Pages

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Cool but not gay. Is it?


11 comments:

hiswiserangel said...

You are too manly for anything you post to be gay. You could post a pig in lipstick and a pink tutu and it still wouldn't be gay. You leave a trail of testosterone everywhere you go...

Sarthurk said...

Oh good grief, HWA, who's ass are you kissing?

WC, the photo is cool looking, but these days, Photoshop is ruining the actual skill of photography.

If you have a skill in photography, you go out with a 35mm camera, with the film you want to use for B&W or Kodachrome and pick the moment of shutter release (and don't photoshop it). That is skill. The rest is manipulation of the capture of reality.

Pardon me for being an asshole about it. It's not Bush's fault, my dad was a Marine.

I'm not trying to diss anyone, but you all should think about it (wow that's so cool looking) first. I rarely do, so be our wisdom.

Sarthurk

Deb said...

"a trail of testosterone"? Sounds like what feral cats do. Jeeze.

And no, that photo is not gay, but it sure is perty.

MSgt B said...

It's a little gay...

wirecutter said...

Sarthurk - agreed 100% but it still looks cool.

hiswiserangel said...

I rarely kiss ass, but when I do, I make it count.

And Deb, I was thinking more along the lines of a snail trail.

wbhickok said...

I may be wrong, but it may be photoshoped, and perhaps not God's photoshop neither... but as Wirecutter said, beautiful still...

For example: Check out the cliffs on the right side. They seem to be lit from some night skie's light on the southwestern part of the picture. Same with the cliffs on the lower left side of the picture and the rocks all below... they are all lit up from the same side, same source, yet the skies, the milky way and the light seem to be coming form the back of the picture...
If Milky way is the source of light on those cliffs, we wouldn't see their shape, their face, their cracks, but their dark silhouette from behind...
The logic of lights and shadow seem to fail this picture...
Thus it is a man made photoshop picture and not God's photoshop...

Yet that could even be wrong...

Beautiful indeed anyway even if it is made by God's Children who were made in His image and do built and destroy like the God himself... Perhaps not as majestic or grand, yet creators themselves...

wirecutter said...

Sarthurk - she's probably got some artsy redheaded shit shit she wants me to post and she's sucking up.

hiswiserangel said...

Artsy redheaded shit?! When have I EVER sent you anything artsy? I send you MILFs and bacon. And last week i sent you a Milf WITH bacon. Do you ever post? No. I'm hurt. I'm going to go sulk.

timbo said...

This is one area where I do know close to everything! So I will explain.

The pic of the sky was taken with a camera on a base which rotates at the same speed that the earth rotates. That is why it is bright and sharp. The exposure time needed for that shot is so long that if you didn't have a rotating camera mount, you would get "star trails", which are cool in their own right. Probably an hour or more long exposure. Whereas the foreground pic had an exposure in the range of 1/4 second to possibly 30 seconds. These two independent exposures where assembled in photoshop. If it were one photo only, either the cliffs or the stars would be "trailing".

Yes these types of pics are cool, but as Sarthurk suggests, they really hurt the soul of true, highly skilled photographers!

AbbyS said...

I wish you all could see the pics my wonderful husband can take. Yes, he uses a digital camera, no, he doesn't photoshop his stuff. He just has an amazing 'artist' eye. He has some things on his website at jbscustomartwork.com. Yeah. I got a keeper, this time!!!

~AbbyS