing with, rather than a seemingly decent fellow having fun with a camera.
Accept my apologies for anything you may feel was harsh, on my part.

It was a pleasure to meet you and correspond with you, via this medium and I look forward to seeing more of your work.
I have taken the liberty of adding you as , friend.
I hope you don't mind.

I am LightSpeed,
And I approve this message.

Friend request accepted. Where can I see your work??

Cheers

Paul

 

[kundalini]

Where can I see your work??

Cheers

Paul

It's not too difficult. Look towards the shallow end of the pool, you know.... where the water wings are abundant. Affectionately know as the Beginners Forum on TPF.



EDIT:
Sorry I forgot, the Macro section also.

 

[LightSpeed]

Dear Lightspeed,

I have managed to knock off early so have more time to devote to your reply! I appreciated your comment &#8216;be safe&#8217; as I do a lot of driving in my line of work so it was very relevant &#8211;thank you.
Looking at the posts, I realise that this is a very large topic for one man to attempt to clarify, however, bear with me and I will do my best in answering you. In order for me to feel I am making a valid point, I am going to have to start at basics &#8211;please do not take this as a sleight on you, it just helps me think clearer.

When we are born and growing up, we are learning about our environment and our bodies within that environment. The human brain is bombarded with huge amounts of information everyday. In order for humans to function effectively when carrying out our day, our brain generalises to save time and energy. Eg, learning to open a door. A toddler will learn how to do this consciously, and then after repetition, this will become a subconscious learned skill. So as the toddler approached different doors, this generalisation will mean that they do not have to consciously think &#8216;what is this&#8217; and then &#8216;how can I interact with this&#8217;. When you or I approach a door, we don&#8217;t even think about it, we just operate it easily. These generalisations help humans exist in an information rich environment. As we experience more stimuli, patterns form and more generalisations are established. Eventually we subconsciously assume the reality of our environment based on these experiences and learnings.
When I look at this picture I cannot see any bullets:

I did not see the gun being loaded, I do not even know if the gun is real, I do not even know that this is not some roleplay that the guy and his wife like to do before getting it on. But based on my experiences and learnings, when I look at this image, I assume that the gun IS loaded with bullets even though I cannot see them. To me this appears to be a reasonable assumption based on the information in the rest of the image. I am generalising to make sense of what I see.

Now look at this picture of a magic trick:

Do you just see a cartoon man and 3 cups? Literally of course you do. But do you also have the expectation that a ball is likely to be under one of the cups? Based on a generalisation this is what I expect. It seems reasonable as in all my experiences with three cups in similar situations, a ball or an object of some kind has ALWAYS been present. I can&#8217;t see a ball, but my imagination is filling in the gaps based on my experiences.

Final example:

Now, can you see the driver of the green car? No.
Based on this image, is it reasonable to assume that the green car has no driver?
Do you think that, even though you cannot see the driver, you can think how he is feeling in this photo? Ballpark will do.

Now lets look at my original photo:

A leap of faith by The Paul Reid, on Flickr
So when Molested cow said
They are actually saying that based on their experiences of people jumping, they can generalise and assume that a) The person in the photo has a head. &#8211;This is reasonable as in order for a person to jump, they need a brain to tell their muscles to execute the movement. In order to have a brain you need a head to keep it in so it can function correctly. B) the person in the photo has two arms. This is hard to prove from the photograph, but not unreasonable to believe. So it is logical that molested cow can indeed picture what the rest of the body is doing. They cannot guarantee that the jumping person is not in fact headless wearing an invisible rocket pack whilst holding a frankfurter in each hand, but it is a reasonable assumption to make based on the rest of the image. If the viewers assumptions about the rest of the body are inaccurate, it is unlikely that this will be out by an order of magnitude. And if so, no harm done!

This is harder to answer. We do not need cameras to be able to communicate images, although it is much more efficient. Ultimately, they provide the photographer the ability to create a 'baseline' image which will then be interpreted by the viewers. We then know that everyone is interpreting the same baseline image.

I record images with a camera because I enjoy the process. I accept the fact that the resulting photo will be interpreted in many different ways by all viewers. Even the with the exact same image each viewer will find their own likes and dislikes. I realise this could be potentially frustrating as, if the photo stays consistent, how can there be such varied views and opinions from it? Surely it is good or bad. I will come to this in a moment.

I think the point that you are making here is that if a photo or text or whatever, is too ambiguous then is it really saying anything at all? -Have I got your drift??

You are correct in that if we look at the text you wrote, the information content is poor. What were you doing? What fell off the table? And who knocked it down again? For me I do not think this means that the text is a poor story. It comes down to people types. Some people like to have a very prescriptive photo, book&#8230;etc&#8230; some people like ambiguity &#8211;like the text you wrote. First off, all people are unique, we have unique physiology and have all had different learnings, upbringings and experiences of life. These things shape our preferences. You like barbecue beef flavour chips, I like salt and vinegar. But that&#8217;s cool &#8211;we have different palettes!
So for me (I am an ambiguity guy) when I go to a restaurant I like to avoid the set menu and pick different things. I like the surprise and the not knowing if this is going to be nice or not. And because of this I find it more engaging. And this is the crux of any artform, does it engage YOU?
Some people need a very prescriptive artform for them to feel engaged and gain value from it. I prefer ambiguity and the freedom to generalise and daydream about what an image is and what the story could be. Let&#8217;s take it to the extreme, what about those people that look at splashes of paint on a white canvas. They see animals in there and all sorts! Are there really animals there? NO!! But the fact that they think they can see a humming bird engages them and they enjoy it. Do you want to look for humming birds in paint splashes?? Probably not, but thats OK as you are probably engaged by more prescriptive types of work.

You can justify things any which way you want to. It&#8217;s what others derive from your work that will define whether you are a literary genius. Personally I really liked the text you wrote.

It&#8217;s the start to a best seller.

Cheers

Paul

Sir you have earned my respect, regardless of the image.
As stated previously, you certainly are capable of better.
Very well written, very well explained.

I have one objection, however. No one could possibly like or find interest in that babble, I wrote. lol
Furthermore, I find you to be a gentleman.
In light of this, I prefer not to argue this with you. I'd rather keep my arguments with some of the clowns here
that I'm accustomed to arguing with, rather than a seemingly decent fellow having fun with a camera.
Accept my apologies for anything you may feel was harsh, on my part.

It was a pleasure to meet you and correspond with you, via this medium and I look forward to seeing more of your work.
I have taken the liberty of adding you as , friend.
I hope you don't mind.

I am LightSpeed,
And I approve this message.

Friend request accepted. Where can I see your work??

Cheers

Paul

Hey Paul,
KunLini is correct.
Most of my stuff was in the beginners forum.
Then I kinda sorta got kicked out of the beginners forum.
There was somewhat of a rukus about my having a good time in that forum.
It seems the forum kinda of transformed into a place where if you knew how to capture a sharp image, or use shutter , ISO and aperture in conjunction ,
that one might not any longer be considered a beginner. Thereafter , my posting images in that section was frowned upon.
The rally lasted about a week and I was converged upon in a bloody battle,from what seemed like all corners of the forum.
Battle scarred and weary, out of ammunition, and on the verge of starvation, I complied with the wishes of the townspeople to keep from being lynched, my body quartered, by the robust mob that had gathered over this time.

 

[kundalini]

KunLini is correct.

Of course I'm correct, but get the name right you jackass. It's kundalini.

Let me spell that out for you ...

kuun-dah (duh for you) lee-knee

:er:



EDIT:
I forgot to add........

Most of my stuff was in the beginners forum.
Then I kinda sorta got kicked out of the beginners forum.
There was somewhat of a rukus about my having a good time in that forum.
It seems the forum kinda of transformed into a place where if you knew how to capture a sharp image, or use shutter , ISO and aperture in conjunction ,
that one might not any longer be considered a beginner. Thereafter , my posting images in that section was frowned upon.
The rally lasted about a week and I was converged upon in a bloody battle,from what seemed like all corners of the forum.
Battle scarred and weary, out of ammunition, and on the verge of starvation, I complied with the wishes of the townspeople to keep from being lynched, my body quartered, by the robust mob that had gathered over this time.

[/quote[k[

 

[LightSpeed]

KunLini is correct.

Of course I'm correct, but get the name right you jackass. It's kundalini.

Let me spell that out for you ...

kuun-dah (duh for you) lee-knee

:er:



EDIT:
I forgot to add........

Most of my stuff was in the beginners forum.
Then I kinda sorta got kicked out of the beginners forum.
There was somewhat of a rukus about my having a good time in that forum.
It seems the forum kinda of transformed into a place where if you knew how to capture a sharp image, or use shutter , ISO and aperture in conjunction ,
that one might not any longer be considered a beginner. Thereafter , my posting images in that section was frowned upon.
The rally lasted about a week and I was converged upon in a bloody battle,from what seemed like all corners of the forum.
Battle scarred and weary, out of ammunition, and on the verge of starvation, I complied with the wishes of the townspeople to keep from being lynched, my body quartered, by the robust mob that had gathered over this time.

[/quote[k[

Sir , I'll get to you soon enough.
Think of me as a big ole Pizza.
Everybody gets a piece.

 

[LightSpeed]

Of course I'm correct, but get the name right you jackass. It's kundalini.

Let me spell that out for you ...

kuun-dah (duh for you) lee-knee

:er:


[

Dear KunLini,
I humbly apologize for having misspelled your name.
Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways.
In lieu of this I have taken the initiative of researching this , Godly name, that I have mismanaged.

Interesting name considering I have happened upon "stuff" suggesting , godly and sexy.....as well as some forms of Yoga.
Fitting considering some of your half naked photos which I feel somewhat repulsed by. I'm certain I'm not the only one, but that's an entirely different segment of "KunLini teaches me how to spell."
It was like , let me close this really quick.........this is not what I want to look at.
Certainly this can't effect your ever expanding ego, and I should hope it doesn't.
And here is why. Ego's , such as yours need to be popped from time to time.
Think of it as a housing bubble and incorporate fannie mae and freddy mac, this only if you comprehend " financial crisis" of 2008.
Which I'm sure you're oblivious to and have no earthly clue. But here again, this is another episode in the " KunLini chronicles" whereby, spelling correction makes the correcter feel superior.
" I JUST TOLD HIM!!!!! limme pat myself on the back"
You'll find , as we get along, famously, that I'm quite capable with the Kings English.

So there we have it Kundalini. A picture is worth a thousand words.
An assumption, on the other hand, worthless.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, sir.

Sincerely,
I am LightSpeed
And I approve this message.

PS - Looking forward to your future comments.