« Bone of Contention: Who Gets the Porn Pix? | Main | iPhone Ties Most Popular Camera on flickr »

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Comments

Frontfocus!

Ok, I am in weird mood today, sorry.

Or motion blur.

But I agree, the face and hand are unsharp enough that it wouldn't make it into my snapshot album these days. Though I suppose it might if it were a celebrity, or an important moment for some reason.

The very worst of a "known" photographer's portfolio will sell for a 1000 times more than will my very best ever shot. Especially if it's of a deceased famous actor. Just the way it is.

Don't know what made her think the dealer is a fraud but 25 mil is a bit much maybe?

Though I suppose it might if it were a celebrity, or an important moment for some reason.

Steve McQueen doing anything is "an important moment". Because he was that cool.

Somebody had to say it.

And now I want a doughnut! What a day...

She's English? I know her from Mallrats.

I see the first two commentors have no artistic eye. This is a picture of a coffee cup, with some clown in the background for atmosphere. A very nice picture of a coffee cup, which I am sure is what attracted Mike's attention.

The common theme of the top two posts is people stupidly and vindictively taking public matters that should have remained private.


pax / Ctein

'But I agree, the face and hand are unsharp enough that it wouldn't make it into my snapshot album these days. Though I suppose it might if it were a celebrity, or an important moment for some reason.'

It's not a picture that I'd rush to buy, but the 'technical imperfection' is not the reason at all. The focus may be on the cup of coffee intentionally - mine certainly is first thing in the morning.

Mike

"Front focus", "motion blur" - pfft!!

It's Mr Steve McQueen!!

UK libel law is notorious for being ridiculously stacked in favor of the complainant. The burden of proof is on the defendant and the bar is quite high.

Oh, I didn't realize the suit was filed in the US.

You may want to read this article in The Atlantic about how hitherto respected couple Walter and Naomi Rosenblum were caught selling fake vintage Lewis Hines prints, with forensic analysis of paper fibers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200306/woodward

Simply one of my favourite photographers. The work is outstanding, being a pround owner of JAZZ and Steven McQueen books even if don't have the pleasure of owning a print, to be able to enjoy this kind of work is one of those small things in life. Great photographer and Man.

Regards

Crummy composition........ sorry I couldn't resist

I really like the casual feel of this shot. Sure, the plane of focus is "wrong", but I think it's OK in this instance. Plus, only Steve McQueen could make reading a script over coffee & a donut seem cool.

BTW - the Courthouse News Service site has an intriguing link in its menu bar: Darkroom. It leads to a site about the work of photographer Walt Girdner. (Looks like his son Bill is editor of the CNS site.)

http://www.waltgirdner.com/

Nice photo, I'm sure she bought it as an investment. She now finds it's not worth what she paid for it--You win some you lose some.

I liked Forlani in Meet Joe Black. Anyone else have the Steve McQueen poster from Great Escape growing up. Mine came with through college and to my first apartment before falling apart. ch

Seems like, if the photo is of interest primarily because of who is in it, then it would be even MORE important that the person be shown clearly.

If photos of that person were rare, one might have to make do with what's available, but photos of movie stars never seem to be rare.

I like the "deliberate focus on the coffee" theory better (except that I do not participate in the Rituals of the Bean, categorizing all its sacred product as vile brown brew).

It's come to my attention that there is a slight, but highly unfortunate, confusion over my comment above. Mike refers to his articles here as "posts" (vis 'Recent Posts' in the left sidebar).

My comment about "The common theme of the top two posts" referred to the then-most-recent articles, namely this one and the preceding one about the porn-laden divorce.

It did NOT refer to the first two comments in this post, by Andreas and DDB..

pax / Ctein

(P.S. This, BTW, is a good example of why legal documents aren't written in 'plain English' but in a language that only looks like English. English is not good for writing unambiguously executable code.)

Ctein

I deal with the legal profession a good deal and whilst their language does only 'look like English', it is even less able to deliver unambiguous instructions. Further, it is common practice, in the UK at least, to spread said code across several conflicting documents of fiercely debated and uncertain hierarchy.

Positively we at least have the common law and principle based justice.

Mike

The comments to this entry are closed.