Watching the World
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:26
Link
Why isn't it called 'Reading the paper'?
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:28
Link
ChrisA wrote:
Why isn't it called 'Reading the paper'?
+1, I like the colour and subject, nice capture.Why isn't it called 'Reading the paper'?
Nigel
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:29
Link
trickletreat wrote:
Nigel
Yes, absolutely. I like the photo. Nice candid portrait.ChrisA wrote:
Why isn't it called 'Reading the paper'?
+1, I like the colour and subject, nice capture.Why isn't it called 'Reading the paper'?
Nigel
Totally don't get the caption.
I usually hate captions, and this is no exception
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:30
Link
Because, although he's holding the papaer up, you can see he's actually looking over the top of it. He was actually watching the ducks, but you can't see that in this shot.
Also, I used the title as a bit of a pun as, in my mind, keeping abreast of the news could also be watching what is happening in the world.
Also, I used the title as a bit of a pun as, in my mind, keeping abreast of the news could also be watching what is happening in the world.
Getting there! Thanks to you guys
Pentax K3ii, Pentax K10d, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.
Pentax K3ii, Pentax K10d, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:36
Link
Father Ted wrote:
Because, although he's holding the papaer up, you can see he's actually looking over the top of it.
Ah, now it's funny you should say that...Because, although he's holding the papaer up, you can see he's actually looking over the top of it.
When I saw the caption, I thought, 'hmm, I wonder if he's actually looking over the top of the paper'. So I opened it up in PS and zoomed in, which of course I couldn't do very much without pixelation. But I did think that actually he was looking at the paper. If he's really looking over the top, then fair play to you, but it's not obvious to me...
Cmon, let's see a 100% crop then
Quote:
Also, I used the title as a bit of a pun as, in my mind, keeping abreast of the news could also be watching what is happening in the world.
Yes, well, that's the sort of reason I hate captions
Also, I used the title as a bit of a pun as, in my mind, keeping abreast of the news could also be watching what is happening in the world.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:37
Link
Great image. And the 'bag between the calves' stance is a perfect capture of a typical bench-sitters trait!
Posted 03/11/2011 - 22:49 - Helpful Comment
Link
Just for the record, I'm kind of making a serious point here. Nothing more than just my view, and I realise others have others... but I offer my reasons for folk to ignore or not as they please.
One of the things I love about looking at pictures is the way they so often lend themselves to interpretations that differ according to the person looking at them. Much like any art, of course.
Stick a caption on the top, and the dynamic changes - now you have the artist effectively telling you how to interpret the art. That's just as Ok as leaving it entirely up to the viewer, but if the link between the caption and the photo is obscure, it introduces obstacles that hinder both one's own interpretation (since now there's a caption overriding any interpretation I might make), and also my understanding of the artist's intent (since it's too obscure for me to 'get').
That's why I dislike a lot of people's captions - possibly because I'm too stupid, but they don't help me understand the artist's intent.
Captions that I like very much are where they are effectively reporting the photographer's experience. They tend to be longer, more descriptive, and the photos end up illustrating the story the photographer wants to tell.
In my book, that's absolutely fine, and makes sense of both the narrative and the images.
But cryptic ones, I don't like. I don't like cryptic crosswords either, I just can't be, erm, faffed
One of the things I love about looking at pictures is the way they so often lend themselves to interpretations that differ according to the person looking at them. Much like any art, of course.
Stick a caption on the top, and the dynamic changes - now you have the artist effectively telling you how to interpret the art. That's just as Ok as leaving it entirely up to the viewer, but if the link between the caption and the photo is obscure, it introduces obstacles that hinder both one's own interpretation (since now there's a caption overriding any interpretation I might make), and also my understanding of the artist's intent (since it's too obscure for me to 'get').
That's why I dislike a lot of people's captions - possibly because I'm too stupid, but they don't help me understand the artist's intent.
Captions that I like very much are where they are effectively reporting the photographer's experience. They tend to be longer, more descriptive, and the photos end up illustrating the story the photographer wants to tell.
In my book, that's absolutely fine, and makes sense of both the narrative and the images.
But cryptic ones, I don't like. I don't like cryptic crosswords either, I just can't be, erm, faffed
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 04/11/2011 - 12:09
Link
ChrisA wrote:
Just for the record, I'm kind of making a serious point here. Nothing more than just my view, and I realise others have others... but I offer my reasons for folk to ignore or not as they please.
One of the things I love about looking at pictures is the way they so often lend themselves to interpretations that differ according to the person looking at them. Much like any art, of course.
Stick a caption on the top, and the dynamic changes - now you have the artist effectively telling you how to interpret the art. That's just as Ok as leaving it entirely up to the viewer, but if the link between the caption and the photo is obscure, it introduces obstacles that hinder both one's own interpretation (since now there's a caption overriding any interpretation I might make), and also my understanding of the artist's intent (since it's too obscure for me to 'get').
That's why I dislike a lot of people's captions - possibly because I'm too stupid, but they don't help me understand the artist's intent.
Captions that I like very much are where they are effectively reporting the photographer's experience. They tend to be longer, more descriptive, and the photos end up illustrating the story the photographer wants to tell.
In my book, that's absolutely fine, and makes sense of both the narrative and the images.
But cryptic ones, I don't like. I don't like cryptic crosswords either, I just can't be, erm, faffed
To be honest, I tend to agree, most of the time. And, most of the time I struggle to think up a title. Maybe I should just leave it with the image number as saved on my machine.
Just for the record, I'm kind of making a serious point here. Nothing more than just my view, and I realise others have others... but I offer my reasons for folk to ignore or not as they please.
One of the things I love about looking at pictures is the way they so often lend themselves to interpretations that differ according to the person looking at them. Much like any art, of course.
Stick a caption on the top, and the dynamic changes - now you have the artist effectively telling you how to interpret the art. That's just as Ok as leaving it entirely up to the viewer, but if the link between the caption and the photo is obscure, it introduces obstacles that hinder both one's own interpretation (since now there's a caption overriding any interpretation I might make), and also my understanding of the artist's intent (since it's too obscure for me to 'get').
That's why I dislike a lot of people's captions - possibly because I'm too stupid, but they don't help me understand the artist's intent.
Captions that I like very much are where they are effectively reporting the photographer's experience. They tend to be longer, more descriptive, and the photos end up illustrating the story the photographer wants to tell.
In my book, that's absolutely fine, and makes sense of both the narrative and the images.
But cryptic ones, I don't like. I don't like cryptic crosswords either, I just can't be, erm, faffed
Getting there! Thanks to you guys
Pentax K3ii, Pentax K10d, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.
Pentax K3ii, Pentax K10d, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.
Posted 04/11/2011 - 13:20
Link
I really wouldnt worry about it too much. I can see that titles can be misconstrued and can confuse the viewer if a little ambiguous. However this isn't a gallery just a place to share photos and ideas.
Posted 04/11/2011 - 13:26
Link
japers45 wrote:
I really wouldnt worry about it too much. I can see that titles can be misconstrued and can confuse the viewer if a little ambiguous. However this isn't a gallery just a place to share photos and ideas.
Agreed, I'm not trying to legislate! I just sometimes think people are trying a bit too hard to be clever or funny, and subjectively it often seems to detract from what can be a cracking image that stands on its own.I really wouldnt worry about it too much. I can see that titles can be misconstrued and can confuse the viewer if a little ambiguous. However this isn't a gallery just a place to share photos and ideas.
Conversely, if the photographer really does want to convey exactly what (s)he means, I'm all for captions, explanatory notes, etc etc - they can add a lot of context to otherwise ambiguous images.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 04/11/2011 - 13:41
Link
Chris-
I do agree with you. I think it difficult to add a title to something without veering into pretention. Having said that some of the worlds most talented people have done this (I think rock bands are some of the worse offenders). I guess you just have to be REALLY good to get away with it sometimes.
I know your not trying to legislate, I think actually your spot on, but I just have a bit of a "don't worry about it" outlook generally.
I do agree with you. I think it difficult to add a title to something without veering into pretention. Having said that some of the worlds most talented people have done this (I think rock bands are some of the worse offenders). I guess you just have to be REALLY good to get away with it sometimes.
I know your not trying to legislate, I think actually your spot on, but I just have a bit of a "don't worry about it" outlook generally.
Posted 04/11/2011 - 13:43
Link
Good shot Ted, I'm still trying to pluck up the courage to do street work.
As for titles, I use them mainly for my own use, just to look in my database to find a particular subject.
As for titles, I use them mainly for my own use, just to look in my database to find a particular subject.
Posted 04/11/2011 - 20:41
Link
I like this shot
I reckon the subject of the shot would probably find the whole topic a little amusing in a good way (I could be wrong though)
Personally I like to watch the world go by and suspect that he was reading a little - watching a little - reading a little and so on - I would have been
I reckon the subject of the shot would probably find the whole topic a little amusing in a good way (I could be wrong though)
Personally I like to watch the world go by and suspect that he was reading a little - watching a little - reading a little and so on - I would have been
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2562 posts
18 years
Wirral
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/Alonewiththenewsupload.jpg[/IMG]
Pentax K3ii, Pentax K10d, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.