HOME | DD
davespertine — 34.
Published: 2009-08-25 14:57:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 2496; Favourites: 107; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
...Related content
Comments: 40
Beautiful work!!
I like so much this compostion! That's Great!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am getting so frustrated looking at this new batch because I love them all but don't know what you are actually seeing and capturing with your camera. I know Photoshop exists...and I resized something once...is it playing a big part here in creating the depths and dimensions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
all of my square images are cropped in photoshop and i generally tweek them in one way or another, but they are not altered or manipulated.... it is strange how we feel about these things... maybe it's like showing photos of how we are or of how we used to be... i guess it depends on whether we are looking to create images or capture them... they are very different skills, quite often, if not always, defined by what we hide, or throw away, rather than what we show....
there is nothing to hide, but i believe that the potentials should be explored, nothing ventured, nothing gained... things very quickly cease to be what they used to be, even if the differences are very subtle
... i am not sure what you mean by depths, but sometimes i distort dimensions, either in photoshop or with my camera
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was especially glad to get this reply because I was afraid that I had perhaps alienated you with my questions in the first place. I also want to thank you for the thoughtful response, which really does help me understand the process. And I definitely relate to the image of choosing what to toss and what to show. As for depth, I was using it in a collage sense, referring to the multi-layered effects that often appear in collaged backgrounds. Your work has great depth of color, and it's just hard to picture capturing that in a camera. But then, I use a Kodak point-and-shoot (on automatic), so consider the source! Thanks again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i am not the best photographer in the world, but i am always learning and have spent a lot of hours going around and finding abstract things to capture... not everything that i try comes out as i wanted it, occasionally it comes out better than i could have imagined, and as i improve my photographic skills there is less rubbish.
I think one of my best skills is that of seeing things around me... looking
As for colour depth as you describe it, it is all about the light and using the right setting on the camera best suited for the situation, that can be completely manual on a kodak point and shoot.... sometimes that will capture perfectly...
The best time to shoot outside is the last (or first) few hours of daylight, or when there are dark clouds above and bright light coming underneath the clouds.
colour depth is mostly about light conditions.
All that said, there are also ways to bring out the colours and contrast that is in an image with out adding anything using photoshop... and correcting exposures to some extent.... i may do that with my images but when the light conditions are right then there is no need to do so. I am experimenting with various filters to get better results in the less ideal middle of the day, and choosing different subjects which work better in that kind of light.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The looking is key. I am finding that out myself. It leads to seeing, in any field, not just that of cameraology. Sometimes I am tempted to try to take capital P Photographs, but I don't think I am wired that way. And that's okay. I can still enjoy, and be enriched by, excellence such as yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what do you mean by capital P photographs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Music as opposed to music. Eminem as opposed to vanilla ice. The Beatles as opposed to herman's hermits. The Stones as opposed to the dave clark five (although I did think Mike Smith was pretty darned talented).
Photographs as opposed to photographs (snapshots).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
interestingly, your explanation has made me look at this in a way that i previously hadn't, which isn't directly the way you intended
i was thinking what kind of difference the rolling stones and THE DAVE CLARK FIVE would make.... this kind of hyped up, text size billing may have some effect on the way that people place reverence on an artist, but it is all entirely relative
it only refers to the status of artists at a particular event or at a particular time... it says nothing about an artists integrity, or their ability to express their ideals or ideas or just their thoughts in a way that people resonate with
i make capitalisation irrelevant, just a hype, a formality and part of an elitist hierarchical structure... i want my name at the top and in bigger print than everyone else's.... it all undermines and overpowers the everyday individual, by relegating them the the irrelevance of less than small print
we should remember that the size of the print is just a hype based illusion and it is integrity in the individual, no matter who they are, which counts.... big type/small mind... or some other association can come to mind...
i respect those who entertain their friends, for nothing, even though their friends think they are small print....
the real point here though, is how you can inspire people in ways in which you had not intended.... which means you can be no judge of your own art...
those who think that how talented you are, and how much money you make from your talent are related, are caught up in the global hype which is hierarchical elitism....
it is all delusion, they have mistaken integrity for font size, or traded one for the other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know, you make superior points and ones that are aligned with my personal philosophy if not with my personal experience. Going back to The Stones and the DC5, realize that listeners at that time were given the choice--and it was an honest choice as much as anything that springs from advertising can be "honest"--between supporting the Mods (DC5) or the Rockers (Stones). It's important to remember that both were equally hyped in the teen-hysteria press, and for a while, both groups were neck in neck in popularity. The clean group vs. the dirty group? Oh, my! But only one group exhibited longevity, I suspect because of the tenacity of Mick Jagger, who reminds me of a bantam-weight boxer! But look what they were singing. Lots of blues to begin with, such as Robert Johnson's Love in Vain. Nobody bothered with Johnson, but that wasn't the fault of the Stones, who were always quick to mention their blues influences.
So maybe we can assume that in these musicians there was integrity and an ability to express emotion and the drive to get those feelings out there...and the emotions were definitely universal. They still resonate today. Alas for the DC5, these guys couldn't keep it going once the media tide shifted and it was revealed that, like the Monkees, they were nothing but creations of the media, their songs pleasant but not meaningful in any true way. But to swing back to the topic that I have been debating, for a long time, actually...is it possible to have integrity, heart, character, a couple thimblefuls of soul and some small measure of material success?
You make it sound like these are mutually exclusive. Is that what you really believe?
One small point...but it's an important one. When people play for their friends (and I know this from lots of personal experience) the people doing the playing are written on the hearts of their friends (if their friends are truly friends) in uber-text.
I appreciate your comments about art and unintended inspiration. They make me feel happy, and... worthwhile, I guess would be the word. I have succeeded in the material culture and now am quite happily "unsuccessful" by the standards of the material culture of the USA.
By the way, I am not the musician--my daughter is--on the cusp of success, maybe? Her ideas sync with yours. These days there is almost a reverse elitism, but that is just my jaded self peaking through, I suppose.
Rambling on, sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you are a good rambler
i would not say that i express beliefs here, but there are some frustrations...
it is different in the US to here in the UK.... music has become virtual, which has some advantages but virtual can mean literally mean virtual.... music is not all about recorded product... but perhaps that is how capitalism has made it become
this country is getting worse, we have become so obsessed with trying to win, that we import talent.... it is true in sport and music.... rather than invest in encouraging participation, we neglect that and steal talent from other countries....
we neglect our own people and buy those whose skills have been nurtured by other cultures.... it is all about exploitation without development
to me it is not all about trying to win or to be the best..... it is really important to participate in music and in sport.... they are for fun, no just for money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am proud of the United States in so many ways, but if there is one thing that makes me nuts, it's that our biggest export is mass-marketed entertainment (not necessarily talent). Even as far away (from me, not from you) as Iceland, media featuring American celebrity of all types pull in big bucks. Of course big bucks are needed to pay American baseball players who "earn" millions a year....
The BBC has it right, though, as does Canadian public radio--even though they're not participatory. Well, I guess they are, if we send them money!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
for the last 2 or 3 years, the were 3 English football teams in the last 4 of the major club football tournament in Europe.... but the English national team didn't qualify for the European cup.
the English cricket team contains a record number of south african born players
the BBC is funded by a TV licence that anyone who watches live television (which i don'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
chelsea FC are in the news this week, having been penalised heavily for enticing a young (teenaged) football player from a French football team (Lens).... the game of football has become part of the billionaire's whim to have the best of everything in the world, and to be seen for that....
this means that ordinary people no longer support those who try to do their best, only the ones who already have everything
this global elitism is perhaps the ugliest face of capitalism, and the force which drives people to ruthlessly own as much of the world and it's resources as they possibly can... if it doesn't end, it will end in disaster
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Billionaire's whim. I like that expression. The sports industry here disgusts me, not simply on the platform of the wealth mentality that prices stadium seats out of bounds for the normal person, but on the platform of role-modelism for young people, who yearn to be one of the people who have everything money can buy. I wasn't aware that things were as bad in the UK. I am still a Mets fan because it takes heart to be a fan of a perennially losing team. But there's no illusion that they are not part of the moneymultiplying system.
I hesitate to damn capitalism generically, however. I tend more to look at individual practice of any system. I don't have a whole lot of faith in people as part of any group. It seems to bring out the worst in "human nature."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thanks... here in the UK a football team needs a billionaire to buy them success...
it's a contest of who has the richest billionaire... not strictly true but getting that way.
we can't blame capitalism or socialism... the ism to describe the solution hasn't been invented.... we are like a person who has forgotten how to walk... the left leg blames the right leg and the right leg blames the left.... so all we can do is hop on one leg until we fall over, then hop on the other
i think the real problem is that those who could bring out the best in human nature are no competition for those who can bring out the worst.... maybe everyone loves the bad guy or maybe the bad guy just cheats.... maybe we are all bad guys... maybe maybe maybe...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Of course the "affect" I typed should properly be "effect." Which brings us right back to where we started--our conversation on the purity of language!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
educated and trained radio presenters always criticise the spelling of those who criticise them.... i believe it is a greater skill to understand what and why a person says something, rather than to be able to spell it and use the correct grammar.
it is important to encourage people to express themselves, even if doing so means taking criticism and even abuse.... it is better for people to be abusive on the radio, where presenters are trained to deal with it, than on the streets where it can be more physical
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think the bad guy cheats. I think people follow him freely, baa-ing all the way.
But if there is one thing I do know, it is that not all of us are bad guys.
I have a feeling that I am quite a bit older than you, so perhaps you can allow me to claim experience on this one?
I also know that if one gets in the face of the hateful personally, one can affect change that is visible, sometimes notable, sometimes even lasting.
On the other hand, it is true that some people who appear hard on the outside are not poor souls ready to be reclaimed, but in fact are constructed of solid titanium.
And evil does exist.
What you're saying above, at least what I think I hear you saying, which is so depressing, is that it's cultural, endemic, epidemic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
age is just a perspective and experience can taint that as much as naivety.
every metal has a melting point, some are just much higher than others...
i believe in an equality, not because we are all equal, but because we each have a unique perspective on our environment and our unique experiences offer different solutions to different problems and frustrations...
the fact that too few have any influence is the cause of these problems and frustrations....
why is it that the realists offer only a few options for the solution to problems, whilst the idealists offer many.... maybe the realists are the oppressive minority who impose themselves.... only their solutions are far from ideal and far too real
[ranting...]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I dunno...we were down in Greenwich Village in NYC today and bought a 4-month old English cheddar. Had it for dinner--it had a great tooth, and what a taste! Not as sharp as the cheddars we usually eat and way smoother. Both offer something. If I had to pick just one cheddar to take on a desert island, it would be the sharper, aged one, however. Why? Because it is more complex on the palette. Deeper. Not necessarily better, just...more experienced.
I can't believe in equality because I have three kids and, however you look at it, I am wiser than they are. They are perfect just as they are, and for who they are. But to deny experience...as I said...I dunno. That doesn't make sense to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the mature palate is so different from the young palate.... there are clearly experiences which are for the young and those which are for the more mature... adults forget what is was to be young, tainted by their worldly experiences, the youth has no real concept of what it is to be old
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But I have not forgotten what it was like to be young, both the good and the bad of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i just found it an interesting thought, the way people put themselves in someone else's shoes.... the analogy conjures up the image of a young child trying on their parents shoes... something they will grow into, compared with the parents who's feet no longer fit small child sizes.... but in their memory, they have worn them
for me it works so well as an analogy.... "when you can fit into my shoes, then you can make the decisions i have to make"... the trouble is, shoe size is no guarantee of making the best decisions.... and perhaps the saying "act your age, not your shoe size" springs to mind
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So now I'm thinking about shoes, and the idea of "don't criticize until you wear another man's moccasins," which people used to say a lot when I was growing up but it's not something I hear much anymore. Anyway, that's also putting on somebody's shoes but more in the sense of understanding rather than enabling decision-making. Making decisions is so personal...and your point is very well taken. I mean, even though I was your age once (I'm presuming you are younger than me), the world was a completely different place. So while I might remember how it was for me to be "young," that "young" may have nothing to do with your "young" or anybody else's for that matter. It's an interesting idea to reconcile the concept of an overarching wisdom (e.g. the knowledge I have acquired so far) with any productive use. Uh-oh...I think I may be an anachronism. Gee, thanks, Dave!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the thing is... i may be older than you
i don't think age is a measure of many things
physical, intellectual, emotional or spiritual
anachronisms we all are
agism is rife
our time is measured, we clock in and clock out
life can not be measured in how many pairs of shoes we have worn
because shoes are possibly pure materialism
wisdom is not age
and this is not an age of wisdom
if wisdom has anything to do with distance
perhaps wisdom is comfortable shoes
and has nothing to do with colour
btw.. i don't know your name
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
life can not be measured in how many pairs of shoes we have worn
A simple, yet elusive, truth.
Thanks for calling it out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Its Laura.
And you may in fact be older than me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
regardless of age, you are one of my favourite people to converse with Laura
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
