I'm back!

I don’t have the Aperture(ude) for this pun off.

Shutter up. 2 people have clicked, and all you can do is try to stop the situation from developing. Quite the fixer, aren't we?

I started photography ..... I lost focus though

I do find the British humour does kind of lens itself to punnage

I'm not sure these puns are diverse enough, I think the white balance is off.

Sorry, I’ve got to zoom to the shops.

Will everyone just F stop this drivel now please. It’s Cepia into other parts of my life.

Sorry, I’ve got to zoom to the shops.

Your all selfie selfie selfie

Wow, that went from religion to photography in a flash!

I should leave and come back more often hahaha

As I've had a few people ask me offline why I changed tack so quickly from religion to photography, I'll explain myself. I do believe in an unseen benevolent force that has the power to influence our lives: he's called Rennie, and I sensed the icy finger of death hovering over the 'lock' button.

My position, though, has not changed: no special treatment for any ideas or the people who hold them. Instead, a level playing field where all ideas - religious, scientific, political, moral or ethical - are equally open to scrutiny, ridicule and even contempt, and in which the respect we show one another is derived from our common humanity rather from our personal beliefs - or lack thereof.

On the off chance that anyone is interested, this old article by AC Grayling makes the case very succinctly:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/19/acgrayling

I'm big enough to take any criticism, but please, don't call me a Guardian reader.

This thread has actually got me reaching for the Dawkins on my bookshelves... time to dip into them again, I think

As an aside, my original point was probably lost in translation, but I was watching a 60 Minutes interview with Ricky Gervais last night, and he actually said precisely what I had meant to, i.e. that he reserves the right to say "what the f*ck" he wants, but that it's always a calculated decision as to when and where he does so. He used the example of not running into a church to tell the congregation that they're a bunch of twats; conversely, in his home, if you don't like what he say's then you're welcome to leave.

Mark, I think that there's a time and a place to express opinions, that's all. Our thinking is probably more aligned than it might have appeared, though.

Right, back to photography, then...

This thread has actually got me reaching for the Dawkins on my bookshelves... time to dip into them again, I think

As an aside, my original point was probably lost in translation, but I was watching a 60 Minutes interview with Ricky Gervais last night, and he actually said precisely what I had meant to, i.e. that he reserves the right to say "what the f*ck" he wants, but that it's always a calculated decision as to when and where he does so. He used the example of not running into a church to tell the congregation that they're a bunch of twats; conversely, in his home, if you don't like what he say's then you're welcome to leave.

Mark, I think that there's a time and a place to express opinions, that's all. Our thinking is probably more aligned than it might have appeared, though.

Right, back to photography, then...

Righto!

Don't know if these are your kind of thing, but I saw two photography exhibitions in London recently. Don McCullin at Tate Britain is excellent (with the exception of the still life stuff at the end - not really my cup of tea) and well worth a visit. Every image was hand-printed by the man himself, and they even have his old Nikon F that stopped the snipers bullet in Vietnam on display.

Diane Arbus at the Hayward Gallery is... different. To be honest I went there knowing that I'm not a fan of her photography and hoping to be convinced. I know plenty of photographers who revere her work, and just assumed it must be something I wasn't getting. I still don't get it, but I'm glad I saw it.

I checked out Joshkjack but the way, and there is some really interesting stuff there. It put me in mind of Saul Leiter in parts.

This thread has actually got me reaching for the Dawkins on my bookshelves... time to dip into them again, I think

As an aside, my original point was probably lost in translation, but I was watching a 60 Minutes interview with Ricky Gervais last night, and he actually said precisely what I had meant to, i.e. that he reserves the right to say "what the f*ck" he wants, but that it's always a calculated decision as to when and where he does so. He used the example of not running into a church to tell the congregation that they're a bunch of twats; conversely, in his home, if you don't like what he say's then you're welcome to leave.

Mark, I think that there's a time and a place to express opinions, that's all. Our thinking is probably more aligned than it might have appeared, though.

Right, back to photography, then...

 

Righto!

Don't know if these are your kind of thing, but I saw two photography exhibitions in London recently. Don McCullin at Tate Britain is excellent (with the exception of the still life stuff at the end - not really my cup of tea) and well worth a visit. Every image was hand-printed by the man himself, and they even have his old Nikon F that stopped the snipers bullet in Vietnam on display.

Diane Arbus at the Hayward Gallery is... different. To be honest I went there knowing that I'm not a fan of her photography and hoping to be convinced. I know plenty of photographers who revere her work, and just assumed it must be something I wasn't getting. I still don't get it, but I'm glad I saw it.

I checked out Joshkjack but the way, and there is some really interesting stuff there. It put me in mind of Saul Leiter in parts.

I've always loved Diane Arbus - something quite... I don't know, gritty about her portraits. McCullin requires no comment, of course. I'll have to get along to the Hayward.

Glad you liked joshkjack - I was reading something that Sean Tucker (another tog) wrote about him, and apparently he'll often wander the London streets from dusk until dawn to make sure he gets the shots he wants.

That reminds me... one of the best movie scenes ever was in From Dusk Till Dawn!

The dance was completely improvised - there was no choreography whatsoever!

Righto!

Don't know if these are your kind of thing, but I saw two photography exhibitions in London recently. Don McCullin at Tate Britain is excellent (with the exception of the still life stuff at the end - not really my cup of tea) and well worth a visit. Every image was hand-printed by the man himself, and they even have his old Nikon F that stopped the snipers bullet in Vietnam on display.

Diane Arbus at the Hayward Gallery is... different. To be honest I went there knowing that I'm not a fan of her photography and hoping to be convinced. I know plenty of photographers who revere her work, and just assumed it must be something I wasn't getting. I still don't get it, but I'm glad I saw it.

I checked out Joshkjack but the way, and there is some really interesting stuff there. It put me in mind of Saul Leiter in parts.

Apologies for crashing in on the end of this thread but just wanted to mention that Don McCullin was one of the first photographers that I really started taking notice of as a teenager, his images were and still are very inspirational if you have an in interest in photography. There was a hour long documentary about him 2 or 3 weeks ago on TV, a real treat to watch. Ansel Adams is another favourite of mine.

Has the forum got a dedicated spot for photography in the non bike sections?

Righto!

Don't know if these are your kind of thing, but I saw two photography exhibitions in London recently. Don McCullin at Tate Britain is excellent (with the exception of the still life stuff at the end - not really my cup of tea) and well worth a visit. Every image was hand-printed by the man himself, and they even have his old Nikon F that stopped the snipers bullet in Vietnam on display.

Diane Arbus at the Hayward Gallery is... different. To be honest I went there knowing that I'm not a fan of her photography and hoping to be convinced. I know plenty of photographers who revere her work, and just assumed it must be something I wasn't getting. I still don't get it, but I'm glad I saw it.

I checked out Joshkjack but the way, and there is some really interesting stuff there. It put me in mind of Saul Leiter in parts.

 

Apologies for crashing in on the end of this thread but just wanted to mention that Don McCullin was one of the first photographers that I really started taking notice of as a teenager, his images were and still are very inspirational if you have an in interest in photography. There was a hour long documentary about him 2 or 3 weeks ago on TV, a real treat to watch. Ansel Adams is another favourite of mine.

Has the forum got a dedicated spot for photography in the non bike sections?

I like that idea a lot. Photos you took yourself or just photos you really like. Start the thread

Oh yeah [mention]MarkW[/mention] you guardian reader

Righto!

Don't know if these are your kind of thing, but I saw two photography exhibitions in London recently. Don McCullin at Tate Britain is excellent (with the exception of the still life stuff at the end - not really my cup of tea) and well worth a visit. Every image was hand-printed by the man himself, and they even have his old Nikon F that stopped the snipers bullet in Vietnam on display.

Diane Arbus at the Hayward Gallery is... different. To be honest I went there knowing that I'm not a fan of her photography and hoping to be convinced. I know plenty of photographers who revere her work, and just assumed it must be something I wasn't getting. I still don't get it, but I'm glad I saw it.

I checked out Joshkjack but the way, and there is some really interesting stuff there. It put me in mind of Saul Leiter in parts.

 

Apologies for crashing in on the end of this thread but just wanted to mention that Don McCullin was one of the first photographers that I really started taking notice of as a teenager, his images were and still are very inspirational if you have an in interest in photography. There was a hour long documentary about him 2 or 3 weeks ago on TV, a real treat to watch. Ansel Adams is another favourite of mine.

Has the forum got a dedicated spot for photography in the non bike sections?

 

I like that idea a lot. Photos you took yourself or just photos you really like. Start the thread

Oh yeah @MarkW you guardian reader

I was thinking that maybe if you've got a good snap why not post it up. Nothing serious involved, just plain happy snapping that you like and to invite comments if people want to. I've seen it before and proves to be a popular thread on other forums. Perhaps for security, maybe admin can make it viewable to registered or donating members only?

another forum i use has areas that are only available to members with a minimum required post count, and as the post count increases other areas become available,

another forum i use has areas that are only available to members with a minimum required post count, and as the post count increases other areas become available,

That's a good idea, especially where photos / images are concerned but also, contributors would have to take responsibility in what they post so as not to tempt any foul play by unscrupulous idiots. It would be interesting to hear what admin might say on this subject?

Wait wait wait, I missed the religion bit of this thread!

Just had a read back through things and would like to thank everybody for their permission for me to be what most here appear to consider a deluded and possibly even dangerous individual. I'm a worship pastor in my church (my Dad and his hippy friends prefer to just call me a "priest"). So I'm happy to pray for you all, even if your discussion on prayer completely and utterly misunderstood what prayer actually is (hint: it's not asking for God's plan to change because I have a better one).

When I sat down to a fryup at Squires a couple of weeks back on my road trip, I was sat with a couple of random bikers I'd never met who asked me where I was going. I was going to a big event with the church movement I'm a part of. We had a very friendly chat and they decided to dub me "The Preacher". It's a nickname I'm quite comfortable with.

Wait wait wait, I missed the religion bit of this thread!

Just had a read back through things and would like to thank everybody for their permission for me to be what most here appear to consider a deluded and possibly even dangerous individual. I'm a worship pastor in my church (my Dad and his hippy friends prefer to just call me a "priest"). So I'm happy to pray for you all, even if your discussion on prayer completely and utterly misunderstood what prayer actually is (hint: it's not asking for God's plan to change because I have a better one).

Go on - I'll bite. What is prayer?

When a trio of musicians in a San Francisco jazz bar prayed for me to have good weather on my bike ride down Highway 1, were they not asking God to change whatever plans He had made for the weather over the next few days in favour of their 'better' plan?

Prayer ... hoping the choir boys keep keep their mouths shut .

Or open

The title of this thread reminded me of a very funny book I read about the return of Adolf Hitler to the 21st century. A best seller in Germany I believe. Anyone else read it?

Go on - I'll bite. What is prayer?

When a trio of musicians in a San Francisco jazz bar prayed for me to have good weather on my bike ride down Highway 1, were they not asking God to change whatever plans He had made for the weather over the next few days in favour of their 'better' plan?

OK, I'll answer your second question first. Your assumption is that [the musicians thought] God had plans for the weather which they wanted changed. The logical corollary from that is: whatever happens is what God wants to happen, unless a Christian asks for something different. That is not Christian theology.

The simple answer to your first question (about which many, many books have been written) is that prayer is conversation with God guided by God. It's not some kind of putting God's arm behind his back to force him to do what we want; it's a process whereby we discover what God himself wants.

Go on - I'll bite. What is prayer?

When a trio of musicians in a San Francisco jazz bar prayed for me to have good weather on my bike ride down Highway 1, were they not asking God to change whatever plans He had made for the weather over the next few days in favour of their 'better' plan?

OK, I'll answer your second question first. Your assumption is that [the musicians thought] God had plans for the weather which they wanted changed. The logical corollary from that is: whatever happens is what God wants to happen, unless a Christian asks for something different. That is not Christian theology.

The simple answer to your first question (about which many, many books have been written) is that prayer is conversation with God guided by God. It's not some kind of putting God's arm behind his back to force him to do what we want; it's a process whereby we discover what God himself wants.

If God either hasn't got a plan or has one that He is unwilling to change, then what purpose does prayer serve? Since God doesn't tell us in advance what His plans are His will can only be divined retrospectively, in which case what was the point of the conversation?

.... A bit like asking a politician a question. You ask, they reply with the answer that they want you to hear, not the answer that you expected - or wanted.

Except that at least, politicians are tangible, not imaginary. So ask an imaginary entity a question, and you can - gasp- imagine the answer. Because that is all it will ever be - imaginary.

If you persist in thinking that "God talks to you", then join the hallowed ranks of Peter Sutcliffe and Tony Blair.

Have fun.

Religion, eh?