I can't imagine why anyone would want to take a tacky artsie picture of an annular eclipse! http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090125.html Deloy
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, D P Pierce <starsbirdsglyphs@gmail.com>wrote:
I can't imagine why anyone would want to take a tacky artsie picture of an annular eclipse!
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090125.html
Deloy, that's exactly the picture I had in mind when I posted.
There was zero denegration of the artistic shot in my post. "Tacky" is your word, not mine. I was posting information. That's all. If anyone read anything else into it, it was your brain that did it, not mine. I'm an artist. Although it's been decades since I've gotten paid for 2-D artwork, I still earn my living as a craftsman and artisan. I also spent 5 years in a professional photo lab & studio. I don't disapprove of EVERYTHING. Not quite. ;-) Many eclipse-chasers will be going for maximum duration, meaning low horizons and no foreground obstructions. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that an off-center-line locale might be best for the photographer and artist. I doubt that any "real" science can be done by the typical amateur during an annular eclipse (and I freely admit that I could be very, very wrong), but the possibilities for a dramatic, artistic shot are numerous this time. Southern Utah even has a handfull of palms, if one is motivated to emulate the APOD that you cited. There is a greater potential for a dramatic, "artistic" shot, if off the centerline. If you don't understand this, I understand. People think differently. I still like and admire you greatly. Kim (and Dave, I'm sure) knows exactly what I am talking about. If I can get away from SLC for this eclipse (work schedule dependant- there's no escaping that), I just might be Kim and Kevin's guest at Bryce. I don't need perfect annularity. I'll see those pics on the 'web. I'd rather go for maximum excursion enjoyment and the possibility of maximum expression via images, than perfect co-axial symmetry. The desire for symmetry is a human flaw. I can afford to let it go, in favor of other benefits. Blame my training, if you must find a culprit. Dislclaimer: If this were a total eclipse, I'd be on the centerline, no ifs, ands, or buts. My 3 cents. C.
good point, Chuck. ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Annular Eclipses On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, D P Pierce <starsbirdsglyphs@gmail.com>wrote:
I can't imagine why anyone would want to take a tacky artsie picture of an annular eclipse!
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090125.html
Deloy, that's exactly the picture I had in mind when I posted.
There was zero denegration of the artistic shot in my post. "Tacky" is your word, not mine. I was posting information. That's all. If anyone read anything else into it, it was your brain that did it, not mine. I'm an artist. Although it's been decades since I've gotten paid for 2-D artwork, I still earn my living as a craftsman and artisan. I also spent 5 years in a professional photo lab & studio. I don't disapprove of EVERYTHING. Not quite. ;-) Many eclipse-chasers will be going for maximum duration, meaning low horizons and no foreground obstructions. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that an off-center-line locale might be best for the photographer and artist. I doubt that any "real" science can be done by the typical amateur during an annular eclipse (and I freely admit that I could be very, very wrong), but the possibilities for a dramatic, artistic shot are numerous this time. Southern Utah even has a handfull of palms, if one is motivated to emulate the APOD that you cited. There is a greater potential for a dramatic, "artistic" shot, if off the centerline. If you don't understand this, I understand. People think differently. I still like and admire you greatly. Kim (and Dave, I'm sure) knows exactly what I am talking about. If I can get away from SLC for this eclipse (work schedule dependant- there's no escaping that), I just might be Kim and Kevin's guest at Bryce. I don't need perfect annularity. I'll see those pics on the 'web. I'd rather go for maximum excursion enjoyment and the possibility of maximum expression via images, than perfect co-axial symmetry. The desire for symmetry is a human flaw. I can afford to let it go, in favor of other benefits. Blame my training, if you must find a culprit. Dislclaimer: If this were a total eclipse, I'd be on the centerline, no ifs, ands, or buts. My 3 cents. C. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
good point, Chuck.
Thanks, Joe!
My point is that photos of "perfect annularity" will score technical points, but artistically, they might possibly be wanting- depending on the aesthetic 'center' of the imager. It's up to the individual photographer to decide what is important to him or her. If a 'bulls-eye" is what you want, and you snag it, YOU WIN! If there are other considerations in your criteria, then only 'you' can call the shots. Ultimately, only the person hitting the "expose" button makes the decision. To each, his or her own. I pass no judgement on final results other than any images I myself take. As should all imagers. I look forward to seeing ALL images taken by members of this list. Good shooting, people! Above all, ENJOY the EXPERIENCE. It's yours, and yours alone, regardless of whether you take pictures or not. Nobody can pass judgement on your state-of-mind and how you experience the eclipse. C.
participants (3)
-
Chuck Hards -
D P Pierce -
Joe Bauman