« New Year's Card from Peter | Main | Photographer Desiree Rios »

Thursday, 16 January 2020


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

Ah, that is hysterical!

Though I don't see why Joe Normal would get it, how many have seen a large-format view screen? (I'm not even sure I have.)

One more advantage from large format!

Funny on several levels. I picture a young Cartier-Bresson discovering the decisive moment. :)

Any older man, and I expect that our leader and I aren't the only ones, that retain a piece of their younger self will completely identify with this.

Shhhh! Don’t tell people this is how it works. As we are in France now, it is also quite appropriate.

I don't often laugh out loud while sitting by myself in a coffee shop. This morning I did.


The cartoon was not the problem. I had to lookup what "NSFW warning" meant.
Signs of my age.

The bokeh is wrong :)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

LOL! In elementary school a guy in my class would see drawings of girls in our readers (aka textbooks) and flip them upside down to see under their dresses. SMH

Hilarious! That would surely bring a lot more young people into the film photography world.

Are up-shirt photos next?

Going to save up for that camera I am.

Did you see the first comment on the Reddit-photo page? It was "I don't understand what's happening".
So much for non-photographers getting it.
I love it though. Hilarious.

Do my eyes deceive me, or is she also wearing patent leather shoes?

When once asked what is wet plate photography I replied that it is a photographic process dating back to the 1800's primarily used now as an assist in convincing ones subject to remove their clothing.

@roberte - contrary to what people say about REAL Scotsmen, we do actually wear underpants under the kilt (most of us)

One commenter at the site wrote: I don't understand what's happening.

Oh come on!

Isn't that one of the Art filters on the Fuji X-H1?

I looked at Piere‘s link, and then absently scrolled down. Came to the prints for sale part and the following made me giggle again:
“ This premium giclée print, an upgrade from the standard giclée print, is produced on thick (310 gsm), textured watercolor paper with the same vivid colors, accuracy, and exceptional resolution giclée prints are known for...
The smooth transitions of color gradients make giclée prints appear much more realistic than other prints.”

Am I the only person who thinks cartoons about people using cameras to look up women's skirts in seriously bad taste?

[Uh, well, it's not a real person and it's not a real skirt, and view cameras don't actually work like that. Can you not take a joke? --Mike]

I don't mean to get all heavy here, but wonderful things like this really and truly give me hope for us as a species.

We use our minds in so many bad ways (which, don't worry, I won't list), but sometimes they come up with something truly wondrous like this. Just a simple, yet somehow startling, twist of genius, with no purpose other than to spread pleasure.

The premise of the Penguin cartoon, that Antarctic color ranges only from white to white(black), is a pervasive one and the cartoon made me chuckle a bit. But after I traveled to the Antarctic Peninsula, I found the summer reality is different (admittedly a bit like extrapolating the USA from a visit to the Florida Keys). I was impressed with the amazingly beautiful monochromatic blue color scheme, occasionally punctuated by brown and black rocks partially covered by muted green and yellow lichens. Black and white film would only partly explore the beauty that is the Antarctic Peninsula and archipelago, where many of the penguins hang out. But some of us would say that about many landscapes, Father Ansel notwithstanding. [Not likely 'Moonrise']

WAAAAAAYYYYY better than patent leather shoes.

Bwahaahaahaaaa this is great! Post this on Dpreview and check how many of those "experts" get it.

The comments in the original post are even funnier than the image.

Reminds me of an old Nikon ad with a picture of a beach sunset with text that went something like: “Sitting on the beach with the love of your life, you turn to them and, looking deep into their eyes, you can’t help but think: ASA200, f8.0, 1/125th.”

This is in poor taste. Postings that make fun of females is not only immature, but a notable push to keep them away.

Unfortunately, the link in the comment by Pierre Charbonneau does not work outside the US, it seems.

[Unfortunately I cannot post the cartoon directly, as I don't own the rights to it and don't have permission. It's a penguin on an ice floe saying to another penguin with a camera, "Why on earth would you spring for color film?"

Sorry for the inconvenience. --Mike]

Mike, this cartoon is so old it's become a cliché.

[I had never seen it before. You know this old cliche: "Beethoven's Fifth is new the first time you hear it." --Mike.]

Many years ago I used to photograph weddings and had a military wedding to photograph. It was a Scottish regiment and the groom wanted to be photographed with his mates. Rather foolishly, in order to keep things light hearted, I said, "Come on lads, show us what you keep under your kilts." Unfortunately they did . . .

The first time I saw an image on the ground glass, I was startled to see COLOR.

Sigh... Men contriving ways to see women naked without their knowledge is not funny....

[View cameras don't actually work that way in real life. --Mike]

To against the grain a bit. I think this is an old geezer cartoon and I’m not sure I would like my daughter to view me as that person.

It’s the covert nature of what’s going on rather than being prudish that concerns me

Of course the whole point of photography is the fact that whatever we photograph our image is what WE SEE not what we see.

You see, even serious photographers can develop a sense of humor.

Got it. Also, you have a funny idea of what taking a few days off means. I knew you couldn't stay away.


I get it – the photographer is cleverly using his camera to take revealing photos without her consent – it's just not funny.

It wasn't funny in December last year, when a photographer in my city was arrested on voyeurism and assault charges involving teenage girls over the course of eight years; it wasn't funny three years before that, when another local photographer was arrested for the same thing, and it wasn't funny before then, either.

As a young man working on a newspaper I once convinced the female receptionists that when we developed a print in the darkroom the skeleton appeared first, followed by the body, then finally the clothes and a disreputable individual could snatch the print from the developer at an inappropriate moment.

"If ever there was..." Maybe for a certain demographic but, well, not here, sorry. Didn't know if I should comment ("if you don't like it you don't have to look at it" etc) but in the end, since I am part of your readership and was thus alluded to, I thought it justified.

Comment on comment. At least for me the Charbonnier penguin link worked both in Malaysia this morning and in Singapore this afternoon. So not only in USA. I could try next week in Japan as well.

My favourite is this one: https://www.whattheduck.net/image/139978603118 .

Really funny! This post make me laugh out loud several times.
-first the cartoon
-then the comments under it
-then the comments here

The commenters complaining about the inappropriate manner of the cartoon weren't the funniest, but pretty high on the list.

Mike I understand how view cameras work and I understand the premise of the joke - I’m still with the people who find it childish at best. It’s not the upside down image as subject to real gravity, which is stupid, it’s the peeping-Tom end result that is grating. How many women would die laughing at this? I’m a geezer just like everyone else here- but I don’t believe it’s overthinking it to say we have to look harder at things like this. I’ve read your blog since it began and it has got me through many a trying year in a cubicle before l retired. I have great admiration and respect for you- & I’m still contributing at Patreon. Let’s just call it a friend telling a friend “man, that joke’s just not funny.” You hope it doesn’t open a rift.. but sometimes it has to be done...

Some people seem to be taking offense that the cartoon is making a joke at the expense of women, but it seems to me that it’s the boy who’s behaving badly.
The cartoonist was the rather notorious French political cartoonist who worked for Charlie Hebdo, Siné
AKA Maurice Sinet also famous for cat drawings.

I suspect that the cartoon is actually about some French political scandal.
Do any of TOP’s French readers recognize the photographer as representing some public figure?

All I can think of is that photo by Pierre et Gilles of Jean Paul Gaultier, for the cover Gaultier’s autobiographical photonovel
À Nous Deux la mode https://www.amazon.com/nous-deux-monde-Collectif/dp/2080664808

first time back at this site in several months and this...juvenile rubbish

I don't think it so much "made fun of females" as it did of the prurient interests of adolescent schoolboys. And it did so by means of a wry bit of conceptual humor that would of course be understood and appreciated by photographers 'of a certain age'. Maybe my wife and I are both just old enough to have found no offense in the joke.

"Lighten up, there are stars in the sky.
Lighten up, it's a good question, "why?".
You don't know the answer, and neither do I,
So meanwhile let's just all lighten up".
---- Monty Python

It would have been funnier if it was a man in a dress being photographed.

Sorry Mike - I'm a big fan of yours, and have followed your writing for a few decades... but this was a poor move. I actually found it in bad taste, something I never thought would apply here. Hopefully it can just go away...

What a hoot, thanks, my wife got it and laughed immediately.

Unfortunately, for every joke that unjustly receives "criticism," there is one that does...


Ha ha ha. Objectifying women is so much fun.

As a young man working on a newspaper I once convinced the female receptionists that when we developed a print in the darkroom the skeleton appeared first, followed by the body, then finally the clothes and a disreputable individual could snatch the print from the developer at an inappropriate moment.

That is straight-up sexual harassment, and if you pulled that sort of thing now, you should be fired in disgrace.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007