What is missing in a photograph?

Text is always missing in any photograph : photograph shows no sense, provides no meaning, gives no word, delivers no speech.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Clearly. Then again, I am reminding of the Buddhist argument that the opposite of a bowl is the very same bowl, in that once you have defined and excluded everything that is not that bowl, all that is left is the bowl itself.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Roger, but don't ever get tired of just dropping one useless one-liner and buddhist piece of 'wisdom' after the other? Don't you have anything useful to contribute?

This particular section of RFF is titled 'Philosophy of Photography". I happen to study philosophy. Dave Lackey has raised a point that I feel, if put correctly, is quite philosophical indeed and could be grounds for a fruitful philosophical discussion. I have put forwarda a quote from a canonical text that I felt fits the topic at hand.

Now I understand that you read law at University hence you're not really interested in neither the soundness nor the validity of an argument, only it's persuasiveness. So in true Sophist fashion you like to quote various 'wisdoms' that you think will give you an air of being cultured. But BS by any other name is still BS.
 
I was serious when I said that nothing is missing in a photograph.

I don't know if Roger was being serious or speaking tongue-in-cheek, but I found his opinion more interesting than your argumentum ad hominem.

Jamie123 said:
With all due respect, Roger, but don't ever get tired of just dropping one useless one-liner and buddhist piece of 'wisdom' after the other? Don't you have anything useful to contribute?

This particular section of RFF is titled 'Philosophy of Photography". I happen to study philosophy. Dave Lackey has raised a point that I feel, if put correctly, is quite philosophical indeed and could be grounds for a fruitful philosophical discussion. I have put forwarda a quote from a canonical text that I felt fits the topic at hand.

Now I understand that you read law at University hence you're not really interested in neither the soundness nor the validity of an argument, only it's persuasiveness. So in true Sophist fashion you like to quote various 'wisdoms' that you think will give you an air of being cultured. But BS by any other name is still BS.
Click to expand...
 
gdmcclintock said:
I was serious when I said that nothing is missing in a photograph.

I don't know if Roger was being serious or speaking tongue-in-cheek, but I found his opinion more interesting than your argumentum ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Roger's never being serious. That's the problem. Whenever anyone tries to be serious you can be sure that Roger will comment it with one line. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that these comments always seem to always boil down to something like "As the Dalai Lama once told me, life is like a box of chocolates, if Roger doesn't approve of the discussion, then it's not worth having" (I paraphrase, of course).

By the way, I didn't make an argumentum ad hominem as I wasn't making an argument at all. An attack at hominem? Maybe. But I didn't base any conclusions on the premise that I feel a certain way about Roger's comments.
 
The last photograph shows "Life" . So, is it a text, a explanation, a question, a grano salis of the icone, the meaning of the photograph or just a koan ? Nobody can not be sure replying : " I know, please , Sir..."
 
Jamie123 said:
With all due respect, Roger, but don't ever get tired of just dropping one useless one-liner and buddhist piece of 'wisdom' after the other? Don't you have anything useful to contribute?

This particular section of RFF is titled 'Philosophy of Photography". I happen to study philosophy. Dave Lackey has raised a point that I feel, if put correctly, is quite philosophical indeed and could be grounds for a fruitful philosophical discussion. I have put forwarda a quote from a canonical text that I felt fits the topic at hand.

Now I understand that you read law at University hence you're not really interested in neither the soundness nor the validity of an argument, only it's persuasiveness. So in true Sophist fashion you like to quote various 'wisdoms' that you think will give you an air of being cultured. But BS by any other name is still BS.
Click to expand...


The Sophists were highly regarded in their time; it's mostly subsequent philosophers who have tried (usually unsuccessfully) to denigrate them because the Sophists' 'one-liners' expose the flaws in the mighty constructions that so many allegedly philosophical systems have constructed upon foundations that are often scant or even non-existent. This actually strikes me as quite useful. And indeed serious.

You attack was indeed ad hominem as witness your extremely feeble "Roger's never being serious. That's the problem. Whenever anyone tries to be serious you can be sure that Roger will comment it with one line. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that these comments always seem to always boil down to something like "As the Dalai Lama once told me, life is like a box of chocolates, if Roger doesn't approve of the discussion, then it's not worth having" (I paraphrase, of course)." Not only is it feeble, it's insulting to HH Dali Lama.

To return the compliment, don't you ever tire of being the Professional Philosopher who knows so much more than the rest of us because you have studied (in a highly academic fashion) the One True Path? Might not a real philosopher be more willing to engage in dispute, perhaps with a few 'one-liners' of his own, rather than relying solely upon precedent and what he has read?

As for the soundness and validity of arguments, where is the soundness and validity in what you quote? You have to accept certain premises, often highly disputable, before you engage in any study of ontology. This rather assumes, of course, that you wish to separate all philosophy from moral considerations: not just Buddhism, but Stoicism (I'm currently re-reading Marcus Aurelius, a laugh a minute) and for that matter Epicureanism. I'm not sure about the role of ontology in existentialism but I'm damn' sure Sartre's view was not the same as (let us say) Heidegger's. My favourite definition of ontology is 'secular metaphysics', and to try to say that yours is the only 'serious' way of looking at things strikes me as frankly risible.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The Sophists were highly regarded in their time; it's mostly subsequent philosophers who have tried (usually unsuccessfully) to denigrate them because the Sophists' 'one-liners' expose the flaws in the mighty constructions that so many allegedly philosophical systems have constructed upon foundations that are often scant or even non-existent. This actually strikes me as quite useful. And indeed serious.

You attack was indeed ad hominem as witness your extremely feeble "Roger's never being serious. That's the problem. Whenever anyone tries to be serious you can be sure that Roger will comment it with one line. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that these comments always seem to always boil down to something like "As the Dalai Lama once told me, life is like a box of chocolates, if Roger doesn't approve of the discussion, then it's not worth having" (I paraphrase, of course)." Not only is it feeble, it's insulting to HH Dali Lama.

To return the compliment, don't you ever tire of being the Professional Philosopher who knows so much more than the rest of us because you have studied (in a highly academic fashion) the One True Path? Might not a real philosopher be more willing to engage in dispute, perhaps with a few 'one-liners' of his own, rather than relying solely upon precedent and what he has read?

As for the soundness and validity of arguments, where is the soundness and validity in what you quote? You have to accept certain premises, often highly disputable, before you engage in any study of ontology. This rather assumes, of course, that you wish to separate all philosophy from moral considerations: not just Buddhism, but Stoicism (I'm currently re-reading Marcus Aurelius, a laugh a minute) and for that matter Epicureanism. I'm not sure about the role of ontology in existentialism but I'm damn' sure Sartre's view was not the same as (let us say) Heidegger's. My favourite definition of ontology is 'secular metaphysics', and to try to say that yours is the only 'serious' way of looking at things strikes me as frankly risible.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

The Sophists were indeed highly regarded in their time but it is, of course, the Platonic view of them that has coined the term "Sophism" as it is used now, namely for winning an argument not through exposing the truth but through using rhetorical tricks and ambiguities in order to deceive and convince one's opponent of a false argument. Although one might argue that the original Sophists don't deserve their bad reputation, it is certainly incorrect to say that they "expose(d) the flaws in the mighty constructions that so many allegedly philosophical systems have constructed upon foundations that are often scant or even non-existent". Their aim was certainly not to expose flaws in any kind of system as they were the system as they taught the common views on virtue and what it was to be a good citizen.

Now as for my ad hominem 'attack', I merely commented on your behaviour so of course this will this will be directed towards you. Now if only you would acknowledge that your own comments are nothing more than the attempt to belittle someone else's serious contribution to the topic. Now as for my comment regarding the Dalai Lama, I fail to see how my remark regarding your tendency to name-drop contains any kind of insult towards his person. I do admit, though, that part of my remark was uncalled for as whether or not you name-drop has nothing to do with this discussion so I sincerely apologize for that part.

Now as for me being the 'professional philospher', believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that I study philosophy academically, or let's say institutionally (and what does 'highly academic' mean??) as it means nothing more and nothing less than that I am majoring in that field at a University, I certainly do not regard it as my calling and I'll be happy when I'm done with it and can move on to more interesting things. I certainly do not think I have a 'One True Path' or any path for that matter. The simple fact is that this forum section is called 'Philosophy of Photography' and when I see a topic that I find interesting philosophically (as Dave Lackey's 'art of exclusion' comment) I know no other way than to treat it philosophically. I understand that many do not find that interesting and there's no problem with that although I genuinely think that the quote from Cavell I posted was not too 'highbrow' at all and easily understandable. At least I didn't see any technical terms in there.

You are of course right, a philosopher would indeed be interested in dispute but, you see, that's where I take issue with your one-liners. You do not present arguments, only statements or snarky comments. An argument contains at least one premise and a conclusion. I can then either dispute the validity of the argument (i.e. that the conclusion does not follow from the premise) or the soundness of the argument (i.e. that it is neither valid and that one or more of the premises are false). However, when you say an artist once said "I take a block of marble and cut away all the bits I don't want." then there is not much I can dispute, is there? I'll take your word for it that someone said this but beyond that it's just a person's statement about their own practice.

Now as for the Cavell quote, his book is, as its subtitle says, on the ontology of film, i.e. to put it simply (and maybe I'm misconstruing his point here) the relation of film to the things that exist and what kind of reality film presents. As such he also considers the ontological status of the photograph. (Ontology is, by the way, part of the field of Metaphysics although I suppose it need not necessarily be secular.) Of course you don't have to agree with Cavell and you can certainly dispute the soundness of his arguments (you'll have to dig in a bit deeper to dispute the validity, though) so please do. I also do not understand why I should want to seperate philosophy from moral considerations. Ethics is the philosophy of morality. Stoicism (or Epicureanism) is, AFAIK, not really an area anyone is concerned with in ethics (for any other than historical reasons), maybe because it is, as you say, laughable. I've never read Marcus Aurelius or any other Stoist for that matter so I wouldn't know. I also don't care for Sartre at all. Buddhist philosophy is a tough one. I've never seen a course about buddhist philosophy listed at my university and there's certainly a good deal of western chauvinism in that although I do think that one has to be careful not to just transport certain fragments from a different belief system into one's own without much reflection. A one semester course on some topic in Buddhist philosophy would certainly be a difficult thing to pull off. I do remember though that a while ago there was a Phd lecture on Chinese philosophy.

To make things short I'm very open to any kind of discussion if you'll have one. Although, from experience, I get the feeling that you disapprove of any kind of 'academic' treatment of a subject.
 
Jamie123 said:
To make things short I'm very open to any kind of discussion if you'll have one. Although, from experience, I get the feeling that you disapprove of any kind of 'academic' treatment of a subject.
Click to expand...

Far from it. I merely point out that your world-picture is far from the only one. I take it you are an undergraduate, as you say 'majoring'. If you dislike philosophy so much -- "I'll be happy when I'm done with it and can move on to more interesting things" -- why don't you study something you actually find interesting?

I hesitate to spend much time in arguing with you, because, as far as I can see, your objection to my approach is based on your personal dislike of my world-picture, but as the argument could be seen as a part of why I believe that several others have made more valuable contributions to this thread than yourself, I will permit myself the indulgence, and I will return to Dave's question in a few paragraphs.

Your extremely narrow definition of an argument -- that "I didn't make an argumentum ad hominem as I wasn't making an argument at all . . . But I didn't base any conclusions on the premise that I feel a certain way about Roger's comments" is (to borrow your own phrase) with due respect a thoroughly undergraduate viewpoint, and a moment's thought will reveal that either there is no such thing as an ad hominem argument (because you are attacking neither premise nor reasoning, but merely trying to discredit the person with whom you disagree), or that actually, both 'ad hominem' and 'argument' are terms you understand perfectly well but choose to redefine for what you perceive as momentary advantage.

Your obsession with name-dropping is also a little inconsistent. You are happy to quote Cavell's book as if it were holy writ, but you seem to have a problem with those (rare) occasions I quote someone more or less directly. Why?

I don't think that anyone has a great problem with your often tendentious pronouncements, but I (and I suspect others) do have a problem with your dismissal of everything that doesn't fit your world picture, and your cheery willingness to insult, attack or dismiss anyone who disagrees with you:

don't ever get tired of just dropping one useless one-liner and buddhist piece of 'wisdom' after the other

you're not really interested in neither the soundness nor the validity of an argument

Roger's never being serious

Actually, I'm quite often serious, but I don't have much time for those whose seriousness is unleavened by humour and a willingness to admit that they might be wrong. Have you read much Eco? Such as his Travels in Hyperreality? There is someone who is widely (and correctly, in my view) regarded as an important philosopher, especially in the field of semiotics, which he treat with a light and explicatory touch, rather than hiding behind words that are specific to a particular field. Not one person in a hundred knows what ontology is. Ask yourself why this is, and whether you might not do better to try to explain what you understand ontology to be.

When it comes to arguments, I am indeed interested in the persuasiveness of an argument (though I'd prefer the terms 'credibility' or even 'plausibility'); I think you may have a somewhat narrow view of soundness and validity.

To return to Dave's question, the only way I can see for this argument to go forward is by a form of dialectic: by a series of aperçus, statements (defensible or otherwise) and assertions, and (to counter these) rebuttals or illustrations of exceptions. By something, in fact, that resembles parts of the scientific method, rather than by quotation of Holy (or at least 20th century philosophical) Writ. At length.

Ultimately, life is a series of one-liners and plausible arguments, and anyone who fails to recognize this is unlikely to engage convincingly with many people. A competent artist -- into which category I would happily place Dave -- is far more likely to be influenced by something they read or hear and remember, rather than by an opaque and jargon-ridden treatise by a minor academic philosopher. To be sure, there are many worth-while texts that are difficult, and repay reading a number of times; but there are also many texts where it is difficult to summon the enthusiasm for re-reading them, and which, once they have been re-read, still leave one with the feeling that the author is, to reprise the phrase I used earlier, either stating the bleedin' obvious or saying nothing.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Far from it. I merely point out that your world-picture is far from the only one. I take it you are an undergraduate, as you say 'majoring'. If you dislike philosophy so much -- "I'll be happy when I'm done with it and can move on to more interesting things" -- why don't you study something you actually find interesting?
Click to expand...

I'm actually a graduate student (in the American sense) but that has to do with the university system that was in place in my country before they switched to the BA/MA system a few years ago.
I do not dislike philosophy, I'm just a bit tired of it. I do not want to study anything else at all. I work as a photographer and photographer's assistent in my spare time and this is what I will concentrate my energy on once I get my degree.

I hesitate to spend much time in arguing with you, because, as far as I can see, your objection to my approach is based on your personal dislike of my world-picture, but as the argument could be seen as a part of why I believe that several others have made more valuable contributions to this thread than yourself, I will permit myself the indulgence, and I will return to Dave's question in a few paragraphs.
Click to expand...

I do not dislike your world-picture at all, I just don't know what it is. You never seem to explain any of your remarks. I do notice, though, that you like to dismiss anything you consider to be even slightly intellectual as elitist.

Your extremely narrow definition of an argument -- that "I didn't make an argumentum ad hominem as I wasn't making an argument at all . . . But I didn't base any conclusions on the premise that I feel a certain way about Roger's comments" is (to borrow your own phrase) with due respect a thoroughly undergraduate viewpoint, and a moment's thought will reveal that either there is no such thing as an ad hominem argument (because you are attacking neither premise nor reasoning, but merely trying to discredit the person with whom you disagree), or that actually, both 'ad hominem' and 'argument' are terms you understand perfectly well but choose to redefine for what you perceive as momentary advantage.
Click to expand...

My definition of argument may be a philosophical or logical one but it's certainly not extremely narrow. Saying that an argument consists of premise and conclusion doesn't mean that it has to be formally structured. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between a statement and an argument. When I say 'The shop is closed.' that's just a statement whereas 'The shop is closed so we'll have to do our groceries elsewhere.' is an argument.
An argumentum ad hominem, if I understand correctly, is something like "He's fat and ugly so what he's saying is wrong.". That's not what I did or meant to do and if you understood it this way then I apologize. I was not trying to say that what you said is wrong because it was you who said it.

Your obsession with name-dropping is also a little inconsistent. You are happy to quote Cavell's book as if it were holy writ, but you seem to have a problem with those (rare) occasions I quote someone more or less directly. Why?
Click to expand...

Quoting a passage from a book is hardly name-dropping. What is, is casually mentioning the name of a prominent figure every now and then, always making sure that everyone knows that you're personally acquainted with said person (through remarks like "I'll ask him next time I see him", etc.). As for Cavell's book being holy writ, I do not know where you got that impression. I do think that it's to be taken seriously but that doesn't mean that one cannot disagree. It is actually a very short book and a relatively easy and entertaining read even for non philosophers. Granted, it's quite dated now and maybe not quite accurate anymore in this age of digital photography but it's a good read nonetheless. You can get through it in a day.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that anyone has a great problem with your often tendentious pronouncements, but I (and I suspect others) do have a problem with your dismissal of everything that doesn't fit your world picture, and your cheery willingness to insult, attack or dismiss anyone who disagrees with you:
Click to expand...

I do admit that I like a heated discussion every now and then although I honestly try to refrain from using any kind of insulting language (I certainly use no profanity) I may sometimes get carried away and say things that can come acros as a veiled insult. If you call me out on it I will most often acknowledge my own fault and apologize. I'm certainly not perfect and sometimes I'm just in a bad mood.
As for my world picture, I do not really know what it is but I do know that in a discussion I will try to defend my point of view as long as I have not been convinced of the other person's argument.

Actually, I'm quite often serious, but I don't have much time for those whose seriousness is unleavened by humour and a willingness to admit that they might be wrong. Have you read much Eco? Such as his Travels in Hyperreality? There is someone who is widely (and correctly, in my view) regarded as an important philosopher, especially in the field of semiotics, which he treat with a light and explicatory touch, rather than hiding behind words that are specific to a particular field. Not one person in a hundred knows what ontology is. Ask yourself why this is, and whether you might not do better to try to explain what you understand ontology to be.
Click to expand...

Eco is certainly very fine philosopher although I have to say I encounter him more in my other area of studies (literature). I would not say, though, that he is any easier to read than Cavell and I also think that just as few people understand the term 'semiotics' as they do 'ontology'.
I would like to explain terms like 'ontology' but, you see, I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not very good at explaining such concepts in all of their complexity in English. I can, however, refer to Wikipedia as a website where one can often find good explanations of such terms. Or, for those who got the new iPhone, maybe Siri can explain to them what ontology is. To quote Wikipedia "Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.". This sounds complicated but one can actually find ontological questions pop up here every now and then (Questions like whether or a photograph shows reality etc.).
Also, I used the term 'ontological' in a reply to your statement because I trusted that you know what it means. I could've said the same thing in non technical terms but it would've taken longer.


When it comes to arguments, I am indeed interested in the persuasiveness of an argument (though I'd prefer the terms 'credibility' or even 'plausibility'); I think you may have a somewhat narrow view of soundness and validity.
Click to expand...

Now that I do not. 'Soundness' and 'validity' in regards to logical arguments are very clearly definied concepts. The use of those terms may vary in other scientific fields but I made it clear in what context I was using these terms. It seems to me that the persuasiveness of an argument is rhetorical concept rather than a logical one. It would seem to me that 'credibility' and 'plausability' both relate to the soundness of an argument (i.e. whether or not its premise(s) is/are true).
But let's cut the technical hairsplitting and just let me ask you this: Are you interested in whether your arguments are convincing or whether they are actually truthful?

To return to Dave's question, the only way I can see for this argument to go forward is by a form of dialectic: by a series of aperçus, statements (defensible or otherwise) and assertions, and (to counter these) rebuttals or illustrations of exceptions. By something, in fact, that resembles parts of the scientific method, rather than by quotation of Holy (or at least 20th century philosophical) Writ. At length.
Click to expand...

Funny that you regard the length of my quote a negative. I initially wanted to quote just one sentence but then decided to add some of the context so it would be easier to understand.

Ultimately, life is a series of one-liners and plausible arguments, and anyone who fails to recognize this is unlikely to engage convincingly with many people.
Click to expand...

Oh I hope not. That would be a very shallow existence. But if I have to pick a one-liner to respond to this I'll have to quote Socrates and say "The unexamined life is not worth living."


A competent artist -- into which category I would happily place Dave -- is far more likely to be influenced by something they read or hear and remember, rather than by an opaque and jargon-ridden treatise by a minor academic philosopher. To be sure, there are many worth-while texts that are difficult, and repay reading a number of times; but there are also many texts where it is difficult to summon the enthusiasm for re-reading them, and which, once they have been re-read, still leave one with the feeling that the author is, to reprise the phrase I used earlier, either stating the bleedin' obvious or saying nothing.
Click to expand...

I reread the quote I posted and I fail to find any kind of jargon in there. Also, you can insult Cavell all you want and I really do not mind it at all but I'm surprised of your attitude towards him as he is not at all the typical academic philosopher. Not only did he study music at Julliard before he got into philosophy (so he certainly comes from an 'artistic' background) but he's a lot about film and art in a very unpretentious way. I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you have simply never heard of him before. That's not a big deal as he's not terribly well known outside of philosophy but I do think it's unfair to label him a typical 'ivory tower' academic when he is clearly not.
Also - funny trivia fact - Terrence Malick studied philosophy under Stanley Cavell. Although I fear that this might not bring him any sympathy considering what his latest movie was like 🙂

To get back to the quote, the point of what he is saying there is that, while a painting is a construct of meaning, where an artist creates a picture world by purposefully adding paint to a predefined area, the essence of the act of photography is excluding all that is not the picture, i.e. cropping a part from the world and thus holding the rest of the world away. So while a painter can be said to create a new world (the picture world) a photographer can be said to be holding away a whole existing world.
Now you can say that this is trivial and maybe it is. It's only a couple of sentences in one of the first few chapters from a book that leads up to more important arguments. No one's claiming that this is the insight of the century. I did, however, feel that this fit the question posed by the OP and I also was trying to say that, if one agrees with that view, the fact that excludes a lot is not to be regarded as a shortcoming but the very essence of photography. That, too, might be trivial but then I'm really at my wit's end, as everything I say either seems to be too complicated or too simple.
 
Dear Jamie,

Frankly, I can't be bothered to argue with you any longer, or to hijack this thread any further. If you regard that as a shortcoming on my part, or as evidence of anti-intellectualism, the problem is mostly yours. I don't think many have ever accused me of anti-intellectualism. In fact, I think you're unique in that resprct. I'll just take one point: 'Soundness' and 'validity' in regards to logical arguments are very clearly defined concepts. True, if you restrict your definition of an argument to your terms. This is what I cannot be bothered to do.

You jumped in with what was effectively an insult -- if you don't see it as one, you need to work on your social skills -- and if you don't see Cavell as opaque, you've been reading too many philosophy texts. Perhaps it's best if we simply put one another on 'ignore' for a while.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Jamie,

Frankly, I can't be bothered to argue with you any longer, or to hijack this thread any further. If you regard that as a shortcoming on my part, or as evidence of anti-intellectualism, the problem is mostly yours. I don't think many have ever accused me of anti-intellectualism. In fact, I think you're unique in that resprct. I'll just take one point: 'Soundness' and 'validity' in regards to logical arguments are very clearly defined concepts. True, if you restrict your definition of an argument to your terms. This is what I cannot be bothered to do.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that this is not true but it is not my place to bring up what others have said about you.
As for the argument, I there's still a miscommunication at play here. I'm saying that whenever a point is argued it usually follows the premise-coclusion structure, either explicitly or implicitly. All the logical formalisms are merely a way to make explicit the implicit structure of arguments in natural language. But if you can't be bothered with it, you can't be bothered with it.

You jumped in with what was effectively an insult -- if you don't see it as one, you need to work on your social skills -- and if you don't see Cavell as opaque, you've been reading too many philosophy texts. Perhaps it's best if we simply put one another on 'ignore' for a while.
Click to expand...

Feel free. I have no need to to so on my part as I may disagree with you but I don't find these disagreements offensive. If you'd would like me not to comment on your posts then I can only ask you to extend me the same courtesy from now on. No forum tools necessary.
 
cantal said:
Text is always missing in any photograph : photograph shows no sense, provides no meaning, gives no word, delivers no speech.
Click to expand...
Unless you take pictures of signs, words, ...
Where is the text missing, if you take a picture at Times Square?

broadway1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2
Replies
34
Views
676
spatumba
spatumba
A
It's getting better all the ti-i-ime –or is it?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
AndyCapp
A
Godfrey
Getting back up to speed ...
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Deleted member 65559
D
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
Ljós
L
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
16
Views
522
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom