Unutterably Silly So what are you doing RIGHT NOW?

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by RWood

I also knew a girl in college (I think we have a theme here) of average looks; but, on her driver's license she looked like a 10! You look directly at her and she seemed normal, nothing outstanding. You take her picture and she was a whole different person. Even her school ID looked great.

My daughter is like that. She's the most photogenic child (I say child, she's almost 20), I've EVER seen.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

My daughter is like that. She's the most photogenic child (I say child, she's almost 20), I've EVER seen.

In my experience as an amateur photographer, everyone is beautiful, and this can be revealed to others and the subject through photography. People who look bad in photos almost certainly look bad because it's a bad photo, not because they can't look beautiful. Like you both suggest, some (very, very few) folk look good in every photo. At the other end, there are some (very, very few) people who it is difficult to reveal the beauty of in photos. In my experience, this very, very tiny minority (the naturally photogenic, and the naturally unphotogenic) do not cut along lines of the eye's expectations as to attractiveness.

As I said though, every single person is beautiful. Not capturing that is a failure of the photographer, but a failure that's always fun trying to chase away.

Cheers,
Marc

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

As I said though, every single person is beautiful. Not capturing that is a failure of the photographer, but a failure that's always fun trying to chase away.

One of the hardest aspects is when the subject hates being photographed (like me!). Whatever the person actually looks like if they detest the experience and expect the results to be, shall we say, unflattering, then the results tend to reflect there expectations. I suspect the greatest people photographers are those that can put the subject at ease, make them forget about the camera and become relaxed and happy.

Does that explain the invention of ZCDs?

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Here I am!!!

Was that the mug shot after you got picked up for violating the restraining order from Brad Pitt?

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Was that the mug shot after you got picked up for violating the restraining order from Brad Pitt?

First off, I think it is ungentlemanly to claim that her mug has been shot, even if she is from Texas. Secondly, according to the court records, the restraining order was on and not from Brad Bitt. Finally, DG was not picked up for a violation, but had been out picking violets. Sheesh -- are you trying to slander a proud and upstanding member of the ministry, or is your creative imagination currently taking your brain for a test drive?

[pshrynk]

Splunge!

[GeoffC]

Splurge!

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

First off, I think it is ungentlemanly to claim that her mug has been shot, even if she is from Texas. Secondly, according to the court records, the restraining order was on and not from Brad Bitt. Finally, DG was not picked up for a violation, but had been out picking violets. Sheesh -- are you trying to slander a proud and upstanding member of the ministry, or is your creative imagination currently taking your brain for a test drive?

Hey, look at my avatar.......I"m from Arizona, not TEXAS!!

And can you blame Brad Pitt from wanting me? Whats not to want???

Enjoy your day, folks, I'm off to school then dinner with Ricky Maveety.........

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

One of the hardest aspects is when the subject hates being photographed (like me!). Whatever the person actually looks like if they detest the experience and expect the results to be, shall we say, unflattering, then the results tend to reflect there expectations. I suspect the greatest people photographers are those that can put the subject at ease, make them forget about the camera and become relaxed and happy.

Does that explain the invention of ZCDs?

One of the best photos of myself ever taken (in my opinion) was, in fact, during a work trip to Australia. We'd just landed in Sydney, and had gone to a city park on the waterfront. My feet told me that they wanted to take a dip in a different ocean, so that's what I did. A co-worker (who is also a part-time photographer) asked if he could snap a picture, and when I seemed resistant, pointed out that it was for the Muffin Man. He got a good one of me actually smiling.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Enjoy your day, folks, I'm off to school then dinner with Ricky Maveety.........

Give her lots of hugs and don't forget we want details afterwards.....

[RWood]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

In my experience as an amateur photographer, everyone is beautiful, and this can be revealed to others and the subject through photography. People who look bad in photos almost certainly look bad because it's a bad photo, not because they can't look beautiful. Like you both suggest, some (very, very few) folk look good in every photo. At the other end, there are some (very, very few) people who it is difficult to reveal the beauty of in photos. In my experience, this very, very tiny minority (the naturally photogenic, and the naturally unphotogenic) do not cut along lines of the eye's expectations as to attractiveness.

As I said though, every single person is beautiful. Not capturing that is a failure of the photographer, but a failure that's always fun trying to chase away.

Cheers,
Marc

Well said and very true.

[GeoffC]

Increasingly these days we have to be careful of what we photograph....even carrying a camera around a town could get you stopped and challanged by the police....

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

What do you have against fur? Wez lotsa animals here.

I have nothing against fur (so long as it's still attached to its original owner) - I'd say just ask the yeti, but he's not on here...

But I still say it looks like black dye from his trunks running down his thigh!

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Enjoy your day, folks, I'm off to school then dinner with Ricky Maveety.........

Have a great dinner - and give her a hug from me please?

Originally Posted by LazyScot

One of the hardest aspects is when the subject hates being photographed (like me!). Whatever the person actually looks like if they detest the experience and expect the results to be, shall we say, unflattering, then the results tend to reflect there expectations. I suspect the greatest people photographers are those that can put the subject at ease, make them forget about the camera and become relaxed and happy.

I am usually able to get decent shots of people who don't like being photographed partly because I know my camera well enough to not have to fiddle around with settings too muh, and partly because I can keep up an inane banter for long enough to get the person to forget about the camera and concentrate on the babbling idiot instead

However, I don't like taking pics of people much...

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Increasingly these days we have to be careful of what we photograph....even carrying a camera around a town could get you stopped and challanged by the police....

Which is why I've started making a point of going for a walk with my camera every lunchtime and photographing bits of London, including buildings with cctv cameras on them (actually the real challenge would be to take a picture of a building that didn't have one on...)

For reasons I'm not going to go into here, some of the BT buildings near to where I work are future targets.

Diverting into a rant here...
The police in London seem more interested in targetting photographers with SLR (DSLR) kit, on the grounds that terrorists need photos of areas they're planning to target. Now I'm not a terrorist, but if I wanted to take pictures of targets to bomb or whatever I'd either use a mobile like the countless hordes of tourists, or I'd use a small compact to quickly take the shot before moving on (maybe I ought to rethink my lunchtime technique... hrm...). I wouldn't want to draw too much attention to myself by using a sodding slr and tripod.

Diverting into more of a rant and more off topic (what am I doing now? Ranting about the increasing similarities between the UK and a police state) - the Met (I think - a UK police force anyways) put up posters encouraging people to report their neighbours to the police if they thought the neighbours had too many mobile phones. Too many mobiles? I know quite a few people who I am relatively sure aren't terrorists who have three different phones and sims - a work one, a personal one and a spare one they can give to people they're not sure of (arranging meet-ups on the 'net and the like). There's people I work with who, because of their job, have been known to carry around 4 or 5! And all these legitimate reasons aside, just how much prying and curtain-twitching do you have to do to work your neighbour has more than mobile phone, let alone "too many" of the things?

Anyway - can I have ZCP please? With extra chocolate and extra ZC?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I have nothing against fur (so long as it's still attached to its original owner) - I'd say just ask the yeti, but he's not on here...

But I still say it looks like black dye from his trunks running down his thigh!




Have a great dinner - and give her a hug from me please?



I am usually able to get decent shots of people who don't like being photographed partly because I know my camera well enough to not have to fiddle around with settings too muh, and partly because I can keep up an inane banter for long enough to get the person to forget about the camera and concentrate on the babbling idiot instead

However, I don't like taking pics of people much...



Which is why I've started making a point of going for a walk with my camera every lunchtime and photographing bits of London, including buildings with cctv cameras on them (actually the real challenge would be to take a picture of a building that didn't have one on...)

For reasons I'm not going to go into here, some of the BT buildings near to where I work are future targets.

Diverting into a rant here...
The police in London seem more interested in targetting photographers with SLR (DSLR) kit, on the grounds that terrorists need photos of areas they're planning to target. Now I'm not a terrorist, but if I wanted to take pictures of targets to bomb or whatever I'd either use a mobile like the countless hordes of tourists, or I'd use a small compact to quickly take the shot before moving on (maybe I ought to rethink my lunchtime technique... hrm...). I wouldn't want to draw too much attention to myself by using a sodding slr and tripod.

Diverting into more of a rant and more off topic (what am I doing now? Ranting about the increasing similarities between the UK and a police state) - the Met (I think - a UK police force anyways) put up posters encouraging people to report their neighbours to the police if they thought the neighbours had too many mobile phones. Too many mobiles? I know quite a few people who I am relatively sure aren't terrorists who have three different phones and sims - a work one, a personal one and a spare one they can give to people they're not sure of (arranging meet-ups on the 'net and the like). There's people I work with who, because of their job, have been known to carry around 4 or 5! And all these legitimate reasons aside, just how much prying and curtain-twitching do you have to do to work your neighbour has more than mobile phone, let alone "too many" of the things?

Anyway - can I have ZCP please? With extra chocolate and extra ZC?

Marc - put a tube in a 55 gallon drum.....

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Marc - put a tube in a 55 gallon drum.....

Pardon me!? This a family show, you know.