Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003
I blog for my friends and family at

Get an invite.


Monday, June 21, 2004



Well after that boring picture spiel, I am completely intimidated. No peekaboo pics for you.


Well after that boring picture spiel, I am completely intimidated. No peekaboo pics for you.


I feel the same way Melissa. I was like, in comparision to the others he chose, everything I take sucks.

Though I sure do love this feaute.


"feature", even.
damn spelling.


Re Petteri Sulonen's essay: He described my B&W photography class in college, in a nutshell. In New Orleans, 98% of the class took photos of the St. Charles streetcar, Bourbon street signage, and the St. Louis cemetary, subjects that were tired and overdone. With the advent of digital cameras, photographs have become even more boring. At least with darkroom work, there is a more personal element in photography: the hands are involved in production. Now, the process has become completely machinated.

I guess I'm nostalgic for the "old times"...

Da Goddess

Me - Boring photographs: GUILTY!

I'm glad YOU like the color of the hibiscus. The contrast was what really did it for me.

Da Goddess

As for what constitutes "not boring" photography - I think the answer to that would be - whatever captures the viewer's eye.

Jerome du Bois

Thanks for selecting my photo, TPB. It will be part of my forthcoming photobiography, "My (Larger Than) Life." Sorry; he's on TV; I needed to use the joke, and there you were.

I noticed something missing from Sulonen's list, unless it comes under macros: allover patterns, as of a hedge of leaves, or a close-up of a complicated dress pattern. I enjoy perusing such images -- and there's nothing wrong with it!

Thanks again.


TPB, Esq.

I don't necessarily agree with the "Boring Photos" essay's critique of certain shots, but I do appreciate that the author is trying to encourage people to take natural pictures of what they find interesting, not what "should be" shots (i.e., the flower macros, etc.). The thing is, even those macros are natural, eventually, because there are just some flowers that are worth pictures.

Sulonen's essay is entertaining to me, and I think it's a good inspiration to me to just relax about taking pictures, to just shoot what I want. I think that's a good thing.

Sugar, you've hit a topic that I was planning on discussing in next week's picture envy: the negative impact of digital photography on new photographers.


I'm less impressed with flower macros and more impressed with the photographer's ability to make mundane things look interesting. For example, I found this serires impressive because the photographer has a good eye for composition.


{sometimes I wonder if, deep down, the two photographers of these sites, being so close in proximity, gnash their teeth when one scoops the other; alternatively, they may be the same person}
I know the fellow who blogs at Satan's Laundromat -- have been to, alas, too few of the excellent Mafia/Mao/bake your own dessert parties at his house, back when he lived out here -- and I'm pretty sure that the Quarlo person is someone else entirely. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.