[Leica] Peter provokes contentious controversy

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 5/4/05 12:38 PM, "bdcolen@earthlink.net" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> typed:

> Okay, Peter, you asked - Peter would get more comments had it been a strong
> photo. As it is it's an idea more than a photo. Unfortunately, between the
> peacocks, the table and umbrella, the other people, etc., it's too damned
> cluttered an image to work as I assume you wanted it to work. I have to 
> really
> struggle to see the camera in the hooks. Beyond that, there's the question 
> of
> what makes this 'special' other than the fact that the guy without arms is
> using his hooks to take a picture. My guess is he wouldn't think it was a
> worthy of a photo - given what armless, and legless people can accomplish,
> taking photos comes in pretty low on the humdrum list.
> 
> So.... :-)
> 
> B. D.


> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/06PeacockCouple.htm
>
> 
> --Peter
> 
>  
I looked at it and thought "Gee! That's guys got an open sore!" (on his
shin)
It kind of made me dizzy looking at it being so jumbled and jellyfish-like.
By "jellyfish -like" I mean it is jpeged beyond all recognition.
My Spider sense says "in camera".
A slight exaggeration that alone gets my inner ear going.
And what with the twisty camera movement.
The color seemed jacked up and unpleasant and I wondered if it was a
straight untweaked upload from a small vest pocket digital point and shoot.
Which would also explain the twisty camera movement.

Greyscale the shot IMO would improve beyond recognition.

One thing I've noticed about Peter's shots (whose company I enjoy) is he
seems to have time to post process about a half to two thirds of his shots.
Quite a few appear to be "right from the camera".
A thing I really disagree with.
I think its a bad idea to let so many if any things "slip by".
This one looks like one of the ones that got away.

Some judicious unsharp mask or third party sharpening would do this image a
world of good even at this size if you ask me.

I don't dwell on the ins and outs of the uploads I find from the LUG as I
find it weird and frustrating people uploading images on a camera list and
not mentioning...
Ok maybe it's not shot with a Leica, fine, but WHAT WAS IT shot with anyway?
And how? And why?
It's not as if this is a shot of a guys dog or wife and who the heck cares?
Sure Art's great but lets start off by telling us Geeks how you did it, they
we'll bring in the Surrealists.

Seems that's the thing we upload so many "family" shots with tech details
seemingly irrelevant so we leave them off that when we do a "real" shot we
leave the tech stuff off that and approach it otherwise informally as well.

I say we all make an effort to get more serious.
And Leicalike. In any minor way possible.

Frankly I look at not a lot of paws for much this reason.
Paws with real Paw subject matter I'm more into being a hard core animal
lover.

I guess I vote with my mouse clicker on the paws or whatever. I don't click
on the paws for the most part.

I'd click on one which is like:
"click on this it's my front sidewalk and sexy mushrooms taken with my new
Digilux 2 blah blah blah. With polarizer....."

...As I'm continuing to toss and turn about that particular piece of gear
and polarizers believe it or not have got my interest now I'd click on the
URL perhaps.
And I know ahead of time that I'd know what I was looking at.
Mushrooms I like also. I find them mucho photogenic.
Macro stuff as well.
Mucho macro.
Sidewalks I don't know.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/