[deleted]
March 7, 2024
401
-
-
Accusing me of pretence is exactly the same thing as accusing me of dishonesty. You're not worth talking to. Clearly your idolisation of a compulsive liar has led you to a state where you seem not even to understand the concept of truth. Bye.
-
You're grasping at straws. The people I want to see elected aren't kept out by some fantastic conspiracy hatched in a backroom, they are openly vilified by both major political parties. Trump and his supporters have been the beneficiaries of the media (Fox News, and even the "mainstream" media that glosses over the outrageous and dangerous things he says in his speeches to his cult following). Trump has argued repeatedly that whenever he loses it's because the system is "rigged" against him, and that goes all the way back to his phony The Apprentice show not getting an Emmy.
-
And none of them were recorded actually asking for their vote count to be altered by the exact number needed to win. Note- not asking for a fair recount but for the tally to be altered by an exact number.
-
It's part of the nature of capitalism. These news outlets are for-profit companies. While the 'cult following' is a significant part of the market, they don't want to alienate it too much. The only difference with Fox is that the cult is their chosen niche, so they don't want to alienate it at all. Of course the problem for them all is that being a cult, everything is binary - you're either totally for them or totally against them, and if the tell the lies that are demanded they get sued to ruination by the targets of the lies. I find the disclaimers on Newsmax hugely entertaining.
The problem for you Marxists is that you don't form a large enough part of the marketplace for any of them to be worried about alienating you, and you don't have any rich corporations to fund the lawyers to sue the news outlets when they tell lies. -
[deleted]
-
Actually it's me thinking that you are the one running round with the putter. It's you who is setting limits and defining them as being within the mediums ability to record. With me, and especially with film, my understanding extends to the results when you exceed those limits, and this is not my viewpoint but what I have learnt from others.
-
I only describe the limits that are there. If the medium does not record something it won't be in the photo. So the role of setting exposure (correctly) is to ensure that as much information about the subject as possible is collected. 'Correct exposure' is the exposure that captures the most information about the scene. What Hurter and Driffield did was to research how film captured information, then use that knowledge to understand how to expose to capture the most information. Digital is a different medium. The same general principle applies, but the response of a digital sensor to light is different to that of film. The presentation of that information is a matter of processing (or, in the case of film, processing the film, printing and processing the print). There are many ways of using processing to achieve the desired look of the final image. That is something that Ansell Adams, for instance, theorised, demonstrated and wrote books about. In the case of digital we have much easier tools to use in processing and even more flexibility to release that recorded information to make the image that you want.
When I talk about playing a round of golf with just the putter, what I mean is conflating the whole of getting the image you want to 'exposure', when it's mostly about processing. The job of setting exposure is to get the information that you need for processing. -
With all the cockamamy theories presented here as absolute proven fact and you still stand by that statement? The same human eyes are viewing the same facts as you. Do you really think they see the same truth in a photo that you are able to measure and attach a number to? All the evidence in this thread suggests the opposite. Even Ansel Adams said in his three books that now you have a good test print, not an expressive photo. Many photographers out there are looking for that happy accident, that way the photo gets abstracted that just resonates with a memory. Many others are using tips and tricks from others that produce a "look" that already resonates with a mass audience, (until it becomes cliche). Some of the more subtle ones have taken on meaning and become part of the photographic language, the grain of pushed film, blurred parts of static images, washed out highlights, etc. They are all abstractions and yet have taken on a meaning that is seen as truth in an image, yet they are not the true information itself. I have no doubt about your definition of exposure, but if falls a long way short of defining a photo.
-
I always like to say that that technical does not matter except inasmuch as it contributes to the artistic.
Does that ever happen, though? 😁😁😫
I'm a bit the opposite. I always want to be right, so I align my beliefs with the facts as I understand them. For example, I believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old (well, at least, the entire observable universe was contained in an unimaginably small volume 13.8 billion years ago). I also believe in Evolution. I also believe that my wife gets irritated with me a lot. But, if a preponderance of the evidence shows that to be wrong, then I will change my belief (where at least one of my beliefs is very unlikely to change 😉).
The problem is with the word "education". The uneducated call [traditional] education brainwashing, which "explains" to them why people, on the whole, become more liberal the more educated they become. These same uneducated people (the "do your own research" crowd) believe they are more educated than those who don't believe the same as they do.
Not quite sure what you are saying here.
The reality behind the photo in the OP is disappointing to me, but I don't want the photo "cancelled" -- I just want the context of the photo to not merely be "A sailor kisses a woman in joy at the end of WWII", but "A sailor grabs a woman he doesn't know and kisses her to express his joy with the announcement of the end of WWII".
-
[deleted]
-
Yep:
Or maybe:
You mean this?
edsource.org/2014/common-core-standards-bring-dramatic-changes-to-elementary-school-math-2/63665
The new standards, adopted in California and 44 other states, have ushered in a whole new set of academic standards for math, with significant changes in the early grades – kindergartners must now be able to count to 100 by the end of the year, for instance, rather than 30. Second graders will no longer learn multiplication tables; that’s now a third grade task. And geometry standards are now less about identifying and measuring shapes and more about building and deconstructing them.
Common Core standards for kindergarten through 3rd grade math also require students to demonstrate a greater depth of understanding than needed under the previous California State Standards, established in 1997. While the old standards were often criticized for an excessive reliance on memorizing certain facts or procedures, the new standards routinely call for students to solve problems that require a strong grasp of mathematical concepts and to explain their reasoning.
“Most people think math is computation at the elementary level – drilling them in the skills,” said Jeanie Behrend, an education professor focused on math education at California State University, Fresno. “Math is really about application and problem solving.”
So that's what you mean by "California canceled the time (multiplication) table"? Hmm. I had a different impression of what you meant before I looked it up and read from the source.
-
Of course not. In fact that's a point I was making in this thread. It was being argued that the pose of the woman in the OP could b accounted for by technical issue with how the picture was take, rather than her distress. My response was that it did not matter - it was how the viewer saw the photo that matters, the emotional reaction - and now that I knew the backstory I could not unsee her distress. So I'm completely with you on that point. What I can't see is how it's in any way contrary to what I said.
And I never said that it defines a photo, anywhere. I completely agree with everything that you say, except for you saying that I said anything to the contrary.
-
I think it's more a mindset than anything else. 😀
-
You mean the 'creative' versus the 'technical'? I don't think that they are in conflict. Take Adams as an example. Very, very technical photographer. Used the knowledge of his medium to enable the creativity. The same is true of many artists. Leonardo would be another example. It's just different learning styles. Some artists take an analytical approach to understanding their medium, others a more experiential one.
-
One of the characteristics of conservatism is resistance to change - unless the change is a reaction to restore some (usually fictional) order that has been lost. When I learned my times tables we still had pounds, shillings and pence. Twenty shillings in a pound and twelve pence in a shilling. So we had to learn our tables all the way up to twelve. ('Twelve twelves are one hundred and forty four'). By the time my kids went to school the currency had long since been decimalised, so they only learned their tables up to ten. I remember thinking how standards had fallen...
-
[deleted]
-
Couldn't care less about the ancient photo or that the VA had some sudden, random urge to react to the very old news that it was an uninvited kiss between strangers. Zzz
Barely more interesting than that is seeing people hold 20 year old unsupported claims from one politician against them when the opposing politician is caught using the N word, etc. on video. Not just a claim.
And no, I support neither the lying, ego maniac, supposed rapist or the lying dementia-ridden, barely walking, barely speaking, supposed rapist.
Politics on forums is the best way to find out people you once respected are actually idiots.
(Not you JACS, or Bob)
Same important realizations found in the Mako's power trip thread.
