Keys, Synths & Samplers

[donaldcrunk]

Originally Posted by ChristianRock

What a ridiculous thing to say. You must have an agenda.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with those pictures.

i don't see anything inaccurate with what rath said.

if your definition of art is photographing other people's family moments on a beach with a telephoto lense and then sharing it with the world, then you as the 'artist' have to realize that other people are going to make their own interpretations and draw their own conclusions. that's part of the whole 'art' thing.


i can only say that if i discovered my family was the subject of such art, i wouldn't be real happy. i'm sure many people would be fine with it, but that's why consent is important.

[xpander]

good lord, i take an insane amount of photos. here's a bunch of mostly synthetics that i found around the internets:

[donaldcrunk]

your buchla shots are consistently beautiful, xpander. don probably owes you commission at this point.

[ChristianRock]

Originally Posted by scenicsquare

i don't see anything inaccurate with what rath said.

if your definition of art is photographing other people's family moments on a beach with a telephoto lense and then sharing it with the world, then you as the 'artist' have to realize that other people are going to make their own interpretations and draw their own conclusions. that's part of the whole 'art' thing.


i can only say that if i discovered my family was the subject of such art, i wouldn't be real happy. i'm sure many people would be fine with it, but that's why consent is important.

What you're saying is a bit different from what rath implied, which was that KW is some kind of pervert...

[Metrosonus]

I agree with both you guys.


But at least here, KWs photos are harmless (relatively, barring consent) and they are posted amongst a small group of friends.

Now consider that in contrast to the guy who has to keep posting his daughter at gymnastics meets in the politics forum and people have told him it was inappropriate to post those openly and he's all like what me worry?

[xpander]

Originally Posted by scenicsquare

your buchla shots are consistently beautiful, xpander. don probably owes you commission at this point.

i've definitely fueled a lot of unhealthy gear lust! i think don has at least bought me dinner and they certainly don't make me wait for anything.

i somehow need to con scott/harvestman into sending me a bunch of modules for me to photograph.

[donaldcrunk]

Originally Posted by The Velvet Strangler

But at least here, KWs photos are harmless (relatively, barring consent) and they are posted amongst a small group of friends.

they do seem harmless, and keybdwizard i'm sure has only the purest of motivations - but when that off duty cop or service member or any other sharp eyed type-a personality notices someone snapping photos of his family with a fucking zoom lense, i'm equally sure that that someone will have about 45 seconds to explain those motivations before receiving a sound beatdown. not a position i would like to put myself in, but perhaps keybwizard has contingency plans for such things.

i would apologize for my continued derailing of the thread, but i personally feel that this discussion of ethics in relation to photography is important and germane to the topic of this thread.

[Metrosonus]

ur not going to get an argument from me..i already think people such as life guards / park rangers should have the authority to inspect cameras and whatever if there complaints or something. i usually keep my eyes on people like that when i go out...

hey i heard you did my SD, thanks

[donaldcrunk]

sure thang. you are going to love that sea devils filter. i'm comandeering one myself.

pluggin' away on .vca modules now... analog haven should have 25 of 'em in a couple days! i might try to sneak two of those bad boys out in me pockets...

[Metrosonus]

sweet


and further the thread derails

[ChristianRock]

I agree that if someone took photos of my son or daughter (or myself ) in beach clothing, i might have an issue with it.
But if nobody can take pictures of scenery including the people in it, then I think we're seriously going to be limiting art, in the name of being stupidly and overtly PC.

The following picture is now prohibited by the PC Police:

[Metrosonus]

im very sure there was some verbal agreement there...in fact i remember reading about it on the bbc.

but CR, yea..i think its intent..there is a law protecting people from persecution if you just happen to be in a public place and you end up in the background of a photo, then on the oter hand there are anti voyeur laws too..

[ChristianRock]

And I think it's right to have anti-voyeur laws, but for the love of God, if anything sees anything erotic in those pictures KW posted, then they should probably be put in jail. It's not KW's problem at all, those pictures are absolutely innocent-looking and seem to celebrate life

And a comment like "he takes pictures of little boys at the beach" was malicious, spiteful, hateful and wrong.

Sorry about derailing the thread (maybe I AM a troll??), but Michael's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap.

[carbon111]

Originally Posted by TropicThink

Hasn't Carbon111 even written a book about this subject?

...not so much about photography. It's just a fun collection of my photos:



Here's some more...

[Metrosonus]

Originally Posted by ChristianRock

And I think it's right to have anti-voyeur laws, but for the love of God, if anything sees anything erotic in those pictures KW posted, then they should probably be put in jail. It's not KW's problem at all, those pictures are absolutely innocent-looking and seem to celebrate life

And a comment like "he takes pictures of little boys at the beach" was malicious, spiteful, hateful and wrong.

Sorry about derailing the thread (maybe I AM a troll??), but Michael's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap.

i agree that it was..if it would make u feel better, report the post. i was going to until i saw u say something.

[donaldcrunk]

mome rath is a good dude, and has contributed much more than his fair share to the synth community. if you want to report him for saying that keybdwizard took pictures of little boys at a great distance, feel free. but keybdwizard still took pictures of little boys at a great distance.

[Tomkeen]

Originally Posted by ChristianRock

(maybe I AM a troll??)

Maybe you are. Let's ask Umbra.

[ElectricPuppy]

Alright, I think everyone's point has been made. Yes, mome-rath's statement is technically accurate, but in context he is clearly implying that KW had ulterior motives, which I don't think anyone else here believes. Certainly I don't believe it.

Let's get back to the nifty pictures and drop this, please.

[Metrosonus]

Originally Posted by scenicsquare

mome rath is a good dude, and has contributed much more than his fair share to the synth community. if you want to report him for saying that keybdwizard took pictures of little boys at a great distance, feel free. but keybdwizard still took pictures of little boys at a great distance.

thats a literal intrepretation, however I felt that it constituted a provocation on a fellow member. Granted, i dont know this person and it was probably just a case of snarky humor..

keeping that in mind, on the other hand I have no problem with criticsm, as weve been disussing.

[Metrosonus]

whoops..EP back t6o the posting.