Pete's Coffee and Tea with Two Families Including Children Sitting In The Window With

bdcolen

...Additional People In The Background.
:rofl :rofl :barb :barb

black mamba

AHA, BD. I see you've come over to the dark side. Welcome, brother.

Tom

Nikonic1

black mamba wrote:

AHA, BD. I see you've come over to the dark side. Welcome, brother.

Tom

roflroflrofl Nice BD. Good to see you have a sense of humor. Nice image.

rainbow

... or as some unnamed person (with the initials B D C) might challenge, "How do you know it is two families?"

Of greater interest is that there is a car inside the shop and, further, an unattached arm reaching into the pic from the right side doing who knows what.

thoth

I initially refused to respond to this obvious attempt to get under my skin, B.D., but one tiny thing kept nagging at me. You successfully identified this image, and literally everything in it, without giving us the tiniest inkling of what you thought we should see.

Thanks for the unintended support.

michswiss

thoth wrote:

I initially refused to respond to this obvious attempt to get under my skin, B.D., but one tiny thing kept nagging at me. You successfully identified this image, and literally everything in it, without giving us the tiniest inkling of what you thought we should see.

Thanks for the unintended support.

Travis, I don't think this is about unintended support. The "problem" won't disappear but it would be nice if there was less "leading the witness" when setting up threads. FYI, I'm liable to continue to use very simple if completely ambiguous thread titles.

Now back to our regularly scheduled photography discussions.

Nice shot B.D. It looks like the lady in the back centre right caught sight of you. Still, I love these sort of nicely composed candid shots.

thoth

michswiss wrote:

Travis, I don't think this is about unintended support. The "problem" won't disappear but it would be nice if there was less "leading the witness" when setting up threads. FYI, I'm liable to continue to use very simple if completely ambiguous thread titles..

I'm sorry, Jen, but I was actually just returning a bit of the sarcasm in this case. The point still stands, though, that B.D.'s title does illustrate the fact that titling as a form of identification (especially on the web) is quite obviously possible.

Your titling choices are your choices. I have no intention of attempting to force anyone into any mold (as if I could). Besides, the longevity of my comments on this subject is likely no more than 24 hours. After that, all will be forgotten.

rutt

Nice and recognizably B.D.

The title fight is dumb. Yes, great photographers whom B.D. revers used them to good effect. Yes, it's great to learn to take pictures which don't need them. Yes it's nice to have a handle other than #N to refer to pictures. Yes, bad titles can detract from an image. Beyond that it's a matter of taste. Let's move on.

thoth

rutt wrote:

The title fight is dumb. Yes, great photographers whom B.D. revers used them to good effect. Yes, it's great to learn to take pictures which don't need them. Yes it's nice to have a handle other than #N to refer to pictures. Yes, bad titles can detract from an image. Beyond that it's a matter of taste. Let's move on.

Losing images on the internet is dumb. By all means, though, simplify it to a third grade insult and we'll use all the other great solutions floating around. Remarks like this just completely astound me. "Sure, all of the points of this titling argument are important and valid, but please ignore them so this can be a matter of taste."

bdcolen

Molsondog wrote:

Just a note on titling. Peet's or Pete's? The sign says Peet's. The title says Pete's. A viewer might just get confused and not fully appreciate the image as a result.

I worked for 26 years as a reporter, editor, columnist, have written ten books, teach writing - and I cannot spell to save my life. Back in the day, when those of us who worked in major news rooms had real union protections and could only be fired for "cause," I used to say that any time my bosses wanted to get rid of me all they had to do was assign me to the copy desk for 24 hours and by the end of that time they'd have more "cause" than they'd know what to do with.

bdcolen

michswiss wrote:

Travis, I don't think this is about unintended support. The "problem" won't disappear but it would be nice if there was less "leading the witness" when setting up threads. FYI, I'm liable to continue to use very simple if completely ambiguous thread titles.

Now back to our regularly scheduled photography discussions.

Nice shot B.D. It looks like the lady in the back centre right caught sight of you. Still, I love these sort of nicely composed candid shots.

Thanks Jen - She did indeed see me. And in the next shot, which I like a bit better in terms of the boys, all the adults were looking at me - although all seemed either bemused or amused, rather than threatened, which is good.

Chaoslillith

That could have resulted in very interesting stories though.

Think of all the unique interpretations if you used the wrong spelling for words?

(snicker)

rutt

thoth wrote:

Losing images on the internet is dumb. By all means, though, simplify it to a third grade insult and we'll use all the other great solutions floating around. Remarks like this just completely astound me. "Sure, all of the points of this titling argument are important and valid, but please ignore them so this can be a matter of taste."

No, that's not what I wrote. I tried to separate the parts of the argument that we should all be able to agree on from those we are never going to agree on. B.D. is very radical on this subject, but there is a part of his point which is very valuable: learn to take self describing pictures. You want to be able to name pictures descriptively without making the titles a element of critique. I think everyone but B.D. who is a radical on the subject can agree to that being useful.

Beyond that, what's worth discussing at this point? B.D. knows he's a radical. We all know it as well. It's sort of fun to debate him up to a point, but for me, we've passed that point.

thoth

rutt wrote:

No, that's not what I wrote. I tried to separate the parts of the argument that we should all be able to agree on from those we are never going to agree on. B.D. is very radical on this subject, but there is a part of his point which is very valuable: learn to take self describing pictures. You want to be able to name pictures descriptively without making the titles a element of critique. I think everyone but B.D. who is a radical on the subject can agree to that being useful.

Beyond that, what's worth discussing at this point? B.D. knows he's a radical. We all know it as well. It's sort of fun to debate him up to a point, but for me, we've passed that point.

I apologize, Rutt, for misinterpreting your comment and appreciate the clarification of your intent.

The thing is, B.D. and I discussed this head-butting in private yesterday and the conclusion was that he wasn't interested in discussing titling with me. Forty-five minutes later he posted this little jab. So, I responded as anyone else would have done.

I don't care if B.D. doesn't agree with me on this matter in the least. What I do care about is that my efforts are legitimate and should be considered by anyone interested in the health of this forum. You know that and I know that and even B.D., I suspect, knows that. This thread, combined with B.D.'s replies to a couple other posts, aren't just a contradictory effort -- they are childish and demeaning. How would you propose that I should be taken seriously when Mr. Pulitzer tells the world it's a joke?

red_zone

new here (1st post), so don't know what's going on with the title thing,

I love the picture. I really like the B&W in the shot, the reflections are a little distracting, but add a busy-ness to the scene. I like how everyone's hands in the picture are doing different things, and how there's more hands in the shot than people, coming in from the sides from all sides.

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

I apologize, Rutt, for misinterpreting your comment and appreciate the clarification of your intent.

The thing is, B.D. and I discussed this head-butting in private yesterday and the conclusion was that he wasn't interested in discussing titling with me. Forty-five minutes later he posted this little jab. So, I responded as anyone else would have done.

I don't care if B.D. doesn't agree with me on this matter in the least. What I do care about is that my efforts are legitimate and should be considered by anyone interested in the health of this forum. You know that and I know that and even B.D., I suspect, knows that. This thread, combined with B.D.'s replies to a couple other posts, aren't just a contradictory effort -- they are childish and demeaning. How would you propose that I should be taken seriously when Mr. Pulitzer tells the world it's a joke?

---

Okay, I will engage here.

I don't really give the behind of a large rodent if someone does or does not give his or her image a title. I've explained why I try to avoid titling images; I offered an exercise in posting untitled images; and when it became clear - pretty much instantly - that everyone wanted to use titles I moved on.

As I explained to Travis privately - but he apparently wants a public discussion of this - I wasn't interested in engaging in a discussion of the development of internet naming conventions for photographs; I'm interested in discussing photographs and, where possible, how to improve them. Further, I said that I enjoy seeing his photos, but this thread of his holds no attraction for me, and he shouldn't take my not responding to it as a personal slight.

I posted a silly title on my lastest photo because I thought the whole thing was amusing. It was meant to be funny. It was not meant to be an insult to anyone. If Travis or anyone else considers it an insult, I offer my apologies. But I also suggest some lightening up might be in order.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

But I also suggest some lightening up might be in order.

Amen.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

I posted a silly title on my lastest photo because I thought the whole thing was amusing. It was meant to be funny. It was not meant to be an insult to anyone. If Travis or anyone else considers it an insult, I offer my apologies. But I also suggest some lightening up might be in order.

Your sense of humor worries me, B.D.

pathfinder

BD, your window scene reminded me of an image of mine from a few years back in the U.P.

If I were to title it, it would have to be "One More Round!"

bdcolen

pathfinder wrote:

BD, your window scene reminded me of an image of mine from a few years back in the U.P.

If I were to title it, it would have to be "One More Round!"

I love it! What a hoot!

Chaoslillith

I like this shot because it really gives you the feel of the hectic day in the city. All the movement and disembodied limbs (lol) add a lot of fun to it.

As far as the title debate.

I look at it this way, it does not hurt to have a title that serves as a marker in a forum but the title should not tell you what to think of the photo.

This pic is a perfect example. Some people LOVE the craziness of city life, it comforts them. So to title this in some way which makes the businiess of the shot seem to be a negative will turn those people off and the people who hate cities would not like a shot if it was titled something positive about city life. By living the emotional response up to the person they can choose to focus on what aspect strikes a chord with them. Some people would respond to how much fun the people seem to be having vs the hecticness of the shot.

My opinion anyway.

bdcolen

Molsondog wrote:

I know this is way off topic, but I know where you're coming from. I was a newspaper typesetter (pre-computer) and the quality of spelling coming down from the editorial department made us all laugh. When I moved on to learning and teaching printing technology I got blasted for insisting that the students (college and grad school level) present proper spelling and grammar in their written work. This, of course, was before spell-checkers. Peet's and Pete's both work if Peet's is in the dictionary. Really good coffee at Peet's. Had many a cup in Portland Molsondog's son was in law school there.

Just funning with you.

Thank Gud for spell checkers. Although...interestingly enough, my spelling has markedly improved in the years since the introduction of spell-check. My theory is that seeing the same misspelled word repeatedly corrected eventually teaches me to spell it correctly. Or something like that.

So your were a Linotype guy? Boy, I'll bet you spent allot of time laughing at what came downstairs. As a copyboy I spent more hours than I'd like to think about carrying proofs up from, and down to the composing room.

Wil Davis

Sort of OT, but applicable to spelling†

To all lovers of the Queen's English:

The European Commission has just announced an agreement that English will
be the official language of the EU, rather than German (the other
possibility). As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government
conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement, and has
accepted a 5-year phase-in of new rules which would apply to the language
and reclassify it as EuroEnglish.

The agreed plan is as follows:

In year 1, the soft 'c' would be replaced by 's'. Sertainly, this will make
the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard 'c' will be replaced by 'k'.
This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan now have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the
troublesome 'ph' is replaced by 'f'. This will reduse 'fotograf' by 20%.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments
will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a
deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the
silent 'e's in the language is disgrasful and they should eliminat them.

By year 4, peopl wil be reseptiv to lingwistik korektions such as replasing
'th' with 'z' and 'w' with 'v' (saving mor keyboard spas).

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary 'o' kan be dropd from vords kontaining
'ou' and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz year, ve vil hav a reli sensibil riten styl. Zer vil be no
mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech
ozer....

- Wil

† BTW should be "spelling-checkers" (unless your name is Gandalf…)

W.W. Webster

Wil Davis wrote:

To all lovers of the Queen's English

bdcolen

Wil Davis wrote:

Sort of OT, but applicable to spelling†





- Wil

† BTW should be "spelling-checkers" (unless your name is Gandalf…)

BTW - Isn't your joke about the modification of English for the EU missing a final section?

lizzard_nyc

Thanks Wil,
Dat Kraked me up--I neded the laf.

Wil Davis

bdcolen wrote:

BTW - Isn't your joke about the modification of English for the EU missing a final section?

Ah! you must be referring to:

…Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

If zis mad yu smil, pleas pas it on to oza pepl

Damn, I hate it when that happens



- Wil

Ed911

bdcolen wrote:

Thank Gud for spell checkers. Although...interestingly enough, my spelling has markedly improved in the years since the introduction of spell-check. My theory is that seeing the same misspelled word repeatedly corrected eventually teaches me to spell it correctly. Or something like that.

So your were a Linotype guy? Boy, I'll bet you spent allot of time laughing at what came downstairs. As a copy-boy I spent more hours than I'd like to think about carrying proofs up from, and down to the composing room.

For those of you who are spelling challenged like myself, here's a free spell checker that works with Firefox and IE. It's called IeSpell and will spell check all of your text box writing before you submit it here or on any other forum. Oh, and did I mention that it's free.

http://www.iespell.com/

BD...nice capture. I particularly like that you captured the family without most of them knowing that you were there. I think it's a little contrasty for my tastes...which seems to be a growing trend lately...like everyone found the boost black slider in LR. I think it's important that we protect and preserve the tonal range of a BW while trying to get the haze out of the image. But, that's just me.

Thanks for sharing.

bdcolen

Ed911 wrote:

For those of you who are spelling challenged like myself, here's a free spell checker that works with Firefox and IE. It's called IeSpell and will spell check all of your text box writing before you submit it here or on any other forum. Oh, and did I mention that it's free.

http://www.iespell.com/

BD...nice capture. I particularly like that you captured the family without most of them knowing that you were there. I think it's a little contrasty for my tastes...which seems to be a growing trend lately...like everyone found the boost black slider in LR. I think it's important that we protect and preserve the tonal range of a BW while trying to get the haze out of the image. But, that's just me.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks, Ed- There are times I agree with you. And then I look at some Eugene Smith work and say 'black can never be black enough.'

rutt

Sigh, there is actually a science to getting good blacks without plugging the shadows, if you can use a curve and not a slider of some sort. Find the darkest significant part of the image and move the end of the curve to make it black. Then find the next darkest significant place, somewhere where you want to maintain the contrast. Make the difference between these two points in the curve steep.

There are all kinds of tricks to make the above work better or be easier, but really it's a skill that can be learned and not a black art.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

Sigh, there is actually a science to getting good blacks without plugging the shadows, if you can use a curve and not a slider of some sort. Find the darkest significant part of the image and move the end of the curve to make it black. Then find the next darkest significant place, somewhere where you want to maintain the contrast. Make the difference between these two points in the curve steep.

There are all kinds of tricks to make the above work better or be easier, but really it's a skill that can be learned and not a black art.

Yah, yah, right, right...go look at Smith's stuff and you will find - by and large - shadows blocked up tighter than a nose four days into a really, really bad head cold.