adobe.photography
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
adobe.photography@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Another Macro/Close Up Thread - 16 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/004dbdcea2dc130a?hl=en
* Where were you? (part four) - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ab8c6a7a2987240a?hl=en
* Brooks Institute - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/6660e6750a10dca2?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Macro/Close Up Thread
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/004dbdcea2dc130a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 11:44 pm
From: Ozpeter@adobeforums.com
Woah. I went from link to link with the result that I now have no further aspiration to take so much as a snapshot again. There are so many stunning images in the world already.
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:45 am
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
There's always room for more.....
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 6:51 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I don't know about that that…do you guys really think those were beautiful?
Aren't those images cultivated to an extreme, like really over sweetened?
A little too rich? Really over saturated and kind of pointless?
Would you hag it on your wall?
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:16 am
From: Cindy@adobeforums.com
do you guys really think those were beautiful?
Yes
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:27 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Strange sense of esthetics.
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:57 am
From: Cindy@adobeforums.com
Strange sense of esthetics.
So I'm (and others) not supposed to like it just because you don't? What photos I have seen of yours are really drab.
Personal taste?
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 9:11 am
From: halsch@adobeforums.com
They are certainly not KITSCH.
Thank you, Ramon.
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:59 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I did not imply you should not like it I wrote it was a strange sense of esthetics.
You're a very angry person Cindy and I never said you should relate to my images either, if you see them as drab that is fine with me, I would never react to your opinion the way you react to mine.
People see things differently fortunately and I never said they were Kitsch either but now that it has been brought up I think halsch thinks it is or he never would have used the term.
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:08 pm
From: Cindy@adobeforums.com
You're a very angry person Cindy
That's the kettle calling the kettle...
You have always been such a pleasure Wade...I am not particularly angry, I just don't like much what you have to say. I have gone years without responding to your comments...I will consider I had a slip.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:42 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
From John Nack's blog:
25 Beautiful Macro Photography Shots
Worth a look.
They certainly are worth a look. Matter of fact some of those would be hard to top.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:11 pm
From: mrsd@adobeforums.com
do you guys really think those were beautiful?
I'm another who thinks they were beautiful.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:31 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I'm another who thinks they were beautiful.
Very Interesting concept of esthetics indeed.
My observation is that the work I have seen posted hereon the forum is far superior then anything I saw on John Nack's Blog.
That is my opinion.
I go with the work that this crowd has done over that junk any day.
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 4:07 pm
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
Over-cooked and sweetened or not, that picture of the insect with "morning dew" (or atomised water - whatever - ) is simply extraordinary. I've never seen anything like it (which qualifies my observation that there's always room for more images in this world).
I'm also thinking that there's also been a fair bit of extremely well done focus-stacking gone on there - the depth of focus achieved is beyond extraordinary for an optically formed image.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 4:42 pm
From: mrsd@adobeforums.com
I go with the work that this crowd has done over that junk any day.
I love the work I see here, but I also loved those. I do not look at them with a critical eye, just what appeals.
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 4:46 pm
From: Cindy@adobeforums.com
that picture of the insect with "morning dew" (or atomised water - whatever
- ) is simply extraordinary.
That one stood out in my mind too. I would say it was a challenge to capture that.
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 5:44 pm
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com
I liked most of them, but some struck me as being set-up in a studio environment to get some of the results i saw, but thats neither here or there really. I have seen that flower in water done a million times, and really, when was the last time you saw a flower in a foot of water?. Anyway, i found them enjoyable and would love to call some of them my own.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ab8c6a7a2987240a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:51 am
From: Ozpeter@adobeforums.com
Where was I in 1975?
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1czfiZZ6BqgTH0imQOOrkpLxOjftp>
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1BhjtaPug5vk4xb8aIrebY0vfJNWCg1>
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1iMFqj3qmHQZeN1Z3uvIORz00ixOW1>
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1jTNIpAECe25UgjSneeetDxhyqsozu>
From some long forgotten slides I took in Venice, recently resurrected and scanned.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 2:59 am
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
Brilliant!
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 6:15 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I was in Venice a few years ago and though certain very heavily trafficked areas had to constantly be cleaned up like the area near the Train Station and a little bit near Rialto and the market the rest of the town was much cleaner then those photos would indicate.
Also in the past the city had a reputation for smelling rather poorly but I was there during their record breaking heat wave and it was and again it was not at all foul smelling.
They either cleaned up their at a lot or we saw the place very differently.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:35 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
And like this
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1MiQ2b77iYT8I0z06D2jtODOmAo0>
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=16m9pzdNDrlejkQJjOGmjOttj5gPQg>
What I saw in Peters photos was more like London's Soho after market hours.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:37 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Peter, Sounds like your house has historical relevance as well as sentimental.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:53 pm
From: "John Joslin"
The house I grew up in, then and now.
Easy to do since I moved back to the same town when I returned from overseas. (I don't wear trousers like that any more though!)
<'http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thenandnow.jpg'>
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:45 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Now there you go John understands architectural photography the sense of space not just a good composition, the placement in the frame, an orientation to a viewers eye, clarity of the message.
Well done but next time John post the image on <http://www.pixentral.com> and copy and paste the link information from the top text field under the posted image into your message instead of the image and that will give us a thumbnail that will link us to the Pixentral page where your image is posted. It saves band width for the Adobe Forum site.
Well done john and that is a charming house.
BTW shep I thought your house was also charming in the same way as John's house each having its own unique vernacular! And both a bit mundane in their context.
Linda that does not mean what it sounds like to you!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Brooks Institute
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/6660e6750a10dca2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:31 pm
From: "John Joslin"
Aerodynamicists have proved that helicopters can't fly.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:36 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Aerodynamicists have proved that helicopters can't fly.
They don't fly they rise or fall. And then they are pushed directed in one direction or another.
Sometimes scientist do the research using the wrong criteria.
A rocket does not fly either although a rocket lane does to some extent but mostly it glides which is the part that is flight.
A hot air balloon does not fly either.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photography"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photography+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment