Kiwi - GKPE - General Ramblings (3)

Chris plan for you and me and SI is hatching whats are your plans april 19th-3rd May. 1 week trip no wife or kids
Sandra and kids will be at CHCH with rellys.

weka2000 wrote in post #4604963
Chris plan for you and me and SI is hatching whats are your plans april 19th-3rd May. 1 week trip no wife or kids
Sandra and kids will be at CHCH with rellys.

oohh.. school holidays.. a trip away.. hmm - cant do the both weeks thou.. say go on the sunday and come back the following sunday..

yep i am in - the other half will be serving cold shoulder and tongue for dinner but hey - Ill cope.

do you have a gun license ? ..

weka2000 wrote in post #4604963
Chris plan for you and me and SI is hatching whats are your plans april 19th-3rd May. 1 week trip no wife or kids
Sandra and kids will be at CHCH with rellys.

Jeepers, I'd almost be keen if there was a spare seat Keen to spend as much time with experienced guys as possible, plus its been years since I was ona boys road trip

Nzshrimper wrote in post #4604975
do you have a gun license ? ..

Ok what dates lets do it. Sandras happy with the arrangement.

Used to have gun licence surrendered it a few yrs back and sold my .22

So Rav,tent,sleeping bag and open fire then.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Isn't it sad that I actually MISSED the Sky Towerwhile I was overseas?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

weka2000 wrote in post #4604994
Ok what dates lets do it. Sandras happy with the arrangement.

Used to have gun licence surrendered it a few yrs back and sold my .22

So Rav,tent,sleeping bag and open fire then.

can we have more than one sleeping bag..

OK Sunday 20th - head south
come back - sunday 27th - a couple of tents and camping gear.. the RAV *

(*if i still have it)

If not some thing will be arranged.

Chris is this the area we are looking at?
http://visit.southland​nz.com …t/testarea/what​tosee/858/

I have tent and sleeping bag and matches

weka2000 wrote in post #4605062
Chris is this the area we are looking at?
http://visit.southland​nz.com …t/testarea/what​tosee/858/

I have tent and sleeping bag and matches

thats the one..

a trip over to Stewart Island would get you going i think.. you could spend a month there and not get bored..

heaps of wildlife and fauna..

South Island landscape to whet your appetitie - Taken from the Coronet peak road looking all the way through the Wakatipu Basin to the Remarkables in the distance (I think)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Nzshrimper wrote in post #4605098
thats the one..

a trip over to Stewart Island would get you going i think.. you could spend a month there and not get bored..

heaps of wildlife and fauna..

Isn't Fauna Wildlife

Most stunning pics popping up from people, I see

Very nice Wendy!

Hey can somebody fill in the new guy on what "GKPE" actually stands for?

Nzshrimper wrote in post #4605098
thats the one..

a trip over to Stewart Island would get you going i think.. you could spend a month there and not get bored..

heaps of wildlife and fauna..

Could do. Hell I better start selling stuff

manipula wrote in post #4594003
Fair point. Before I actually say what I'm about to say though, I'll mention two things. 1)You're good at landscapes, that's a relatively undisputed fact, and as a balancing factor, I'm a self admitted newbie at them. 2) Regardless of what I say, the fact is that you and others are getting out taking photos when I'm not which is to be applauded.

So. Playing about with slow shutter speeds, be it making light trails or making rivers and waterfalls look all soft and pretty is something that I've seen every photographer I've ever met do, right about the time when they discover just how cool controlling shutter speeds is. Otherwise known as week six. (Or similar.) Now, the fact remains that whilst it's good to go back and revisit ideas and see if you can imrpove what you did before, and to learn from your mistakes, I see this (and my 'this' I don't necessarily mean waterfalls, just the notion of a common beginner's subject) as not so much a way of learning as taking everything you've learnt and then sticking a regressing retro tent peg holding it back straight through the middle.

You've proven already you have learned how to craft a landscape photo which holds your attention and has the wow factor without using something so blatant as lots of silky water (or light trails for that metter). Resorting back to such obvious attention grabbing subjects is like going back to hit the bug on the head with a 2kgs lump hammer, when you've already learned how to do it with chopsticks. Capturing a powerful landscape with little real focus point (say an empty sky) is infinitely more difficult to do than using something obvious like flowing water. And if it's infinitely more difficult or delicate to pull off, more room for error in getting the balance wrong, when you get it right (and you have done, frequently) it's all the more amazing.

It's like why drive a Golf when you have driven a Porsche? Why does a surgeon use a scalpel when he's got a chainsaw? Why use a date rape drug and viagra when you're the most charismatic chap there is? Why use blindingly obvious visual 'anchors' like a waterfall when you can make a better image using precious little?

And on that subject, or closely related, the point occured to me as an offshoot of what Cliff said, that if you're coming home with OK photos from a location because it was the best you could do with what's there, are you just photographing it for the sake of it, or photographing it because it actually deserves to be photographed? (I'm also aware here that I haven't been to the place you're talking about so am ill placed to comment about that particular place itself.)

Hope that sounds OK.

Interesting take.

I could be wrong, but do you see photography as a for ever improving path towards some kind of visual nirvana?
Perhaps a Nietzschean journey towards the uber-photo?
A path that can only lead forwards, always improving, always striving to be better, do more, be more creative, and never looking back, or using a simpler technique?

Your post sounds like a wonderful artistic ideal, something that would make a create fine art thesis, and ultimately a gallery showing of a life times worth of work after you are dead.

As part of an understanding of fine art photography, and some nice waffle to spout to potential print buyers it makes good sense.

But, its rather far removed from reality, very restricting in how you can take photos, and IMO ultimately pointless if your final goal is something other than your pursuit of visual and photographic glory.


There is always a minimum of one party in every Photography. The photographer.
But, for a photo to be successful (as art, as income, etc) there needs to be at least one more party involved; the Viewer.
It is, in the end, the viewer who gives the photo any worth, be it financial or artistic.
But there is not one viewer, there are literally billions of them, and they all share different opinions, attitudes, have different tastes, and are looking for different things from a photo:

Some want to share your path of visual and photographic glory.

Some just want to look at an eye catching picture of a water fall.

manipula wrote in post #4594175
And yes, I do think your/my/our photos need to be analysed. All of them. Be they pictures of your birthday cake and how it makes you have happy throw away memories or the finest art balls you can think of.

I think if you said that to the guy who shoots all of the farmers catalog's he would tell you to piss off, and show you his expensive car and house as good justification.

We all take different photos for different reasons, and there is a time to sit back and analyse them, and a time to make money from them, and a time to just enjoy looking at them.
Ultimately it depends on the goal you had in mine when you took the photo.

If your goal was to get a sale, and make some money, then you only need analyse the photo as far as its profitability.

Nzshrimper wrote in post #4600823
right - are U2 a Christian rock band ?

Are you kidding?
They couldn't be more Christian if they tried.

Moppie wrote in post #4605142
Are you kidding?
They couldn't be more Christian if they tried.

Dave Evans (aka Edge) is definitely Christian, to the point that he almost quit the band early on as the idea of being a rock start didn't conform to his ideals. Fortunately he did not, and went on to become the greatest rock guitarist in the world and hopefully, one day, the father of my children...

The others (Bono et al) are less religious. But growing up in Ireland during the "troubles" I guess you couldn;t ignore religion.....