Because, Jan, we are perhaps "interested* in how the picture was created, from a technical perspective, including your favorite minutiae. If this *photography* group was simply an Art Appreciation group, I could understand your lament, but actually, it is a group of *technical* photography folks, who are indeed interested in a lot more than the feeling and mood of a photograph. Certainly, from an art perspective, those are very interesting, and warrant a lot of attention and discussion. But to claim that discussions of small details are not germane to this photography group is rather missing the entire point of this email list. Andrew On Tue, January 14, 2014 4:17 pm, Jan Faul wrote: > > Just offhand, I would say he is equipped with a remote shutter release, > and also he?s done this more than a few times and is obviously no rank > amateur. He?s got a style, he knows his equipment, and he?s looking for > shots of a certain style. > > I don?t understand why you guys fail to see the big picture and can only > complain about the itty bitty points an minutiae. Is it jealousy or what? > > > > On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Eichhorn, Roger wrote: > > >> Haunting photos, but doesn't the flashlight beam in some of them have >> to be faked? The air seems clear and how much blue will be in a >> flashlight to scatter in the air unless it's an LED or Hg lamp. And he >> sat perfectly still while the star trail was being exposed? >> >> r. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:40 PM, "Jan Faul" <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photographer-puts-everyday-selfies-to-sh >>> ame-1389719641-slideshow/ >>> > > > Art Faul > > > The Artist Formerly Known as Prints > ------ > Art for Cars: art4carz.com > Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com > Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com > Camera Works - The Washington Post > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm > ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/ > > > . > > > > > > >
