Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Simon Says -- SimonSawSunlight Photo Technique

Simon Says -- SimonSawSunlight Photo Technique From time to time its been suggested that RFF have a mentor Photography help section in terms of Technique - how to shoot this or that. 1st of all I had to find someone whose work I really like. 2ndly that photog had to be willing help others. That's the catch: so many excellent photogs just are not wiling to make the time for that, or just as likely, simply don't give a damn about helping others. SimonSawSunlight is an excellent up and coming photog whose work seems to go well beyond his 24 years.

You can view Simon's work at http://www.simonbephotography.com/  and www.facebook.com/simonbphotography Simon has been published in in FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), LFI (Leica Fotografie International) and more recently in Radiate Magazine. He also recently had a large solo-exhibition in Berlin. Not too Shabby! So, let us begin this adventure and see where it goes. Thank for taking this on Simon!


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 12-27-2013   #81
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 641
Those dammn nationalists in Finland smuggled Lenin in to St Petersburg to make the "October revolution". F**k it, they should have made a nice hole in his head. Too bad none of them had a chrystal ball clear enough to see what was coming...We had to wait more than 70 years for our neighbors to become sane in their heads...
The first gimmic of him was to call their few followers "Bolsheviks" = majority... The second was to promse workers double pay if they join the party. well put ! when most of them just talking and making demonstrations... double pay for that. and on and on... Not to talk abut STALIN... when he came to power, and wiping off the peasant workers.. No food. and what did he do then... His famous motto was: when ten or hundred people get killed, it`s a tragedy, but when thousands or million people are eliminated, THAT IS ONLY HISTORY, not even TERRORISM...
 

Old 12-27-2013   #82
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Further thought. "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." (Lenin)

And those who hide their heads in the sand are doing something akin to buying rope off the communists.

Cheers,

R.
... but at least they won't be arguing as to which type of rope eh? ... no one gets a choice in a command economy they say
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
 

Old 12-27-2013   #83
gdi
Registered User
 
gdi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West-Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
If the massacre at Oradour s/Glane -- http://www.oradour.info/ -- was not terrorism, it's hard to see what is. Dictionary definitions are less than worthless in the face of such evidence. And, as Rangefinderfreak says, there really are times when "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" depend purely and simply on your political and moral views. Another good example is Uighurstan.

Cheers,

R.
Yes, the word has been defined in many contexts, and, as we see here, to many people it may be summed up simplistically as "terrorism is that which causes terror (as in extreme fear)". As is clear in this thread, where practically everyone or everything from politicians spouting rhetoric, to police brutality, to war crimes has been labeled "terrorism", the average RFFer seems to view the term as the ultimate way to vilify that or those that they fear or hate.

There is no value in this way of thinking, unless one has the intent of obscuring the discussion. To me the more useful definitions of terrorism are the academic ones used by people who have made a career of studying terrorism in the practical modern sense. Most that I have seen (Martha Crenshaw, Jessica Stern, etc) are fairly consistent and generally define the actors as non-state or sub-national, the targets as non-combatants, and the motivation as presenting the act to a large audience in order to influence political policy. A topic must be defined in a fairly consistent and accepted way in order for the topic to be studied and understood.

Is mass murder of civilians by a military force during war really more vile and condemnable if labeled "terrorism" rather than an "atrocity of war", "massacre" or perhaps "genocide" ( as applicable)? Does police brutality really need to be called terrorism in order to be condemned and punished? Should people who get anger and make vague or idle threats against an overzealous local government be tried as terrorists?

Of course not - "No" is the answer to both of those questions; insisting on using the term terrorism as a label in these cases is an attempt to recast the act itself, rather than describe it.
 

Old 12-27-2013   #84
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,471
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable" ... Eric Blair said, I fancy he would say the same about terrorism these days despite his first hand experience of swinging a riot-batton
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
 

Old 12-27-2013   #85
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdi View Post
... (1) and generally define the actors as non-state or sub-national, the targets as non-combatants, and the motivation as presenting the act to a large audience in order to influence political policy (2). A topic must be defined in a fairly consistent and accepted way in order for the topic to be studied and understood (3).

Is mass murder of civilians by a military force during war really more vile and condemnable if labeled "terrorism" rather . . . (4)
(1) is as others have pointed out a recent/current definition, not one for all time: the original "terror" was carried out by the state and we still refer to a "reign of terror"

(2) Political policy? Or the behaviour of society as a whole?

(3) No. The definition must ALWAYS be fluid and open to dispute. Otherwise it's too easy to hijack

(4) "If you kill 1 of us, we'll kill 10 of you" That's pretty much what happened at Oradour and I really have some difficulty in applying the label "terrorist" to the resistants who killed a German general and not to the "state actors" who killed 600-odd men, women and children.

Terrorism is the use of terror, i.e. deliberately harming/killing some innocent people, or forgetting completely about proportionality, or imposing extremely brutal collective punishment, in order to make sure that others don't even consider arguing with you, or to make them give in to your demands. With this definition, states can't weasel out. For example, "terror bombing" is a phrase widely (and accurately) used to describe so-called "strategic bombing", as conducted by both sides in World War Two.

Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
 

Old 12-27-2013   #86
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 641
maybe you should read this: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Ant...ons/Oppose.htm

Henry Kissinger was once asked: Why did USA supply arms to both, Iran and Iraq ...?
The answer was: To both of them fight until the very end, trying to wipe each out. Then we would just take the oil... Things have changed. It is not necessary for USA to rely on Arab oil anymore. What this means for US politics, we see already. The center of attention is now China, South and North Korea, in a lesser way Japan, that is allowed to re-arm itself now. China is making strides to gain land in Africa, giving loans, buying land, trying to gain acess to the vast natural resources. The day Russia and China find their interests to be the same in the world: China has money and workforce, Russia huge reserves of the natural resources they themselves are lacking... That`s the day USA faces the situation the Roman empire faced. Villains and "Godless flocks of uncultivated herds" have taken the power, both economical and military.
 

Old 12-27-2013   #87
shootar401
Unregistred User
 
shootar401 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoyle View Post
Terrorism is violence against nonmilitary targets that intends shock value out of proportion to the actual damage inflicted. This makes the question of whether or not someone is a "terrorist" rather easy.

Calling anything else terrorism is the speaker twisting a charged word to his purposes.

-Greg
You nailed it!
 

Old 12-27-2013   #88
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by shootar401 View Post
You nailed it!
.... no not really; that is nowhere near a definition, he is simply defining it to fit his viewpoint I would suggest
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
 

Old 12-27-2013   #89
gdi
Registered User
 
gdi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West-Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
(1) is as others have pointed out a recent/current definition, not one for all time: the original "terror" was carried out by the state and we still refer to a "reign of terror"

(2) Political policy? Or the behaviour of society as a whole?

(3) No. The definition must ALWAYS be fluid and open to dispute. Otherwise it's too easy to hijack

(4) "If you kill 1 of us, we'll kill 10 of you" That's pretty much what happened at Oradour and I really have some difficulty in applying the label "terrorist" to the resistants who killed a German general and not to the "state actors" who killed 600-odd men, women and children.

Terrorism is the use of terror, i.e. deliberately harming/killing some innocent people, or forgetting completely about proportionality, or imposing extremely brutal collective punishment, in order to make sure that others don't even consider arguing with you, or to make them give in to your demands. With this definition, states can't weasel out. For example, "terror bombing" is a phrase widely (and accurately) used to describe so-called "strategic bombing", as conducted by both sides in World War Two.

Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.

Cheers,

R.
As I said:

1) I noted that others used a definition of "that which causes terror", and the one I prefer is the recent/current one. I generally choose that definition for any word; it seems best suited to the time in which I exist.

2) One, many times, begets the other. Genrally I would say political policy because the actors, by this definition, lack adequate political power to see their will carried out. It should not surprise you that the political policy of those in power can greatly influence the behavior of the society as a whole.

3) Must be fluid to avoid being hijacked? It can only be hijacked when it is fluid. Academics will define the topic, agree on it, debate and test the merits of various hypotheses and observations. If everyone can define the topic to suit their own whims and wishes, research and understanding cannot be furthered.

4) Surely you didn't think that I would label the resistants terrorists either; I would apply the term terrorist to neither party in your example. People fighting for their lives directly against atrocity, are far from terrorists in my book.

Quote:
Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.
I think that is quite simplistic; as I have tried to point out, you conflate the label with the act. Your implication that by "pretending" states cannot commit "terrorist" acts one is condoning State atrocities and crimes, or is allowing them to weasel out of such a label, simply serves to make my larger point. The real debate is about heinous and cruel acts against humankind, not about whether you get to pin your most vile label on the perpetrator. Focusing on the definition of the label rather than the act IS the obfuscation.
 

Old 12-28-2013   #90
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,248
Whatever your opinion might be on this thread, I think most will agree that this discussion is solving absolutely nothing while producing needless rancor in the forum.

RFF is about photography, not politics and / or political points of view.

While interesting in some ways, this thread is not worth its cost in terms of upset. IF we were actually solving anything, that would be a different matter.

This thread is closed. Thanks to all for sharing your points of view.

Stephen
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:17.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.