This is a picture I posted recently on Flickr. I called it “Bad Hair Day.” I’m posting it here to illustrate my further thoughts relative to yesterday’s discussion, and, well, to make it easier to decide what picture to post!
Part of Pohangina Pete’s discussion related to a more subtle use of color than, not to put too fine a point on it, my viewers are not used to seeing from me. The above picture seems to me to be pretty subtle in the color department. I liked it when I’d finished post-processing it, and part of that was because of the muted color palette. Truth is, I probably would not have liked it less if this birdie had a bright orange eye ring (or whatever you call it) instead of the pale blue actually present. This is one of the two pictures I converted to B&W (I use the term “black and white,” or the shorthand B&W, to refer to photos without “color” in the usual sense, but including black, white, and any number of shades of gray in between) just to have something to offer up in the Fair in that category. Obviously, or at least obviously to me, I chose it because it had so little color in it to start with, and that made it easy for me to “see” (or imagine) it as a monochromatic image. The same can be said of the Bismarck palm frond I demonstrated yesterday. Here’s the B&W version of today’s picture:
Pohangina Pete discussed “seeing” in B&W, and, I admit, I’m not exactly sure what that means. Rendering real-world scenes in B&W, it seems to me, is basically reducing them to graphic representations of reality (don’t get me wrong, I haven’t confused color photos with “reality”). Certainly, many fine images have been cast in B&W, and I suppose “seeing” in B&W just means having a sense that what one is seeing, preparing to photograph, would look good rendered without color. Okay, I’m sure everyone has had enough of this stuff.
Bloviation.
1. I’ve been wondering of late why it is I pay a premium (a few bucks) for a “high definition” package of channels from my cable company. What it amounts to is that I pay to watch commercials I could watch for free. There are a few channels that, to the best of my knowledge, are not on “low definition” TV, but I haven’t seen them offer that much good programming. I’m thinking seriously about ditching this package and spending the money on high living or something. While I’m on this subject, some of the channels in question are Discovery, Science, History, Learning (TLC) and National Geo. These channels are owned, I think, by the same guy. They certainly shuffle programming between themselves, and most of it is crap. Seems to me they used to have more wonderful documentaries and scenic shows and less commercials. I know for a fact that Discovery HD Theater used to have less commercials. I don’t watch House & Garden, Cooking, etc., at all.
2. I spent a portion of today rearranging the “bonus room.” This is a room which has no particular use in that it is not a “living room,” a “family room,” or “bedroom,” etc. Perhaps it is the modern incarnation of the “Florida room.” Anyway, we have some presentable cabinetry in there with my music stuff and my Honey’s craft stuff in them. I’ve been pretty much dominating the room with my musical gear (PA, guitars on stands, microphone on stand, etc.). We decided I should share, so I went about making that work today. We’ve got a card table the top of which folds and slides to be bigger (a great description, hey?). I opened it up, and now we have enough flat surface for laptops, printer, computer-based cutting machine (so she can cut paper and stuff for stamping and scrapbooking, think CAD). The place looks neater, too. Didn’t competely finish, but I think she’ll like it when she gets home from her store today.
3. I’m ignoring politics.
4. Thunder outside, I like it.
