blatherings: Recent Comments

Comment on A couple of thoughts...

Yoshi — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:25:42 GMT

Um, okay. I don't remember advocating that people be restricted to muskets, but by that logic:

Cho fired 174 rounds in 12 minutes. It would take 58 minutes to fire that many rounds with a musket, assuming top firing rate could be achieved. 30 people were killed and 17 wounded in those 12 minutes. Assuming that every shot were a kill shot, a musket could actually outperform that mark, by killing 36 people in 12 minutes (at 3 shots per minute). However, I would doubt that a 48" rifle that requires a long pole to load the shot would be as effective in a school hallway and certainly would draw more attention than an 8" pistol that can hold 15 rounds and be hidden in a jacket.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin had a lot of good ideas and many catchy, quotable phrases. Both were brilliant men. They are a product of their time and their views need to be placed in that context. To assume they would not view the world (and guns) differently in 2007 than they did in 1777 is, IMHO, a pretty big leap of faith. And I can't imagine that they would be advocates of allowing mentally ill individuals purchase guns legally.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
- Benjamin Franklin

I'm sure the 32 people that Cho killed that day are grateful for their 2nd amendment rights. They seem to be getting very good results from that one.

Comment on A couple of thoughts...

Steve — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:16:05 GMT

1. Switzerland has more guns per capita than us (one of the few, legally anyway) and they have less violent crime than almost anyone else in the world. Also, the most restrictive gun laws are in DC. Approaching the highest gun violence numbers is... you guess it, DC. The "Wild West" had more guns than DC does today but they had a lower gun violence rate. Check it out you will find that my statements are correct!

2. The 2nd Amendment was put there for us to protect ourselves from the government. No other reason dominated any discussions of the time. After all, we just fought a revolution. In order for a people to remain free they must be able to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic including our own government. Standing up against our military with muskets won't do much to that end now would it?

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take all the others."
- Thomas Jefferson

"...the 2nd Amendment stands as a protector for everything we stand for."
- Benjamin Franklin

A Gun Owner
An American History Teacher
A Veteran
Your Friend =)

Comment on Right Up My Alley

adrienne — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:13:55 GMT

That is awesome.

Comment on Retouching: Fantasy vs. Fact

adrienne — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:31:02 GMT

There is no doubt that the constant onslaught of unattainable and unrealistic images of beauty has an extremely detrimental impact on young girls who haven't yet developed the self-image and inner resources to understand and cope with it. It's pretty shocking the first time you have a nine-year-old girl tell you she can't wait to get old enough to have plastic surgery. But the doctoring of the images in that way seems more of a symptom of something that's broken to me than the thing that is directly causing it. The photographers are just realistically looking at what will sell.

I agree about art. I'm not sure I really believe in journalistic truth (although I am a big believer in investigative journalism, which is why I finally broke down and subscribed to the Sunday NYT--I don't like hearing about the papers who are still engaging in it having so much economic trouble). The truth is such a slippery thing, and having written a lot of nonfiction, it seems to me that it is fundamentally impossible to take yourself out of the writing of even the most basic facts. I think that would translate to photographic journalism, too. I mean, the photographer is at the very least picking to aim the camera at one thing instead of another. It is on some level more honest to admit that up front, as artists do.

Comment on Retouching: Fantasy vs. Fact

Yoshi — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:49:49 GMT

The only problem I have with that cover, as with all cover or magazine shots of women, is the bad body image stuff that is laid onto young girls because of it. Then again, people are growing more savvy about whether these things get doctored, so maybe in twenty years it won't be as much of a problem.

I guess there's really three categories that images fall into: 1 - journalistic (no alterations), 2 - art (where all lies are acceptable as part of the process), and 3 - not sure what to call it. It's the one in the middle space between truth and lie. I guess fantasy is the best word for it. Or idealized reality. It's odd though that altered photos that are presented as "fact" get so much more scrutiny than words. Even the most honest reporter or writer will get things wrong or give a false impression when translating their experience to words. I think that's why I find art more "honest" than most things in life. The lies are transparent

Comment on Retouching: Fantasy vs. Fact

adrienne — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:11:20 GMT

Well, I daresay Kelly Clarkson wanted to look her best for that cover. It seems to me that there's no ethical issue when it's the cover of a magazine (Self is hardly archival) and the subject is okay with it.

It strikes me that the tension here is the tension in a lot of art--the push-pull between presenting reality and something that makes a satisfying/comprehensible statement. Life in its dailiness is sadly lacking in the satisfying/comprehensible department.

Comment on Film vs Digital: An Image Comparison

Yoshi — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:03:28 GMT

Almost. I'll email you the results.

Comment on Film vs Digital: An Image Comparison

Nick Pauly — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:57:20 GMT

1a: digital
1b: film

2a: film
2b: digital

3a: film
3b: digital

4a: digital
4b: film

5a: film
5b: digital

6a: film
6b: digital

Ha! How'd I do? ;-)

Comment on Film vs Digital: An Image Comparison

Yoshi — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:49:49 GMT

Colour is really SO subjective and prone to shifting (even in digital where it's supposed to be linear). The first thing you learn in printing colour images is that there is no base line reference point to start from. It's all pretty much made up as you go along. And very minor shifts in tone can have a great impact. It's funny that you mention the yellows in 5 because the a version to me looks vastly better. To each his own.

Comment on Film vs Digital: An Image Comparison

adrienne — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:42:07 GMT

It seems to me that the colors in the "b" images are generally more vivid. The yellows in 5 and 6 are notably more appealing in the b's than the a's.

What would be even *more* interesting would be to look at the images and the real thing all at once. Even if I like the colors better in the b's, it doesn't mean that's what they really looked like, either, I suppose.