[ennuipoet]

QueenBee and Rav, they look good to me. I like the silver highlight edges on the leaves QB!

[ennuipoet]

I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we’re all counting on you.

[ennuipoet]

To be totally honest with you, I shoot Canon because my folks bought a Canon back in the day and gave it to me. My first, and favorite, camera was a Pentax K1000. I was very close to buying Pentax when I went digital, the only reason I didn’t was the availability of used equipment. Most of the 2nd Hand stuff on Ebay is either Nikon or Canon. I chose Canon over the Nikon because I’d never shot on a Nikon.

I love what I am seeing in the new Nikons, but I will be DAMNED if I am buying all new lenses! If someone walked up to me and said, I will replace everything you have if you switch to Nikon, I would do it and never look back.

Of course, if I were a Nikon shooter and someone made the same offer for Canon, I would probably do too.

[ennuipoet]

I find the smug pretentiousness of some jackass with a 5D and a $4k lens tell me how much better my shots would be if a just bought some good equipment. (Keep in mind this on the street and this person has never SEEN a photo of mine…actual event, at the dance parade this year!)

I’ve never run across anything like that. I think I’d probably be too stunned to be able to react immediately. What an asshole. What’d you say?

The only time a photo is universally bad, is when it is taken on a Nikon

😈

Amen, brother, preach it! 😆

My words were something along the line of: “Dude, I don’t get paid to do this…”what I should have said was: “You know, you’re right, can I have yours?”

[ennuipoet]

FWIW, I don’t think any creative artform should be constrained to specific technologies. So I don’t understand the hostility towards people that like cheap cameras or other methods that introduce odd, sometimes random, uncontrollable, unpredictable effects. I like them, but also like high quality, very accurate cameras too. But I don’t see the conflict in having and using both.

And while I find just about any artificially inflated market for a art (or products in general) absurd, if makes people happy to buy Lomography prints for too much money, it’s no skin off my nose. If I ever run into some smug SOB copping an attitude about cheap camera superiority, I’d certainly make it clear that I thought they were an ass. But I wouldn’t accept the smugness the other direction if I was using a Lomo or showing photo’s I’d take with a Lomo.

I’ve always maintained that it is the photographer, not the camera, that made the photo. I just find something so insufferably smug and cute about Lomo, even the name implies cuteness. (Lomo should be the name of a little girl’s teddy bear!) I find the smug pretentiousness of some jackass with a 5D and a $4k lens tell me how much better my shots would be if a just bought some good equipment. (Keep in mind this on the street and this person has never SEEN a photo of mine…actual event, at the dance parade this year!) I am a shoe string budget, I’ve given up a lot of things to buy camera equipment, I can only dream of having the money for that kind of gear. In the end, a good photo is a good photo if it was taken on said 5D or a crap cellphone.

The only time a photo is universally bad, is when it is taken on a Nikon

😈

[ennuipoet]

Could I get an opinion on this one? Too much Light?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lokisbongs-pictures/5828531475/

Yup, to much light 😀

[ennuipoet]

Opinion please?

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/clouddancer19/Project%20365/IMG_0711.jpg

Thanks.

I go with the others, it goes beyond shadows into full darkness. I won’t say “absolutely not” but it is more of a night shot than a shadow shot.

[ennuipoet]

So here is the basic gist: My idea was photographs with a strong, single direction light source illuminating specific areas of the subject while leaving the remainder in deep shadows.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuipoet/5428168758/

U-Man all of them fit within my broad parameters of the theme but 6991a, 5526 and 9471a are most consistent with what I envisioned.

Again, I believe in broad interpretation of a theme to permit maximum participation and easiest moderation. So any photograph with strong elements of light and shadow fits in my book.

[ennuipoet]

Just don’t confuse the people that do it for fun, by resurrecting antique cameras, with the people that think they need to pay a gazillion dollars for a crappy plastic camera (like the Blackbird Fly for just $119 – I could do the same thing with a Brownie reflex from ebay for $10 and a piece of black tape). And the photos would be higher quality.

Heh – Holgas are fun, but got old after a couple rolls. If light leaks are so much charm, why do I go batshiat insane with black tape to eliminate them on my bakelite brownies?

Nor do I, particularly as I’ve a shelf full of old cameras for just that purpose. It’s the morans who buy crap for a lot of money, take bad photos and call it “art” that I mock. I actually went to the Lomography store a few weeks ago (http://microsites.lomography.com/stores/gallery-stores/nyc) and was mortified by the prices on things and the pretentious jackassery that oozes from the pores of the people in there. I had my Canon with me, people actually sneered at it while I browsed.

[ennuipoet]

Dwayne’s still does runs of 110 and Disc film if you are of a mind to actually shoot some

as a moderator i could simple delete your post but that would be the cowards way out. so i will patiently explain to you that the negative sizes of both those film types don’t allow sufficient information to be captured to make decent sized prints. to say nothing about crappy optics or the the lack of creative controls both cameras have.

or i could own up to using the “no film” excuse as a cop out.

A lot of people find that crappy optic and a dearth of creative control is a “Thing”. They would tell you that the utter lack of quality is an inherent feature of the the film, they even have a movement or something. They call it lomography. I have a name for that sort of thing, but I can’t use it in a family friendly setting 😀

[ennuipoet]

And? What’s stopping you from using them? 😉

i can’t find 110 film. the disc camera is kind of cool but again no film.

and i never really was a fan of SX-70s or Kodak EK4s :)[/quote]

http://photography.shop.ebay.com/Film-/4201/i.html?_dmpt=US_Camera_Film&_fln=1&_ssov=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282&Format=110%2520Print|Disc

Dwayne’s still does runs of 110 and Disc film if you are of a mind to actually shoot some

[ennuipoet]

OK, kill the thread, it’s over, U-Man has pulled off the lipstick on the cat’s ass. We can all just go home, someone get the lights on the way.

You magnificent bastard!

[ennuipoet]

See now I would have thought the second one was along the lines of the theme but the first and third don’t really demonstrate that same kind of deep shadow do they?

I know what I had in mind when I proposed the theme, but that is hard to translate to the canvas of Fark. So, for my 2cents, a photo with clear elements centering on the interplay of light and shadow qualifies. Rav’s third photo is the least pertinent to the theme, but the first two are good, the second is dead on the money.

The harder the criteria the less the participation, the more difficult to moderate is my motto.

[ennuipoet]

Rav, those are exactly what I am talking about.

[ennuipoet]

This happened in NYC this weekend. Yeah, I could used all of those.

[Author]

Posts