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

[Josh66]

that looked dangerous that you had a home made "balance beam."

Yeah - I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you really could have busted your balls...

 

[LightSpeed]

I try to stay away from the dram dram. But I feel compelled to provide my two cents, and that'll be it.

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

Why do you find this to be such a dumb statement, Lightspeed? I too instinctively "saw" what the top half of the body was doing in my head. No one is going to have the same ideal in his/her head, which is the fun of it; it's kind of a mystery to work out yourself.

I have never addressed you specifically, but I have to say it seems like you cause more of a disruption to the forums than add to them. Sure, there have always been groups of people that are friendly and familiar with one another (as you call them, "cliques"), but I can remember a time (specifically, before you started flooding the boards with this crap) when these debates and childish arguments were minimal.

My mother used to have some expression about how when one person seems to have issues with almost everyone, chances are that person is the problem. Food for thought.

I see.
Well, we'll just chalk that up to experience.
Mine and yours.

Aside from that, I'll do me best to answer your question.
I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?

I mean I understand when things get deep in all the artistry stuff, but no one seems to want to answer this, above question.
There are many artists out there with these ideas. Most of them are starving, nearly about all of them.
Thus , " starving artists events."
Do you think maybe some of them may be starving because they don't have a clue?
That, just because they can justify what they term " art" with ideas as to why people should like their work, conjured from nothing?
Words work really well to describe things. Photos work really well to bring an image in your face.

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?
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?

 

[LightSpeed]

Mirror break

 

[Josh66]

I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?

I may have a wonderful imagination, capable of creating all sorts of fantastic things - but nobody would have a chance to see that if I didn't have a camera.

(Not saying I'm awesome or anything, just illustrating the point.)

 

[APHPHOTO]

I read these posts to mostly learn. But sometimes I get a good chuckle over all the sarcasm. My wife looks over at me and asks, Isn't that a forum for photographers? What the heck are you laughing at? I guess thats what keeps me coming back. You guys are awesome.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

OP nice pic.

Hi *drama* factor in the thread too heh

 

[LightSpeed]

I try to stay away from the dram dram. But I feel compelled to provide my two cents, and that'll be it.

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

Why do you find this to be such a dumb statement, Lightspeed? I too instinctively "saw" what the top half of the body was doing in my head. No one is going to have the same ideal in his/her head, which is the fun of it; it's kind of a mystery to work out yourself.

I have never addressed you specifically, but I have to say it seems like you cause more of a disruption to the forums than add to them. Sure, there have always been groups of people that are friendly and familiar with one another (as you call them, "cliques"), but I can remember a time (specifically, before you started flooding the boards with this crap) when these debates and childish arguments were minimal.

My mother used to have some expression about how when one person seems to have issues with almost everyone, chances are that person is the problem. Food for thought.

I see.
Well, we'll just chalk that up to experience.
Mine and yours.

Aside from that, I'll do me best to answer your question.
I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?

I mean I understand when things get deep in all the artistry stuff, but no one seems to want to answer this, above question.
There are many artists out there with these ideas. Most of them are starving, nearly about all of them.
Thus , " starving artists events."
Do you think maybe some of them may be starving because they don't have a clue?
That, just because they can justify what they term " art" with ideas as to why people should like their work, conjured from nothing?
Words work really well to describe things. Photos work really well to bring an image in your face.

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?
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?

Well?
Someone answer this

Yeah, I'm pushing it now aint I?
I want to see a valid explanation to all this, I imagined it in my head stuff , pertaining to something ( A RECORDED IMAGE) that's intended to be A VISUAL AID, where all of a sudden,
because of artistry, is overlooked COMPLETELY as such, in favor of imagining the visual aid.

What is this? The freggin Twilight Zone?

 

[LightSpeed]

Suddenly silence.

 

[Bossy]

I'll be honest, I'm not replying to your tangent because I don't know what the hell you're going on about. You're mad because people like a photo that you don't like. Thats not the thought process of a reasonable person, and I don't see the point in trying to have a logical discussion on someone like that.

​

 

[thepaulreid]

I try to stay away from the dram dram. But I feel compelled to provide my two cents, and that'll be it.Why do you find this to be such a dumb statement, Lightspeed? I too instinctively "saw" what the top half of the body was doing in my head. No one is going to have the same ideal in his/her head, which is the fun of it; it's kind of a mystery to work out yourself.I have never addressed you specifically, but I have to say it seems like you cause more of a disruption to the forums than add to them. Sure, there have always been groups of people that are friendly and familiar with one another (as you call them, "cliques"), but I can remember a time (specifically, before you started flooding the boards with this crap) when these debates and childish arguments were minimal.My mother used to have some expression about how when one person seems to have issues with almost everyone, chances are that person is the problem. Food for thought.

I see.Well, we'll just chalk that up to experience.Mine and yours.Aside from that, I'll do me best to answer your question.I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?I mean I understand when things get deep in all the artistry stuff, but no one seems to want to answer this, above question.There are many artists out there with these ideas. Most of them are starving, nearly about all of them.Thus , " starving artists events."Do you think maybe some of them may be starving because they don't have a clue?That, just because they can justify what they term " art" with ideas as to why people should like their work, conjured from nothing?Words work really well to describe things. Photos work really well to bring an image in your face.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?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?

Well?Someone answer thisYeah, I'm pushing it now aint I?I want to see a valid explanation to all this, I imagined it in my head stuff , pertaining to something ( A RECORDED IMAGE) that's intended to be A VISUAL AID, where all of a sudden,because of artistry, is overlooked COMPLETELY as such, in favor of imagining the visual aid.What is this? The freggin Twilight Zone?

Dear Lightspeed. I am off to work now, but when I am back this evening I will do my best to answer this in a way that will make sense to you. cheers Paul

 

[LightSpeed]

Dear Lightspeed. I am off to work now, but when I am back this evening I will do my best to answer this in a way that will make sense to you. cheers Paul[/QUOTE]

Good deal Paul.
Look forward to it.
Be safe.

 

[jowensphoto]

I apologize for not responding as quickly as you would like, your Highness. I happen to have a life outside of TPF and the internet.

Sometimes it's not what is in the photo (or the story), but what was left out. The mystery that makes us think, and imagine. When ever has there been something wrong with a piece of art or literature making the viewer think?! I thought that was the purpose.

This really is the last thing I will say to you, on this thread or any other, simply because I think you're a pompous nitwit not worth the gear you shoot with.

 

[thepaulreid]

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

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

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!

I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?

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

 

[2WheelPhoto]

OP, great pic.

This thread delivers, the bait is being sucked up at a rapid pace

 

[bazooka]

Haiku is beautiful because it communicates an entire scene via the imagination while only being limited to few words. Much "work" is left to the reader. It is engaging instead of passive.