- This topic is empty.
Let’s see all those Wooly Waters…
-
nfl-fan wrote:
I declare the formation of a new PI faction called the ‘PI Wooly Water Posse’ who’s goal it will be to bring wooly water to the masses and defend it’s honour no matter what the risk may be.
Our first meeting will be to discuss whether we spell wooly as wooly or woolly.
It does not really matter John. As long as the water is Wooly/woolly.
Sean.
nfl-fan wrote:
Our first meeting will be to discuss whether we spell wooly as wooly or woolly.
Let’s compromise and call it woollly. The extra ‘l’ just helps emphasises the greatness of the genre.
JMac-2006 wrote:
Thats some difference with a 10stop filter – have one in my bag and still havent had the chance (or is it the energy :) ) to get out of bed and head to the coast to try it out – definitely have to now
LOL at the woollly virgin. :D
I’ll fight you boys any day.
I’m a wooly fan too, but as the saying goes, “I couldn’t eat a whole one”. I’ll happily defend it and slate it in equal measure. I think any good landscape gallery needs to show variety in approach and ideas.
Too much wooly water can make us fat and lazy. We see a turblent sea and instead of finding order within the chaos we paste a neutral density filter over it and magic it away. I’m guilty of this myself I might add. After seeing those type of shots a thousand times, it needs to be a good one to catch my attention. I’m not impressed by fads but good photography is good photography, whatever the techniques that are used. When wooly water is a quick fix towards simplicity, I think that photographer has lost sight of the order that is already there if they are prepared to look harder for it.
Here’s my anti-wooliness antedote.
Right Andy, how many more times are you going to change that post lol?
Our first meeting will be to discuss whether we spell wooly as wooly or woolly.
Well, so as not to waste time, that’s easily sorted. There is of course only one way, the correct way.
Woolly.
End of argument, sorry, discussion.
[Ducks]
andy mcinroy wrote:
I’ll fight you boys any day.
I’m a wooly fan too, but as the saying goes, “I couldn’t eat a whole one”. I’ll happily defend it and slate it in equal measure. I think any good landscape gallery needs to show variety in approach and ideas.
Too much wooly water can make us fat and lazy. We see a turbulent sea and instead of finding order within the chaos we paste a neutral density filter over it and magic it away. I’m guilty of this myself I might add. After seeing those type of shots a thousand times, it needs to be a good one to catch my attention. I’m not impressed by fads but good photography is good photography, whatever the techniques that are used. When wooly water is a quick fix towards simplicity, I think that photographer has lost sight of the order that is already there if they are prepared to look harder for it.
Here’s my anti-wooliness antidote.
Thats nice coming from a seascape/landscaper :lol: :wink: . We can also do fast water shots to.But in my opionon, they don’t work all of the time. I definitely would not say that its a fad with me either. I like this effect that’s why i use it. I would like to think that i range my scenes from fast seas to wolly ones. :lol: :lol: .
Lovely shot by the way Andy.
Sean.
Thanks Sean,
I missed you at the Derry club tonight. I was expecting you to be there to hear my keynote speech and to hear me pontificating about wooly water.
Were you ears burning?
andy mcinroy wrote:
Thanks Sean,
I missed you at the Derry club tonight. I was expecting you to be there to hear my keynote speech and to hear me pontificating about wooly water.
Were you ears burning?
No, did not get back till about 8 tonight and was wrecked. How’d it go. Was Phil and Peter there?.
And yes my ears were red raw. :lol: :lol:
Sean.
Sorry Pixelle but Wooly is actually a valid option…
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wooly
As founder of the “PI Wooly Water Posse” I’d like to think that we’ll lean towards the spelling of greater controversy.
Wooly is also described as
“confused and vague”, “unable to think with clarity or act intelligently”… which, aside from me of course (that really goes without saying), sums up a lot of what happens on this site.
Don’t know about you but is this turning into a Judean Peoples Front -v- The Peoples Front of Judea moment?
Alan
PS – I prefer to call it milky…
Wooly is actually a valid option…
I see you got that from
The American Heritage® Dictionary
I rest my case! :)
There’s also the ‘Wolly’ water shot, far less common.
If I had a Wollensak Verito, I’d definitely give it a go…Anything that is instantly repeatable will give rise to a cliche- it’s unavoidable.
Every time it’s done, its currency is devalued.Just as there have been complaints about the amount of snowy Mournes shots recently,
any over-reliance on a particular technique will cause fatigue in the viewer-
and if that technique is a seemingly easy one to master,
it will be repeated…Taking every shot on its own merits, however, some still stand out as masterful examples of the technique-
and it might be necessary to see the picture in print before it’s possible to be able to pass judgement properly-
because, when it’s hanging on a wall, we do judge…I still think it can be a mistake to treat pictures displayed on these pages as a finished product,
unless that is the intention of the photographer.
Although it’s necessary to be able to work across the scales,
if you’re happy with 600px wide, then why buy expensive cameras and lenses?If there are textures which are hinted at, but not described due to the reduction,
then that is a valuable part of the composition which is lost here.The internet is great for easily legible ideas,
not so good at complexity-j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
