Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[So, if I understand you correctly now], [your argument does not claim that...] [Instead your claim is that ...] [I might certainly buy that claim.]

[As to ... your claim is ...?] [I find that a bit hard to believe.] [A long exposure or a polarizing filter on the camera can do that.]

The combination of self-referential straw-man-building and false-false hypthesis rejection is priceless.

Polarizing filters and long lenses? Really now.

I'm very intrigued by your description of Gursky's photo being full of mind-bending and subtle tricks. What is unnatural about the space? I see what looks like compression, possibly by the use of a long lens.

Now you're like a drunk at the bar talking-shit. In over his head. Talking to someone with real experience. Not imaginary, illusory braggadocio.

Last call for you.

For other HN readers of this thread, there is real information presented here. Ideas that might benefit them. Provding an increased understanding of the world.

Fore nessus42, your false dichotomies and outdated academic modalities, are just the opposite. They are not enlightening or powerful. Nor even intimidating. Just sad and dull.

We leave them behind.




Perhaps it it is telling when someone claims to be an expert in photography and doesn't know the difference between a "long exposure" and a "long lens". Talk about drunk at the bar shit! Furthermore, half of your little diatribe there misattributes to me things said by michrassena.


Nice try, but too little to late.

On the topic of overexposure: Let us not burn our film.

It is time to move on.


Nice try at what? Yet another post by 001sky that insinuates everything and states nothing!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: