An unusual stain left by a long-gone leave on the sidewalk. At first I thought it was just dampness or dirt or both but it has survived at several weeks and a rainstorm or two.]]>
5 thoughts on “POTD: Leaving Your Mark”
Steve
Really like the texture of the sidewalk in this shot, having the leaf stain is a point to begin to examine the rest of the photo. Speaking of blurred images-Have you been following the Texas up-skirting controversy? I’m not optimistic that the legislatures will get the next definition of improper photography any better. For ease maybe they will just make photographers blur everyone’s face. Do you have an automatic feature to blur everyone’s faces in public places- in my minds eye I seem to be getting an image of a Fleet street figure with blurred face topped by a bowler (hat). Was that on an album cover?
Steve, interesting that in your mind the subject and background in the image seem to be reversed–but I can see how that might be as there is much more detail in (What I intended to be) the background than in the subject itself. The up-skirting controversy is an interesting adult version of the tales we used to hear of kids wearing mirrors on their shoes to get a glimpse of some girl’s underwear. As far as faces and bowler hats, the only thing I can think of are Magritte’s various paintings of men (including his self-portrait) with bowler hats and with their faces obscured by an apple, a dove, or just plain not there.
I really like this image, Larry. And I was surprised to see it after my walk to the classroom yesterday. Along the way I saw a leaf on the sidewalk in which the leaf’s actual texture mimiced the sidewalk, including the color, so that I almot could not distinguish the two. Unfortunately, no camera to hand….;-) So this post was quite synchronous!
Kathy, I’m surprised you were going to a photo class without a camera! They say the best camera is the one you have with you. In this case all I had with me was my cell phone so that’s what I used.
Well, about the subject and the backround, I think when I first saw the photo I thought- Oh, this is a subject that he has shown or done before, so I didn’t spend much time on the leaf image and was taken with the texture of the concrete. ( I have been sorting through a scaled ticket ton and 1/2 of river rock doughneys and crushed rock for a dried creek bed feature on the east side of the house so I am sensitive to rock patterns right now…) I was aware of the specifics of the improper photography case, I understand that the legislature is now trying to construct a phrase to define a “zone of privacy” at least in Texas, (no popparatzi need apply); In Victorian times there was an architectural feature on staircases, basically a skirt over the balusters so that gentleman below could not get a glimpse of a young lady’s ankles. Strict Islam calls for women to wear their burkas to “protect” their purity, I’ve heard stories of natives objecting to their images captured on a camera – the soul stealing. Animals don’t care, don’t even wear clothes. The ego is a powerful and sensitive part of personality and social exchange, and the photo image of a person can be a catalyst unleashing so much that is repressed, unexamined, forgotten both to the viewer and the subject. Quaint to think of lawyers trying to corral behaviors and attitudes with a few well chosen words. Yeah- Margitte- I’m sure that’s what I recalled. Thanks
Leaving Your Mark
Bozeman, Montana
2014
Really like the texture of the sidewalk in this shot, having the leaf stain is a point to begin to examine the rest of the photo. Speaking of blurred images-Have you been following the Texas up-skirting controversy? I’m not optimistic that the legislatures will get the next definition of improper photography any better. For ease maybe they will just make photographers blur everyone’s face. Do you have an automatic feature to blur everyone’s faces in public places- in my minds eye I seem to be getting an image of a Fleet street figure with blurred face topped by a bowler (hat). Was that on an album cover?
Steve, interesting that in your mind the subject and background in the image seem to be reversed–but I can see how that might be as there is much more detail in (What I intended to be) the background than in the subject itself. The up-skirting controversy is an interesting adult version of the tales we used to hear of kids wearing mirrors on their shoes to get a glimpse of some girl’s underwear. As far as faces and bowler hats, the only thing I can think of are Magritte’s various paintings of men (including his self-portrait) with bowler hats and with their faces obscured by an apple, a dove, or just plain not there.
I really like this image, Larry. And I was surprised to see it after my walk to the classroom yesterday. Along the way I saw a leaf on the sidewalk in which the leaf’s actual texture mimiced the sidewalk, including the color, so that I almot could not distinguish the two. Unfortunately, no camera to hand….;-) So this post was quite synchronous!
Kathy, I’m surprised you were going to a photo class without a camera! They say the best camera is the one you have with you. In this case all I had with me was my cell phone so that’s what I used.
Well, about the subject and the backround, I think when I first saw the photo I thought- Oh, this is a subject that he has shown or done before, so I didn’t spend much time on the leaf image and was taken with the texture of the concrete. ( I have been sorting through a scaled ticket ton and 1/2 of river rock doughneys and crushed rock for a dried creek bed feature on the east side of the house so I am sensitive to rock patterns right now…) I was aware of the specifics of the improper photography case, I understand that the legislature is now trying to construct a phrase to define a “zone of privacy” at least in Texas, (no popparatzi need apply); In Victorian times there was an architectural feature on staircases, basically a skirt over the balusters so that gentleman below could not get a glimpse of a young lady’s ankles. Strict Islam calls for women to wear their burkas to “protect” their purity, I’ve heard stories of natives objecting to their images captured on a camera – the soul stealing. Animals don’t care, don’t even wear clothes. The ego is a powerful and sensitive part of personality and social exchange, and the photo image of a person can be a catalyst unleashing so much that is repressed, unexamined, forgotten both to the viewer and the subject. Quaint to think of lawyers trying to corral behaviors and attitudes with a few well chosen words. Yeah- Margitte- I’m sure that’s what I recalled. Thanks