• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

The busker

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
1768


Tom Dinning: “The Busker”


I admire that the limited plane of focus still includes the man, accordion and the plastic cup too!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I see the strange halos as well. You would have to be blind not to see them.
Perhaps the image isn’t meant for people who can see.
Then again, it could be for those who can’t.
Then again, it could be that those who claim to see can’t see at all.
And those who don’t see, see the best of all.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I have been gifted with very good vision. I don't need a loupe to see the artefacts. Maybe I am not the only one?
Very true for most of us: we cannot readily be tricked! First we have good vision and second we are trained over many years as to possible imaging results and artifacts.

It’s similar to detecting lying or nuances of facial expression from someone we are speaking to and reacting to us. It’s pretty much reflex: discomfort when there’s something feigned.

However, when we go to movies, we disregard darkness, blur, shaky camera and other disorder as “creative”. But if the sound is crackling folk stream out of the theatre! 🙀

1808

I have trained myself to similarly ignore the obvious technical glitches in image production here, to appreciate its “gestalt” or essence!

So Tom gets a pass, (for me at least), as I really like this “Busker” fellow and his sharply focused “donation” glass!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But who selects the pictures to show? If it’s not the photographer, then who's the “artist” here?
If, however, the blind photographer once could see, (and so really appreciates what lenses can do, such a photographer can have an his/her concept directed into the camera’s image.

Asher
 

Robert Watcher

Well-known member
But who selects the pictures to show? If it’s not the photographer, then who's the “artist” here?
If, however, the blind photographer once could see, (and so really appreciates what lenses can do, such a photographer can have an his/her concept directed into the camera’s image.

Asher

———————————

WHAT? :oops:




1812
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
———————————

WHAT? :oops:




View attachment 1812
Robert,

Of course, the term “blind” is used very broadly and really means visually challenged!

My reaction is to the medical term “blind”, not the social term that evokes respect for the white cane!

Using social term, then of course we really all are blind, as we walk past the homeless and the sick without disrupting our busy schedules!

Thanks for your important reminder and decency!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
———————————

WHAT? :oops:




View attachment 1812
An important lesson, Robert, and well addressed.

There are a number of implications here that we could all consider when viewing other people’s photographs or even our own.

There might be a perception or an assumption that everyone who views our images or produces their own images has the same visual acuity.
Not only is this not true among those with acuity in the ‘normal’ range (eg: between 16/20 and 20+/20 corrected) that assumption also excludes those with a visual impairment from access to a great deal of information.

When we present an image of great technical quality and detail we would expect that others can appreciate that quality.
That’s not the case.
When we view an image and expect every fine detail to be present and sharp we are assuming the photographer has the same visual acuity as we do and is examining the image under the same conditions as we are.
Then again, we might also be assuming that such detail is in some way important for the disclosure of the information, thought, feeling or concept.

I don’t know of anyone who could not benefit from accessing a photograph regardless of their acuity. Even a person with no vision can still have a desire to know what the contents of the picture are. In a way, they want to ‘see’ what we see.

In my teaching career I have worked with many people with a vision impairment. It’s what I wrote my thesis on when completing my MA (Sp. Ed). The name of the game is to give them as close an access to everything that the rest get; the same if possible.
I’ve taught ‘blind’ students to use a camera to record their experiences. Institutions like Vision Australia produce tactile images from photographs and drawings, maps, etc. art galleries, theatres, etc, have audio descriptions.
There are some rather interesting stories I could tell but maybe for another time.
Totally blind people often ‘see’ inside their head, like we do when we close our eyes. They don’t see what they don’t know but they formulate images or descriptions of what they imagine.

In a discussion with a 12 year old girl, totally blind from birth, from Alice Springs, I asked her what she thought the sky looks like.
“It’s blue and hot” she answered.
“How do you know it’s blue” I asked.
“Someone told me”
“What does blue look like” I asked.
“The sky, silly.”

I should have known.
12 year olds have a knack for putting me in my place.
 
Top