Sneaky (cat!)

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Sneaky says it doesn't matter because all humans were born to be slaves, even those who don't yet have a feline master to serve.
Click to expand...

Judging by the cats under discussion and the humans associated with them, it would appear that cats have found themselves best served by choosing intelligent slaves.

Cats' Credo: The center of the Universe is right here.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
Judging by the cats under discussion and the humans associated with them, it would appear that cats have found themselves best served by choosing intelligent slaves.

Cats' Credo: The center of the Universe is right here.

- Murray
Click to expand...

addendum to the cat's credo:

... and it's all mine.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Of course its better; it is a picture of a cat!
Click to expand...
I have a theory that any photo, painting, drawing, or sculpture can be improved by including a cat.

Think about it: the Churchill photo would be a total winner if there were a cat in it. Mona Lisa? Definitely ​​​​​​needs a cat in it (she could cradle it in her arms). Michelangelo’s David? Put a cat on his shoulder and you’ve got a masterpiece. The Egyptians were the first to recognize the power of the Cat.
 
Pál_K said:
I have a theory that any photo, painting, drawing, or sculpture can be improved by including a cat.

Think about it: the Churchill photo would be a total winner if there were a cat in it. Mona Lisa? Definitely ​​​​​​needs a cat in it (she could cradle it in her arms). Michelangelo’s David? Put a cat on his shoulder and you’ve got a masterpiece. The Egyptians were the first to recognize the power of the Cat.
Click to expand...

This one would certainly benefit: <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_Playing_Poker#/media/File:A_Friend_in_Need_1903_C.M.Coolidge.jpg>

Of course, the cat would be winning, because, well, how much challenge would there be playing against dogs?
 







A couple more Polaroid snapshots of Sneaky. I shot them with an SX-70 Sonar made in 1978 that's been recalibrated to use 600 film. Makes low light work much easier! The camera is awkward to handhold in low light and the lens's maximum aperture is f8, so even with the faster film, it can be a challenge to get sharp images. I'm getting better at it though!
 
These are wonderful. They have just the right amount of sharpness and smoothness that makes Polaroid photos attractive to me. Sharp and smooth sounds contradictory, but yet that’s how I see it.

Interesting that you’re getting it with 600 film (Impossible Project or Polaroid Originals I assume, rather than real Polaroid 600? I would think the Polapulse battery in a real 600 film pack would be too weak by now).

The real Polaroid 600 and Polaroid Spectra film always seemed to have higher contrast and sharpness than the Polaroid SX-70/Time Zero film. I preferred the SX-70 film for its subdued pastel colors and softness. The Impossible/Polaroid Originals recreation of these films looks much different, although I’m glad they exist.
 
Pál_K said:
These are wonderful. They have just the right amount of sharpness and smoothness that makes Polaroid photos attractive to me. Sharp and smooth sounds contradictory, but yet that’s how I see it.

Interesting that you’re getting it with 600 film (Impossible Project or Polaroid Originals I assume, rather than real Polaroid 600? I would think the Polapulse battery in a real 600 film pack would be too weak by now).

The real Polaroid 600 and Polaroid Spectra film always seemed to have higher contrast and sharpness than the Polaroid SX-70/Time Zero film. I preferred the SX-70 film for its subdued pastel colors and softness. The Impossible/Polaroid Originals recreation of these films looks much different, although I’m glad they exist.
Click to expand...



I'm using current production film; old stuff made the old Polaroid Corporation is so outdated that its worthless; Polaroid film never did well when outdated.

There's no difference in image quality between the SX-70 and 600 films currently being made; film speed is the only difference. Stuff made by the old Polaroid was better; it had better highlight and shadow detail, was sharper, had more color saturation, and was more consistent in quality while costing less than half as much. The current stuff is not bad, though; much better than when Impossible first began making film.

I've been doing a lot of documentary photography with it too. I've been posting those on my website and in my photos thread here on RFF. I'm going to write about my experiences soon and post it on RFF.
 
P5180011.jpg



Sneaky trying to look starved and sad because I wouldn't feed him again 5 minutes after he last ate!
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Thanks. I am having a lot of fun with the Polaroid. I've been using it for my documentary projects too, which has been an interesting learning experience due to the short tonal range of the film.
Click to expand...

Interesting, conceptually. It could be argued that "documentary" work depends on a degree of technical transparency, i.e. the tools used don't impose an undue amount of influence on the image. One traditionally doesn't shoot documentary work with a fisheye, for example (I personally restrict my approach to using lenses between 28 and 75mm to avoid undue perspective distortion, when doing "documentary" work). These parameters are arbitrary, and words like "documentary" beg for definition, of course. I'm interested in how you think about using polaroid materials for documentary work, as they have such a strong and unique signature.
This is clearly a question posed by someone with to much Art School under his belt, but your educational background is similar to mine, in that regard. Just thought it might be an interesting can of worms to open...
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Interesting, conceptually. It could be argued that "documentary" work depends on a degree of technical transparency, i.e. the tools used don't impose an undue amount of influence on the image. One traditionally doesn't shoot documentary work with a fisheye, for example (I personally restrict my approach to using lenses between 28 and 75mm to avoid undue perspective distortion, when doing "documentary" work). These parameters are arbitrary, and words like "documentary" beg for definition, of course. I'm interested in how you think about using polaroid materials for documentary work, as they have such a strong and unique signature.
This is clearly a question posed by someone with to much Art School under his belt, but your educational background is similar to mine, in that regard. Just thought it might be an interesting can of worms to open...
Click to expand...

One thing about Polaroid materials is that there is little that can be manipulated; the image comes out in final form. Even color correcting Polaroids is difficult; I've found that if I scan one and try to use Photoshop to change the color balance, I get weird artifacts caused by color crossover. What that means is that the light tones, midtones, and dark tones do not change color the same when adjusted so you get distorted color.
 
Sneaky just scratched at the door to come in. Opened the door to find a blood-soaked dead bird on the doorstep. Just a week after he killed a bunny; looks like my cat has rediscovered his predatory nature! It had been six months since he'd killed when he got the bunny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom