In the fake or photo thread, btezra mentioned that the fake images "make it appear as if a photographer took great effort to get the right shot".

Do you think a photograph has to be made with difficulty, in order to be worthwhile? Certainly, it seems that many folks have an attitude like this with respect to the snapshot. It's also been the basis for many arguments against digital cameras, autofocus, auto exposure, and other automations. But why?

How is it, exactly, that effort makes something worthwhile?

I've seen a movie of Picasso drawing. Nothing could be more effortless. His hand was constantly on the move, but his attention seemed to be everywhere, as he talked to the filmmaker, took a glass of wine, etc. Almost as if his hand was able to make the drawing by itself.. automatically.

Matt O'Sullivan's recent post on being sneaky reminded me: do you already know John Brownlow's work? If not, you definitely should. His site, Pink Headed Bug, has a plethora of remarkable black & white street photography, as well as documentary and music work. Unfortunately he stopped updating in March 2003, but he's left behind more than a few things well worth looking at, especially Human Traffic. A few of my favourites: 6, 14, and 20. He's also got a great deal of experience to share on the how to's of street photography.

And I'll send a Mars bar to anyone who can find him and ask him why the hell he stopped updating and what he's been up to since March 2003.

Last year Ross and Joey put together the first annual "post a picture of a cat to your blog" Day. Tomorrow, (aka Friday) is the second annual aka BlogACatMas.

On my roadtrip to Austin and back I visited numerous cats on my travels. I was allergic to each and every one. Maybe I will post a few through out the day.

Cheers
Rannie

No questioning the ability of digital editing to fool the eye, to make an imperfect image presentable, to create something that did not exist in front of the lens and make it appear as if a photographer took great effort to get the right shot.

It's becoming next to impossible to detect whether an image you see is real or was digitally created...

Take a few seconds and see if you can tell which images are fake and which are real photos.

Me, well I did not do so well, I only got 4 out of 10 right...but then again I have always favored film over digital, ain't nothing like the real thing...

I have an Epson Perfection 3200 Film scanner, no matter how much i clean the glass plate, when I scan in my films there is loads of dust which I have to spot out in photoshop, I have tried a number of different ways of cleaning the flatbed including most recently lighter fluid, but nothing seems to sort it.

any suggestions?

thanks
Jim

The images date back in his calendar to December 2002. Boogie puts the street in photography.

Check it out: artcoup.com

Don't you just hate "comments (0)"? Aside from creating multiple personalities to post for you, there is another way.

If you're using Movable Type 2.21 or above, there's an easy plugin you can install that will turn "comments (0)" into "comments" -- regular comment counting begins with the first post ("comments (1)", etc.).

The full poop is here.

I like taking pictures of people in public. I like taking surprise pictures of strangers without asking. I like taking semi-voyeuristic pictures of strangers that they'll never know I took. But I hate underhandedness. I feel, personally, like it's important that I don't disguise or conceal my camera from public view. The subject, and other people in the space, should at least have the opportunity to see me. Hopefully, we can even interact, because sometimes those are the best types of street portraits. And the experience of interacting is often a rewarding one.

The whole idea of trying to hide the fact that you're taking a photograph weirds me out. I suppose if a camera is concealed for a genuinely practical or subversive reason then it's justified, but for just getting candid shots of people I find pen cams, eye mods (while very cool), cell phone cams, etc, to be just... sneaky and gross and underhanded. I've seen a ton of hidden camera shots that are really great, and almost convince me to try it. But in the end they all seem tainted to me. And, they seem weakened by the "absence" of the photographer.

I think long lenses are ok, but mostly I like them for getting really close portraits from a reasonable distance (where you're still obvious)... not for hiding.

I guess my line is, "a camera should look like a camera".

Thoughts?

Well, Stu has given me permission to "go live" with a link viewer page that I put together for his SkyLines meme. You can find it here: Skyline project links viewer After stating it would be good if he presented it in a link viewer format I thought I should do something about it, so I put together a crude one with my limited PHP skills. (If anyone wants to give me hints to make this page more user-friendly feel free!)
There is also a submission form that notifies both Stu and myself when you submit a skyline, so it will be updated on both Stu's site and on the SkyLine Project link-viewer page.
I see that some of our regulars have already submitted some beautiful skylines Andre has submitted Quebec at dusk and James shows us a Sydney skyline to name just two. Thanks to James for allowing me to use a modified version of his Sydney photo for a banner, and thanks to Stu for the idea.

I'm surprised that no one has posted about this to counter Justin's post about the F6. While I am Nikon guy myself, I couldn't help but notice Canon's newest offering, the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II. Here are some specs:

16.7 Megapixels
Full Frame sensor
4 FPS

...and most noticeably, the ability to wirelessly transmit photos via an 802.11b/g transmitter.

I'm aware that the camera's $8,000 price tag will limit this to lottery winners and pros, but this makes you wonder the possibilities of this camera. Photoblogging could almost happen in real time. Sports and news events can instantaneously be updated.

Of course, no matter what doodads it has, I'm sure that Justin is always going to be loyal to film.

dpreview article

canon's official Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II site