Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Posts for: Waltm
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
Jan 25, 2016 11:30:31   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
Mac wrote:
I think you are just looking for people to agree with you. You've argued with everyone who disagreed.
Disagreeing isn't attacking and if you want your comments taken seriously you also have to take responses the same way.


Honestly, I was looking for answers, either way. What I did not want, and would not stand for, were the snide, self-satisfied responses. If that means that I was looking for a particular type of answer, you are absolutely right. I was looking for a careful consideration and a forthright but not sneering response.
As to what I agree with, careful examination of the answers will reveal sarcastic answers only to those who deserve them.
Go to
Jan 25, 2016 09:57:44   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
rmalarz wrote:
I would suggest that you revise your tagline to:
Born sarcastic, no change since.
--Bob


An interesting suggestion. Please consider that I CAN be as gracious as the next guy if my question is taken seriously, as it was meant. I can also be as sarcastic as the next guy is crude or lacking in civility.

Language is either a balm or a weapon. I choose the former unless attacked.
Go to
Jan 25, 2016 09:20:15   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
We could put Walt, tsilva, and rmalarz into a well shaken paper bag filled with the world's best cameras and lenses, yet; not one among the three of you could come up with a good photo if you tried; so, why don't you three give up on tossing about your nonsensical remarks that are totally meaningless to the majority of those upon this forum who try to give the forum a sense of worthiness and true value ! In other words, "GROW UP!"


Son,
If you take the time to note, my original question was posed in a civilized manner, asking for a civilized response. Some answers were just that. Others were of the type that you just scribbled.
Apparently you have no time for such discussions, although I thought that this was a forum for photographic issues, not for the disparagement of the (unknown) talents of others. You are, no doubt, among that elite whose photos are always perfect, or can be manipulated by some esoteric process to become easier to view. It must be satisfying.
In response to your grouping me with those that call crap crap, I suggest that your own response is just that.
Go to
Jan 24, 2016 13:47:44   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
Mac wrote:
Yeah, pictures of kittens. panda cubs and puppies usually make most people smile.


But they do not normally require a caption.
Another inapt, inept response.
Go to
Jan 24, 2016 13:34:21   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
rmalarz wrote:
Believe what you wish to believe. It seems that a good number of responses don't hold your suggested opinion.

Additionally, it's interesting to read your expressed belief that a clever title can improve a photograph. Reading your tagline, it would seem that you're not quite the cynic you profess to be.

Cynic
(n.) A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

The previous is from "The Devil's Dictionary" - Ambrose Bierce

Unlike yourself, I prefer to see things as they are in matters such as you've proposed.
--Bob
Believe what you wish to believe. It seems that a ... (show quote)


Both Demosthenes (3rd Olynthiac) and Julius Caesar (The Gallic Wars) wrote about people willingly believing what they wish, so I am in good (or perhaps not) company.
Perhaps I built the question improperly. Of course the photo will be no different. My thought was that perhaps its impact on the viewer might be enhanced by a caption.
Some responses were notably uncivil, but that perhaps should be expected.
Go to
Jan 24, 2016 13:04:21   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
Mac wrote:
I don't think a good title will improve a bad photo.


Good answer, but then I have to ask: Is there such a thing as a photo that is not perfect, but that is not in itself without merit? Would that we could all make every photo perfect.
I cheerfully declare that I have been making imperfect photos since the mid-forties. Some are better than others and some are awful. Some are for record purposes and some are illustrative of some mechanical process. Some are casually taken and some are carefully constructed.
My question used the word "mediocre", not awful or trite, or out of focus, or of inane subjects. The responses of some display more ego than advice. In any case, thank you all for your reading of it.
Go to
Jan 24, 2016 12:08:02   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
Photographer Jim wrote:
Actually, I think Bob's quote applies very well in this case. When you apply lipstick to a pig, your end result is still a pig. Same for photographic images. If you have a mediocre image to begin with, no clever titling will result in it being other than a mediocre image.


I suggest that a mediocre image may be enhanced to a more substantial transmission of meaning if an appropriate caption explores the photo beyond its f-stop and focus point. I may be wrong, but I asked the question in good faith. I expected more than the type of response I received from a couple of people. Have your fun, but don't expect me to think well of you in any aspect, or respect your views.
Go to
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Jan 24, 2016 11:51:09   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
And crap responses are crap as well. Apparently there are Trolls lurking under the photograpgic bridges as well as in the political world.
Thank you for your response, which identifies you definitively.
Go to
Jan 24, 2016 10:06:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
I prefer to leave politics, where your comment surely applies, out of it.
Go to
Jan 24, 2016 09:51:18   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Titling versus Inference
I know, I know. The photo should speak for itself. Sometimes, however, a mediocre shot can be made startling with the right caption. Am I wrong to think that this is so? I am not speaking specifically about "Art" displays, which show the photographer's skill, but about commonplace events which may evoke a smile, or something to that effect.
Go to
Nov 21, 2015 15:48:29   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
RAW vs JPEG; but not the usual question
Question: How many egos does it take to post a snide remark?
Answer: Just one very large one.

Anyone who wishes to respond is welcome. I have a very thick skin. I claim only to be a learner with seventy years of handling photographic materials, without significant success, and a lurker on these pages.
Go to
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Nov 21, 2015 10:25:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
RAW vs JPEG; but not the usual question
Apaflo wrote:
Film is purely analog, from the start to the finish. There may be individual grains, or individual molecules, but the signal is derived not by counting them, but from the effect of their location and size as well as their number. There is always an infinite variation, or an infinite set of values between any two given values. That defines an analog signal.

Digital by definition means there is a finite set of symbols (values). That happens at the point in the process where an analog signal is sampled and quantized. Quantization produce a finite set of symbols, with a zero set of values between each.

A "digital camera" does start with an analog signal, because the actual photo sensor, as are virtually all transducers, is an analog device, which is not properly described as a "digital sensor", but rather an "electronic sensor". The camera is digital, though the sensor is not, because the data the camera produces is purely digital data.
Film is purely analog, from the start to the finis... (show quote)


This from an old radar tech who had the job of maintaining a device that translated analog radar signals to digital form for processing and decision-making by humans. The reduction from analog to digital through a quantizing process produced a radar range, and other information for whatever was the desired effect, but a significant degradation of signal as to exact range was the inevitable result. This may be entirely irrelevant, but it clears this whole discussion up for me.
Go to
Nov 6, 2015 13:03:56   #
(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))
6 Extinct Classic Car Components That Need to Be Revived
Not a joke. One of my Alfas had two per cylinder and I could see them from the top of the head. And all of the aircraft I worked on had two per, but some were REALLY hard to get to.
lightcatcher wrote:
And some cars have two per cylinder.
Go to
Nov 6, 2015 08:50:37   #
(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))
6 Extinct Classic Car Components That Need to Be Revived
My standing to comment is that I have rebuilt an Alfa 1600 engine from parts bought at J C Whitney. Now in my dotage, my rollaway box is full of tools gathering dust. Just opening the hood of my latest car confuses me beyond measure. The loss of wind wings has brought us into a world of closed-in peapods, disconnected from the rest of the world. One can hardly hear the emergency vehicle bearing down on you so you can get out of the way.
Go to
Oct 13, 2015 15:00:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
do you really need an interchangeable lens camera?
Please, Sir ! Your pudding recipe !
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.