« Mastering the Fuji X100 | Main | Right Back to the Bad Old Days for Olympus? »

Tuesday, 21 February 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

That is a really cool shot. And it shows just how much is up there that you don't need a telescope to photograph and the only thing that keeps us from seeing it is it's faint and our eyes and brains don't do long exposures. You can see the Andromeda Galaxy to the right of the Milky Way, above the ladder. It actually is visible to the naked eye in dark locations and visually larger than four full moons.

It's interesting to compare it to this image of the entire galaxy for a reference on what part of the sky is in the photo: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110520.html

Is he going to submit that photo to the next TOP members print sale submission period? I think I might vote for it over the one I'm going to submit.

I'd take a print of that, likewise.

Beautiful shot.

Life ain't so bad there at the "big kahuna-dom", huh? So when's part two of the print offer, Mr J?

P.s., a friend who's shot with a 10x8 for years and years recently opined that photography, as a serious art form, is, (given the sheer volume of photographs taken/uploaded on even an HOURLY basis globally) entirely dead. I'm horrified to find myself agreeing with him. Any thoughts from TOP world headquarters?

What a beautiful picture of the skies. The subject has been done to death, but this is fresh indeed.

I'm sure this is a very saleable as a print.

After 15 years of owning a beautiful Kona bike, I learn thanks to this blog that's the name of coffee (I knew the canadian brand used hawaiian names, but no the coffee root of the main brand)

Dear Tom,

Not sure why your "photographic art is dead" comment is appearing under this article, but I think your friends is utterly full of it. 100%, to the brim.

First, the volume of photographs made has nothing to do with it. "Art photography" became a minority player the day the first Kodak hit the market. Since then the overwhelming majority of photos made have been for personal amusement and memory-keeping. They have no particular pretensions to being art, and a good thing, since they'd fail, almost 100%, at that. But that's not what they're for.

So, who cares?

Second, the Interwebs lets you see far more of those personal photos than you ever could before. That may create the impression that photography has gone to the dogs. Nuh uh, all that's changed its that now you can see everyone's god-awful family album and vacation slides, instead of just the ones imposed upon you by unavoidable relatives.

I see more good new art photography each year, now, than I ever did before. No, let me amend that. I see more GREAT new art photography every year than I ever did before. For that, I can also thank the Interwebs

The only downside I see to all that is that it's a good thing that access didn't exist when I was an impressionable youth, because it would probably discourage me from ever picking up a camera and trying to compete with the amazing work I see so frequently.

pax / Ctein

@Tom Higgins: Does your friend also believe that, with all the writing taking place every day by literally billions of people, literature as a serious art form is dead ?? Or what about the millions of children that sing in school every day ?? Do they kill off music as a serious art form ??

Au contraire, I believe that these activities are actually spawning new "serious" artists for all of us to admire.

New technology is making these art forms acessible to more and more people - think not only about photography, but also the way that more talented musicians can now actually afford a "recording studio", enabling them to express and publish their music using cheap digital technology.

I do not believe that "serious" art is defined as "only being available to few people to work with" - as is the case with LF photography due to the involved cost and required skills.

Well TBannor, you may not need a telescope, but being on top of Mauna Kea, 4200m above sea level, extremely dry and cloud free, and almost no environmental light certainly helps!

Tom, what does "sheer volume" have to do with anything? Is writing as an art form dead because people send billions of 146-character SMS messages to each other? Is sculpture dead because children play with Play-Doh brand modeling compound?

I'd buy a print of that in a New York minute... :-)

I agree with the others. A stunning photo!

Tom Higgins, I don't necessarily agree, but the true artists will be harder to discover.

I'll agree with the others saying that photo makes me think "print sale please"...

Stunning photo and all but I'm really looking forward to the 10 pounds of green Kona I just ordered from Phil.

Appreciate the replies, perhaps I should phrase what his point was differently- Given the SHEER VOLUME of photographs available for viewing in our new, globally connected age, would a Brett (or Edward) Weston, or a Minor White, or even a Gary Winogrand have anything like the impact they did in their own time? I really doubt it.

Beautiful shot of the Milky Way, yes, but also well captured is the Great Andromeda galaxy, our nearest neighboring spiral galaxy, about 2.6 million light years away! (Seen here as a bright elongated object near the top of the picture).

Phil's magnificent night sky image serves as a powerful argument that it's likely that someone else is looking back at us from one of those dots.

Thank you for posting Phil's contact info! I'm looking forward to roasting my green Kona beans!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007