Are most of us just p***ing about ...?

[buxtonmick]

Thank-you, Mr Prescriptive.

?

 

[crofter]

At the end of the day and in the great scheme of things,all the works of man are but p***,mankind is too far up it's own a******e,meaningless f*****g b*****ks for the most part.

 

[Byker28i]

No. I take images I want of nice pretty landscapes. I like them and I like taking them. If you think that is p*ssing about feel free to think it.

I don't like babies, pidgeons, dogs, other people, especially policemen, why would I photograph them?

Fixed it for you

 

[Byker28i]

work


Ansel Adams was one of the first to go out into the wilderness and come back with images which showed the urban arts elite just what was on their doorstep. And they were open to it. The galleries bought his work then because of its quality and because they had never seen anything like it before. He was a pioneer. And because his work is now already world-renowned and already massively collectable people just can't get enough of it. It's a cultural thing. It's safe and acceptable to like Ansel Adams even if you aren't interested in landscape and know nothing about landscape photography.

Maybe 10-15 years ago there was an exhibition of Ansel Adams work at the Photogallery in London and I went down to a talk related to it. It was a long time ago but two things have lodged in my mind.

The speakers could not see Adams's work for what it was; an exploration of pure landscape. The speakers wanted to know what the social context was in what it was made; I honestly don't think it matters whether Adams was from a middle-class background or was brought up in poverty. The work stood for itself.

And secondly none of the speakers could think of one photographer who had been influenced by Ansel Adams. They pondered aloud amongst themselves. They'd heard of Jem Southam and hummed and haahed about him but decided in the end that he wasn't. What about the countless thousands (possibly millions) of photographers from all over the world who go out into the landscape, some of whom bring back images that Ansel Adams himself would have been proud of! They've taken Adams work and built on it and developed it to such an extent that Adams work now almost seems primitive. Most of them are amateurs in both your sense of the word and the real sense of the word. They do it because they love it. If that is what you mean by passion, then you're wrong.

Somehow, since Adams time, the arts elite have decided that pure landscape is just not worthy of being shown. Perhaps it's because they themselves do not appreciate the landscape, rarely experience it, and therefore cannot understand representations of it. it's just not fashionable at the moment.

I don't know why you picked Joe Cornish out for your scorn. You could probably have chosen any one of dozens of excellent landscape photographers. I'm not in Joe Cornish's league but I've experienced the same prejudice myself . I don't know him personally but he and his contemporaries just do not understand why their work is never shown in most photography galleries. But they look at what is shown there with derision and incomprehension. . You only have to visit the Photogallery or the Ffotogallery to see why. Worlds apart.

So why generalise on his landscapes?

Adams made his living for decades doing commercial work, photographing everything from corporate buildings to Boudin French bread, architectural interiors (including Yosemite’s Ahwahnee Hotel) and stuff for department store catalogs. Doing this work enabled him to spend the time doing what he loved, photographing Yosemite.

The thing is - his commercial work is every bit as exciting as his landscapes. I spent a couple of weeks in California recently deliberately visiting places he'd photographed. Here's some of his images

Ansel Adams Patent Leather Bar – Westin St Francis – San Francisco 1939

He even carried out commercial work at Yosemite. He photographed the Ahwahnee hotel before and during WW2 when it was used as a convalescent home for the military and before it was converted, the Yosemite Park and Curry Company paid Adams to complete an extensive photographic inventory of the structure.

At Ansel Adams galley, there is a poster hanging in his darkroom with the photographer peeking out from beneath the dark cloth of a view camera that is pointed at a group of school children. The caption below states “Even Ansel Adams had to earn a living."

Adams was compelled to spend much of his time as a commercial photographer. Clients ran the gamut, including the Yosemite concessionaire, the National Park Service, Kodak, Zeiss, IBM, AT&T, a small women’s college, a dried fruit company, and Life, Fortune, and Arizona Highways magazines — in short, everything from portraits to catalogues to Coloramas. On 2 July 1938 he wrote to friend David McAlpin, “I have to do something in the relatively near future to regain the right track in photography. I am literally swamped with “commercial” work — necessary for practical reasons, but very restraining to my creative work.” Although Adams became an unusually skilled commercial photographer, the work was intermittent, and he constantly worried about paying the next month’s bills. His financial situation remained precarious and a source of considerable stress until late in life.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Fixed it for you

You forgot a particular group

You can do better

 

[big soft moose]

You forgot a particular group

You can do better

looking on the brightside if you took up portraiture, headshots would come naturally

 

[jerry12953]

Yes, I'm aware that he did a lot of commercial work. But the comparison was, I think, between one landscape photographer and another. I wasn't aware of those images though. Amazing to think they were by Adams.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Somehow, since Adams time, the arts elite have decided that pure landscape is just not worthy of being shown. Perhaps it's because they themselves do not appreciate the landscape, rarely experience it, and therefore cannot understand representations of it. it's just not fashionable at the moment.

Because we've lost the notion of wilderness. We now appreciate it doesn't exist... anywhere. We are more cynical now.

I don't know why you picked Joe Cornish out for your scorn.

Because to me, he's the polar opposite of Adams for all the reasons you highlighted so well in your post

You could probably have chosen any one of dozens of excellent landscape photographers.

I don't consider Joe Cornish an excellent landscape photographer, which is why I chose to measure him against Adams, who is.

I'm not in Joe Cornish's league

Really? I find his work no better, or more inspirational than the majority of landscape you see on Flickr.

but I've experienced the same prejudice myself . I don't know him personally but he and his contemporaries just do not understand why their work is never shown in most photography galleries.

There is one very real possibility.... that it's crap. Ever thought of that? Seriously, Cornish's work is no better, and often worse than the landscape you see on Flickr... and that's the problem. It's all aesthetic and hyper-real, over processed work that has popular appeal but no real substance. Jus pretty pictures.. except they're often not as good as many of the same ilk on Flickr. It's just not even remotely remarkable in any way.

But they look at what is shown there with derision and incomprehension. .

They as in Cornish and his contemporaries look at what is in galleries with derision? If that's what you meant, then yes, they probably do, LOL.

You only have to visit the Photogallery or the Ffotogallery to see why. Worlds apart.

Indeed... it is.

 

[jerry12953]

Could it be that you prefer black and white landscapes?

 

[big soft moose]

There is one very real possibility.... that it's crap. Ever thought of that? Seriously, Cornish's work is no better, and often worse than the landscape you see on Flickr... and that's the problem. It's all aesthetic and hyper-real, over processed work that has popular appeal but no real substance. Jus pretty pictures.. except they're often not as good as many of the same ilk on Flickr. It's just not even remotely remarkable in any way.

.

Lol - David doesnt like it so joe cornish must be crap - someone better tell light and land to stop wasting their time , not to mention his good mate charlie waite - clearly the numerous magazine articles, multiple books (all of which have sold orders of magnitude more copies than anything david has put out) , and the whole gallery he owns and operates speak for nothing..

this is just another example of the elitist idea that real art isnt pretty , or that every picture has to have deeper meaning

not everyone wants to take flat and aesthetically boring pictures and then write paragraphs explaining why they mean something ... some just take beuatiful images and let the work speak for itself

 

[PMN]

Lol - David doesnt like it so joe cornish must be crap - someone better tell light and land to stop wasting their time , not to mention his good mate charlie waite - clearly the numerous magazine articles, multiple books (all of which have sold orders of magnitude more copies than anything david has put out) , and the whole gallery he owns and operates speak for nothing..

this is just another example of the elitist idea that real art isnt pretty , or that every picture has to have deeper meaning

not everyone wants to take flat and aesthetically boring pictures and then write paragraphs explaining why they mean something ... some just take beuatiful images and let the work speak for itself

Not every 'art' image has to say something profound, but the more common something is the less unique and significant it becomes. Which catches your eye more, a Ford Focus or an Aston Martin DB9? I suspect the DB9 - ask yourself why.

In principle I don't see why photography is any different in that respect.

 

[Chris J]

I dont think it's p*****g about, its a good hobby. As long as we enjoy it.

 

[big soft moose]

Not every 'art' image has to say something profound, but the more common something is the less unique and significant it becomes. Which catches your eye more, a Ford Focus or an Aston Martin DB9? I suspect the DB9 - ask yourself why.

In principle I don't see why photography is any different in that respect.

This is true - but the DB9 catches your eye because of its aesthetics, its likely performance, and the fact that you can imagine yourself driving one (personally I prefer the Ferrari Enzo but we digress) ... in essence its a joe cornish picture beautiful and evocative of a great experience, but without a more profound message. David appears to be arguing (metaphorically) that in actual fact a honda prius is more worthy than the DB9 because of the statement it makes

 

[jerry12953]

I've no idea about how cars relate to this but I wonder if David is reacting badly to so much landscape photography (on this thread and others) because it has no content. As well as aesthetic values a good landscape image also has documentary value. (i.e. content). It can work in more than one way. And of course if an image is digitally manipulated that content can no longer be trusted.

It is said over and over again that photographing the landscape is all about light, and most landscape photographers are obsessive about golden hour light. I've never been convinced myself. I'd rather see the landscape in reasonably neutral light and not have a pink/orange glow plastered all over it.

 

[big soft moose]

I don't agree that it has to have content to be good though... some good landscape photography is also good documentary photography and vice versa but there are also good documentary shots that have crap aesthetics and good landscape shots that don't have to be documentary in nature.

David seems to believe that every shot (apart from those derided as just craft shots) has to be documentary either explicitly, or to have an implicit comentary - and that just isnt so , documentary photography (either explicit or implicit) is one genre but there are others.

On the question of light I agree with you - good aestheticlandscape photography is all about the light.. but that doesnt have to mean golden hour glow

 

[Pookeyhead]

Lol - David doesnt like it so joe cornish must be crap

I wasn't talking about Joe Cornish, I was talking about the OPs work, that despite many attempts, can not get gallery representation. As I've not seen it, I've no idea if it's crap or not. I was asking the question... could it be that's the reason? Only the OP could answer it... or post the work for a general consensus.

I don't agree that it has to have content to be good though... some good landscape photography is also good documentary photography

Yes, but documentary, by definition, HAS to have content, or it's not documentary

 

[PMN]

This is true - but the DB9 catches your eye because of its aesthetics, its likely performance, and the fact that you can imagine yourself driving one (personally I prefer the Ferrari Enzo but we digress) ... in essence its a joe cornish picture beautiful and evocative of a great experience

That couldn't be further from how I meant that point.

I've no idea about how cars relate

The more common something is, the less you notice it and the less significant it becomes. It's quite simple really and again, I don't see how photography is any different from the car analogy. The photographic world is rammed full of images that look largely the same, how can these images be expected to stand up in their own right when they're so lacking in uniqueness?

 

[jerry12953]

No, David, I jumped in when you said Ansel Adams was great and

Cornish is just interested in making shiny things to sell books and further his career.

I couldn't understand why should make such a distinction.

 

[Pookeyhead]

No, David, I jumped in when you said Ansel Adams was great and



I couldn't understand why should make such a distinction.

Distinction between Adams and Cornish you mean?

 

[Pookeyhead]

The more common something is, the less you notice it and the less significant it becomes. It's quite simple really and again, I don't see how photography is any different from the car analogy. The photographic world is rammed full of images that look largely the same, how can these images be expected to stand up in their own right when they're so lacking in uniqueness?

This^

This has been my point all along in the recent pages of this thread and why that type of landscape work is becoming something you'd never see in a decent gallery. It's just too common, and unremarkable. You can't tell the photographers apart - Joe Cornish's work is identical to a million other people's work on Flickr.

 

[Adam Bonn]

FWIW...

IMO... Pi**ing about or not... Amateur or professional, fine art or abstract.... Once the shot is out there, be it facebook, flickr or Getty or Time... Whatever it means to who shot it, becomes also a meaning to anyone viewing it.

Shoot it for you (or your client) stand by what you did (if you feel it warrants it) BUT, accept the moment anyone else sees it, the impact of the shot is subject to interpretation outside of your control.

Maybe you think you're just pi**ing about.... But the audience thinks you've turned out something meaningful, or perhaps vice versa. It's largely outside of your control.

As mentioned by prevoius posters... In this day and age many photogs seem more concerned about GAS and PP than they do images. Now that imHo, that's just pi**ing about!

 

[wallyboy]

At the end of the day and in the great scheme of things,all the works of man are but p***,mankind is too far up it's own a******e,meaningless f*****g b*****ks for the most part.

are you pi--ing around

 

[jerry12953]

Distinction between Adams and Cornish you mean?

Yes. I think we understand that you don't like Cornish's work but I still don't understand why you distinguish it so strongly from Adams' - apart from the obvious that one is colour, the other b&w. Or, what you see in one that you don't in the other. Why one's work is bought by and shown in by major art galleries in the US and the other isn't.

It can't just be that one is crap, can it?

 

[Pookeyhead]

It can't just be that one is crap, can it?

Yes.

Even Adams' work would be woefully out of date if it was created now actually. It wasn't though, so it's viewed in a historical context. That aside, it had purpose, and it hit a chord in the American Psyche. It displayed wilderness when we were fearful of losing it. It tapped into the pioneer spirit, which was, and to an extent, still is strong in the US psyche. It was also for conversational reasons. It has purpose.

Cornish's work is just sentimental, over-saturated, and over-processed pap, and pretty pictures and eye candy. It's been done to death, and has ceases to have merit.

 

[jerry12953]

Yes.

Even Adams' work would be woefully out of date if it was created now actually. It wasn't though, so it's viewed in a historical context. That aside, it had purpose, and it hit a chord in the American Psyche. It displayed wilderness when we were fearful of losing it. It tapped into the pioneer spirit, which was, and to an extent, still is strong in the US psyche. It was also for conversational reasons. It has purpose.

Cornish's work is just sentimental, over-saturated, and over-processed pap, and pretty pictures and eye candy. It's been done to death, and has ceases to have merit.

I'm surprised you can be so utterly dismissive of Cornish's work. I'm sure if he were here to defend himself, he would have something interesting to say.

 

[Philx1979]

You might not like Cornish's work, but the guy makes a living from it, which really alot of you would love to do if you could.

 

[Adam Bonn]

I'll just throw this little analogy in....

Let's pretend we're all chefs and cooks and this is a cookery forum!

So Heston is a genius, pushing the limits of what's technically possible and expanding people's imaginations with his creativity, the very definition of NOT pi**ing around

Michel Roux Jr is extremely competent and deserves his living, but he's hardly pushing the boundries by creating fine dining dishes, that may be produced to a supremely high standard, but have been done many time before, so he's kinda pi**ing about a little

Home cooks and the staff at your local cheap restaurant are by and large turning out sub par homages to the geat works of others, but have neither the skill or creativity to deliver, they're completely pi**ing about.

Is this approximately the sentiment of the thread?

But, home cooking and local eaters are better than oven ready, and I bet a steak dinner at Roux's restaurant is sensational.

So no, no one's pi**ing about, the worlds one giant layer cake, always was and always will be.

 

[simon ess]

the worlds one giant layer cake,

Spot on.

 

[SFTPhotography]

This is true - but the DB9 catches your eye because of its aesthetics, its likely performance, and the fact that you can imagine yourself driving one (personally I prefer the Ferrari Enzo but we digress) ... in essence its a joe cornish picture beautiful and evocative of a great experience, but without a more profound message. David appears to be arguing (metaphorically) that in actual fact a honda prius is more worthy than the DB9 because of the statement it makes

I'm a Porsche/Bentley person and I like pretty pictures. I don't think all of Cornishes are excellent. Some are truly lovely, some more average. I personally prefer Colin Prior.

 

[Byker28i]

I'm a Porsche/Bentley person and I like pretty pictures. I don't think all of Cornishes are excellent. Some are truly lovely, some more average. I personally prefer Colin Prior.

Phillips Plisson's work on the Brittany coast for me, or maybe Michael Kenna

 

[SFTPhotography]

Phillips Plisson's work on the Brittany coast for me, or maybe Michael Kenna

You mentioned a gallery in St Malo...I will go and visit. Some research shows some cracking lighthouses up that way...may investigate in March

 

[big soft moose]

Cornish's work is just sentimental, over-saturated, and over-processed pap, and pretty pictures and eye candy. It's been done to death, and has ceases to have merit.

How many photo books have you sold ? and How many photo books has cornish sold ? ... exactly

we all get that you don't like Cornish's work , which is fine, just as I think that technically poor documentary photography of a bunch of people doing cosplay fails to have higher meaning , but to judge it has no merit just makes you look ridiculous when you consider the sales and high profile contracts that he has under his belt

Its also easy to be brave when he isnt here to defend himself - I bet if he were he would tear your argument apart in about two posts

 

[PMN]

How many photo books have you sold ? and How many photo books has cornish sold ? ... exactly

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[Byker28i]

It means Mr Cornish is a good salesman or a shrewd person who knows what sells well in the marketplace he has positioned himself in. Trouble is, if you start simply looking at quantity as a measure, does that make a venture style, white background photographer a very good one, or successful at selling a formula at a price point?

Art, photography, is a subjective thing hence the discussions around what is liked or not. Should quantity sold be the only measurement?

 

[big soft moose]

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

David likes to think he's the definitive authority on matters photographic - hence the highly arrogant statement as fact that Cornish's work is without merit

the relevance of that comment is to make the point that someone who lectures at a relatively minor university and has sold a handful of self published books is not well placed as an authority to pass judgement on the work of a world renowned photographer who has sold tens of thousands of books and achieved the kind of success in photography that most of us (David included) can only dream of.

If David were say Charlie Waite or David Noton, Guy Edwardes , Lee Frost (et all) , ie someone of Cornish's standing then the opinion might mean something, but as like most of us he isnt, saying he doesn like Cornish's work is fine - stating as fact that its without merit looks stupid and without credibility

 

[PMN]

the relevance of that comment is to make the point that someone who lectures at a relatively minor university and has sold a handful of self published books is not well placed as an authority to pass judgement on the work of a world renowned photographer who has sold tens of thousands of books and achieved the kind of success in photography that most of us (David included) can only dream of.

Utter nonsense, that's like saying I as a music professional with 20 years experience can't have an opinion on Justin Bieber's music because I haven't sold as many records as him. Absolute, utter nonsense.

 

[big soft moose]

Utter nonsense, that's like saying I as a music professional with 20 years experience can't have an opinion on Justin Bieber's music because I haven't sold as many records as him. Absolute, utter nonsense.

Anyone can have an opinion - but David likes to state his opinion as though its fact

so with your parallel its fine to say you hate just beibers music, that you'd rather listen to a cat being castrated, or that as an art form you can't see it lasting as well as ...(insert musical hero here) , however stating baldly "Justin Beibers music is without merit" would clearly be ridiculous as there are millions of young girls who disagree with you, and for his market he is very good at what he does (personally i can't stand him, but hes not making music to be listened to by 42 year old photographers)

Likewise with Cornish - you or David or whoever may not like what he does, you may not want to buy his prints, or look at them, and its fine to say that or even to express the opinion that you don't see them lasting as well as say adams, or bresson or whoever ... but to state baldly as fact that they are without merit , when he has acheived massive success with them including books, magazines, print sales, workshops, commisions from national organisations etc is just daft.

 

[Pookeyhead]

How many photo books have you sold ? and How many photo books has cornish sold ? ... exactly

we all get that you don't like Cornish's work , which is fine, just as I think that technically poor documentary photography of a bunch of people doing cosplay fails to have higher meaning , but to judge it has no merit just makes you look ridiculous when you consider the sales and high profile contracts that he has under his belt

Probably somewhere between 1200 and 1500 at a guess without doing a proper count. I've only got accurate figures for blurb. Stuff sold from Village books, and those sold in Arles last year I'd have to dig a bit deeper. Merfolk only accounts for a very small percentage of that incidentally - it's not really resolved as a book yet. I released it on Blurb for the benefit of the mermaid community nothing more. I was obliged to do that as they demanded to see it. Quite frankly.. I don't care how many sell, as I'm not trying to make a living from it.

Its also easy to be brave when he isnt here to defend himself - I bet if he were he would tear your argument apart in about two posts

I'd merely make the same point Pete: I'd love to ask him, "How do you explain the popularity of your books considering that there's now no difference between your work and the majority of good landscapes on Flickr or 500px that's available for free or under CC license?". I've been scratching my head over it since the start of this thread [edit - and the other one], and I wish SOMEONE would answer it. Why do you imagine I'd do otherwise? What's he going to do, punch me? He's just a person Pete like any other, and I really want an answer to that question. What do you imagine he'd say to "tear my argument apart"? He could say "I've sold hundreds of thousands of books so therefore I'm great", but that's not really answering the question I asked, and is a bit childish.

Justin Bieber's MUSIC is without merit. Justin Bieber as a marketable commodity is not without merit. Millions of young girls are buying Justin Bieber, not his music... just as millions of young girls are buying Joe Sugg, who so far as I can tell, has no talent or skill whatsoever.... I mean.. what does he do? Why is he famous? LOL. You can sell anything to anyone if you market it correctly. If you judge how good something is by it's commercial success only, I shudder to think of the quality of your music collection , library, wardrobe, or even refrigerator contents Pete. You must just rush out and buy whatever is popular, because it's a sure sign that it's great, right?

For accuracy Pete, I'm saying that all such landscape images are without merit now, not just Cornish's. I merely use him as an example because he's probably the only one who most people know... by most people I mean the wider public. Feel free to replace the word Joe or Cornish with whatever you like, and the argument remains the same. There's simply too much of it to be useful, and the digital age, and quality of 35mm sensor cameras are making it too easy to produce. Because of that, there are simply so many similar images as to make them all useless. Cornish got in at the ground floor with the whole digital thing and was producing work that no one else was. Now he's not. Nor can he any longer. Drop his work into Flickr and it is instantly lost amongst the others and you'd never find it again. Digital + Internet + image based social media like Flickr has just utterly ruined Landscape photography. How can ANYONE recognise anyone's work any more? LOL.

It's too easy, too common and too tired to be of any use any longer.

Landscape needs a shake up, and it will come from the ground up, and like most trends that amateurs latch on to, it will come from either the professional world, or the art world, because they always do.. usually the latter, but the public pay little attention to the art world; usually a switched on ad agency will pick up on something in the art world, and the wider world will learn about it via them and they are blissfully unaware they're being directly influenced by art because they're seeing it on TV.

Landscape photography is still stuck in the Romantic period 200 years after everyone else has moved on. The better photographers pushed into the Sublime and post modern era well, but most people would not imagine that's landscape any more because it has no fluffy clouds or green in it necessarily. However.. the vast majority of landscape is around 200 years out of date. It's Constable for the digital era.

Groundhog day.

This is true - but the DB9 catches your eye because of its aesthetics, its likely performance, and the fact that you can imagine yourself driving one (personally I prefer the Ferrari Enzo but we digress) ... in essence its a joe cornish picture beautiful and evocative of a great experience, but without a more profound message. David appears to be arguing (metaphorically) that in actual fact a honda prius is more worthy than the DB9 because of the statement it makes

In a way, I am... except the wrong car is used here. It makes a statement alright, but the Prius is actually an ecological disaster and causes more harm than good... however, yes, the Prius in a way, IS more worthy than the DB9. You seem to have a pre-occupation with celebrity, status, image as a measure for worth. You're thinking like a consumer, which means essentially you're not thinking.. you're reacting.

However, your analogy is flawed because the DB9 is NOT the analogue of Joe Cornish or Pretty Landscape. Pretty Landscape is far too commonplace to share the same part in your analogy. The DB9 is desirable because it's rare - you want one because you can't have one. I'm sure if it cost £20,000 it would sell like hot cakes, but then it would be common. It would still be a great car technically but now everyone can afford one, the only reason to buy one would become its great value for money. No one would think anything of YOU for owning one if it cost £20K, and deep down, admit it... that's the appeal isn't it Pete?

just take beuatiful images and let the work speak for itself

If only you actually showed any work Pete.. that would be nice

 

[RichardTaylor]

I'm feeling a bit haunted by some images I discovered only recently. Some of you will already know them. They're of deformed foetuses & children, the result of America's aerial spraying of the defoliant Agent Orange (containing dioxins) during the Vietnam war. Two heads and all the rest ... the images shoot right through you.

The American government called it 'collateral damage'. A cosmetic description if ever there was one.

The photographer was the late Philip Jones Griffiths.

Are most of us just p***ing about?

--------------------------------
Ask yourself why do you take photographs?

For myself, as a hobbyst who has an ocasional "client". it is (and this is not in any particular order);

#1 Memories for family and friends - I don't consider this just p***ing about.
Fatherhood by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

#2 Memories for "clients" , the guy in the red MG asked me "do I want to shoot trackside" - he love his photographs - I don't consider this just p***ing about.

For those who like old MGs by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

#3 Memories for my wifes associates (she is one of singers in thes opera production I was asked to cover) - I don't consider this just p***ing about.
Violeta's party (1) by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

#4 Memories for myself - this is a vacation "snapshot" - I don't consider this just p***ing about.
Uploaded for a tutorial by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

Now the ones where I may be just p***ing about.

#5 Birds wanting meat at a BBQ. - A student from Germany loved this and want a copy to show their family back home and as a memory.
Kookaburras by Richard Taylor, on Flickr


#6 And yes a 'scape

The photographer by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

I like doing these - why?
# 6.1 On location 1/2 hour before first light.
#6.2 Shooting with a bunch of mates.
#6.3 Sometimes it just goes "off" (not a lot of PPing in this one).
#6.4 Usually 1/2 hour after sunrise (light dependant) we have a great breakfast, in a nearby cafe, with fellow photographers.
#6.5 Back home before my wife has even woken up.

It I may be just p***ing about, however it is a very enjoyable way to start a weekend.
---------------
From personal experience shooting "graphic" images (motor racing accidents where the driver doesn't walk away) is not very pleasurable, and sometimes it takeas a long time to get over them.

 

[odd jim]

>> snip <<

Merfolk only accounts for a very small percentage of that incidentally - it's not really resolved as a book yet. I released it on Blurb for the benefit of the mermaid community nothing more.

>> snip <<

Having not read any of the preamble for context, this is probably the most surreal thing I'll read all day