my madame's boudoir
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
pollen is soo sparkly
band annoying bor my bgnose
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I've seen better boudoirs, real boudoirs for a start
You have a bit to learn about photgraphy too.
Fuck Israel
Like how to spell it for one. Why don't you offer a suggestion?Dilbert_X wrote:
I've seen better boudoirs, real boudoirs for a start
You have a bit to learn about photgraphy too.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Typo.
Lighting balance is off, and not in a good way.
Composition and framing is untidy.
Lighting balance is off, and not in a good way.
Composition and framing is untidy.
Fuck Israel
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
The highlights are a little blown. A forgivable offense since he's probably limited in gear and software. I'd say he did a good job with the composition. Untidy was the goal I believe. There is no "set standard" with composition. There is nothing wrong with his framing. The shot is intriguing. If the idea in his photo was to block parts of the subject to bring the viewer in.. that's exactly what he did.
Dunno Dil. maybe we just see things a different way. I think it was an interesting shot with regards to composition.Framing is the technique of drawing attention to the subject of your image by blocking other parts of the image with something in the scene.
The benefits of framing pictures include:
1. giving the photo context (for example framing a scene with an archway can tell you something about the place you are by the architecture of the archway or including some foliage in the foreground of a shot can convey a sense of being out in nature).
2. giving images a sense of depth and layers (in essence framing a shot generally puts something in the foreground which adds an extra dimension to the shot).
3. leading the eye towards your main focal point (some ‘frames’ can draw your photo’s viewer into the picture just by their shape). Some also believe that a frame can not only draw the eye into a picture but that it keeps it there longer – giving a barrier between your subject and the outside of the shot.
4. intriguing your viewer. Sometimes it’s what you can’t see in an image that draws you into it as much as (if not more than) what you can see in the picture. Clever framing that leaves those viewing your image wondering a little or imagining what is behind your frame can be quite effective (get it wrong and it can also be quite annoying!).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i'd rather write 15,000 words on a piece of literature with symbolic depth than spend my time 'learning' about the faux 'art' of photography, thanksDilbert_X wrote:
I've seen better boudoirs, real boudoirs for a start
You have a bit to learn about photgraphy too.
i just wanna take pictures of my gf. if you mock the pretention of writers and literature students then you're taking hypocrisy to the extreme by considering pointing+clicking something some high-falutin practice.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
faux art lol
oh and yeah right, forgive me for not thinking... that the social outcast engineering student that already says he hated parties when at university, only posts pictures of the back of his head, and spends most of his day 'trolling' people young enough to be his son... forgive me if i'm a little skeptical at your claimed 'lothario' status. i bet you've seen the inside of many a boudoir, dilbert... unfortunate that your momma couldn't afford a separate premises for her business when you were growing up, i know.Dilbert_X wrote:
I've seen better boudoirs, real boudoirs for a start
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
my point is if you think writing and literature is a joke then what is photography? of all the artistic forms taking a good photo takes arguably the least work. half of it is the gear doing things for you. you can't buy an expensive pen and then write a compelling novel. oh and there's no photoshop for touching up shitty poetry.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
faux art lol
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I agree with dilbert on the lighting being a bit bad but I see no problem with the composition
and a lot of the best captures involves lots of luck, patience, perseverence and that all important good timing / right-place-at-the-right-moment master stroke. you can't write a play that will still be performed in 400 year's time by spewing out the script on accident. but of course i have absolutely no problem with photography, i think it's a fun hobby and some of the results are amazing. it's just the 'snobbery' about photographic practice coming from the arch-nemesis of all arts here on bf2s, prof. dilbert. what a silly set of values he has in his head if he thinks serious art deserves contempt, and yet he's willing to pick apart some amateur snapping a fond-picture of his girlfriend. i guess photography is a serious endeavour because it has his attention and because he gets it / is good at it... whereas that complicated prose stuff... ivory towers!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
here's a self-shot with good lighting (imo). she is obviously much better than i; i take photos because of the subject, not the photography.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-08 07:45:05)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
well I personally don't think writing and literature are a joke. I also think it's an apples and oranges comparison. Saying that half of it is the gear doing things for you is like saying that half of writing is the computer/typewriter making the words appear. Yes, any idiot can put a pen to paper and any idiot can push the shutter button on a camera. It takes a good eye to take a good photo, especially one that needs no digital touch-ups (back in the days when it was all film...) just as it takes a good mind to write a good novel.Uzique wrote:
my point is if you think writing and literature is a joke then what is photography? of all the artistic forms taking a good photo takes arguably the least work. half of it is the gear doing things for you. you can't buy an expensive pen and then write a compelling novel. oh and there's no photoshop for touching up shitty poetry.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
faux art lol
a picture is worth a thousand words
a little too much black, feels like you're wasting the space on the bottom leftUzique wrote:
here's a self-shot with good lighting (imo). she is obviously much better than i; i take photos because of the subject, not the photography.
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-a … 921055.jpg
other than that the lighting is better
that saying was coined when a picture took some artistic merit to compose and actually create. photography changed all that.SEREMAKER wrote:
a picture is worth a thousand words
now it's just sentimental marketing bullshit used to sell $150 sony 5 megapixel handbag cameras. 'art'.
it also suits the extremely lazy and attention defecit. a convenient phrase, really, but seldom used in a meaningful context.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-08 08:02:23)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
trolololololSEREMAKER wrote:
a picture is worth a thousand words
your computer/typewriter analogy doesn't work, though, at all. have you read any of the critical debate and manifestos of, say, french new-wave cinema? it addresses the same things and concepts. the auteur figure, etc. it's very hard in an era of technology-based art and mechanically-produced art to leave a genuinely human signature and style. it's harder. most photography taken using mid-range DSLR's could be taken by anyone; they're almost entirely without human personality or really defining individuality, despite their artistic (i.e. formal/technical) merit. when you read a great writer, the tools at his disposable (i.e. the written word) are arranged in a way that is undeniably his (or hers). it's more difficult with film and photo, and always has been. i don't think it's a lesser art, i'm just baffled why someone would want to jump on my dick and make a huge fuss about a throwaway- 'you look pretty!' picture, but then sniggers whenever someone tries to do the same paragraph-long breakdown about literature, because it's "pretentious". it's more pretentious to be so analytical about photography, if anything, because you're not dissecting much other than form and technique, at the end of the day. which can all be learned pretty much by rote. only the most exceptional photographers truly make a photo something of their own. you cannot say the same thing about a writer in regards to a pen/typewriter: they are a transparent conduit. with much of flickr's best photography nowadays, the signature and style is all because of more-accessible, increasingly-cheap hardware that makes a shit shot look good (not to mention the extensive post-snap processing easily usable nowadays).Hurricane2k9 wrote:
well I personally don't think writing and literature are a joke. I also think it's an apples and oranges comparison. Saying that half of it is the gear doing things for you is like saying that half of writing is the computer/typewriter making the words appear. Yes, any idiot can put a pen to paper and any idiot can push the shutter button on a camera. It takes a good eye to take a good photo, especially one that needs no digital touch-ups (back in the days when it was all film...) just as it takes a good mind to write a good novel.Uzique wrote:
my point is if you think writing and literature is a joke then what is photography? of all the artistic forms taking a good photo takes arguably the least work. half of it is the gear doing things for you. you can't buy an expensive pen and then write a compelling novel. oh and there's no photoshop for touching up shitty poetry.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
faux art lol
like i said i like photography a lot. i just wouldn't take myself so seriously as a photographer if i thought other arts in the hierarchy were bunk. as dilbert evidently does, mostly if not all the time.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-08 08:08:53)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ah, I understand your argument now. I'm not sure why Dilbert discounts other forms of art but to each their own I suppose. I personally don't get much from fine art (paintings and what not) but I won't deride it or people's appreciation of it.
but you acknowledge there's more to painting a masterpiece than taking a photo of the year (or decade, even?)
taking a great photo is often being in the right place, in the midst, that's the beauty of photography (and the camera as a tool)
whether or not you 'appreciate' fine art is a matter of taste and education/raising i suppose; being able to recognise genius should be intuitive.
taking a great photo is often being in the right place, in the midst, that's the beauty of photography (and the camera as a tool)
whether or not you 'appreciate' fine art is a matter of taste and education/raising i suppose; being able to recognise genius should be intuitive.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
yes I do
a picture is worth about tree fiddy