!DAILY UPDATES! June. 366 days: your 2016 in photographs

[Lars Hansen]

June 11th 2016  -  Cloudy
Phytolacca  or Pokeweed   
D600 -  80/2.8

John - I've had such a plant in my garden for years without knowing the species ... now I know, thanks    Apparently it was used back in time to add color to home made wine. It's toxic so I'm not going to fool around and try it myself..

June 10., in the evening sun - I assume it is midge swarms. For fun, one shot defocused.   

[John Geerts]

John - I've had such a plant in my garden for years without knowing the species ... now I know, thanks    Apparently it was used back in time to add color to home made wine. It's toxic so I'm not going to fool around and try it myself..

Beautiful Swarms, Lars.

For winemaking? That's strange. The juice of the berries was used here as a coloring for wool in the textile-industry. The old Indians used it already for the clothing and their skin, so, it's not that toxic, I think

[Lars Hansen]

Beautiful Swarms, Lars.

For winemaking? That's strange. The juice of the berries was used here as a coloring for wool in the textile-industry. The old Indians used it already for the clothing and their skin, so, it's not that toxic, I think

Thanks John - according to what I've read the use of it for wine coloring has probably stopped and one reason is the toxicness. Maybe it's more safe for textile coloring as you usually don't eat it...    It also have medical properties but apprently not something for amateurs to experiment with as it caused many incidents of poisoning in the US in the 19'th century.       

[the solitaire]

With a 200 f2 I would reconsider my choice of camera bag. I would never consider leaving that lens at home though!

John, excellent story on how you got yours. Patience is a virtue.

Harald, nice work with the 75-150 f3,5. I heard a lot of good words about that lens, but decided against it and in favor of an 80-200 f4 because I really need that long end of the lens and 150mm just is a bit too short.

[Harald]

Hi Buddy,

it is much lighter: Get both.

Harald

[Frank Fremerey]

school party, lots of brass, but also fries and wet teachers...

[Frank Fremerey]

The swarms are wonderful. Fairy tale stuff

Your daily flower shot is exceptional, John. I know how hard it is to gain definition and delicacy at the same time!

[John Geerts]

With a 200 f2 I would reconsider my choice of camera bag. I would never consider leaving that lens at home though!

It depends on the job.  In a small room and acting anonymously is not the playground with the 200/2 

Thanks Frank. Great colours with yours.

Another opening of an exposition in Museum De Pont, this time an interesting one, for a change. Slave city from Joep van Lieshout. It's in exposition in view of the Geronimo Bosch 500 anniversary year.

D600- 80/2.8   (large lenses are not allowed, for whatever reason) 

[Frank Fremerey]

and a second set:

[Fons Baerken]

Df zf85/1.4

[the solitaire]

Fons, a lost cow? I see the fence though. I once met a cow in the middle of the forest. I was on my way down a hill at 80 km/hour and needed to brake full force to prevent "impact damage" as Nikon calls it.

Which brings me to the 200mm f2 in small rooms musings. I guess the reason why they do not allow big lenses in that exposition will also be to prevent impact damage. Look at how fragile that construction is! 

It looks like an interesting work of art and you gave it a very own look cropping that detail out of the whole. Interesting take. It certainly works in a commercial sense because it makes me curious as to what else there is to see.

Harald, the 200 f2 is smaller and lighter? Compared to what 
I'm afraid that, as good as the 75-150 might be, it just will not see much use in my bag. It could replace the 135mm f3,5 and add versatility, but it would have one hell of a lens to beat. The 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C is every bit as impressive as the 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P. Disadvantages of both is the minimum focus distance which I solve by bringing a PK-11.

[Bruno Schroder]

Catching up for June 10

[Bruno Schroder]

June 1, just before the rain

[John Geerts]

Beauty of a rose, Bruno. !! 

Which brings me to the 200mm f2 in small rooms musings. I guess the reason why they do not allow big lenses in that exposition will also be to prevent impact damage. Look at how fragile that construction is! 

It looks like an interesting work of art and you gave it a very own look cropping that detail out of the whole. Interesting take. It certainly works in a commercial sense because it makes me curious as to what else there is to see.

Thanks Buddy.  I got an answer earlier:  large lenses (+100mm) were too intimidating. Perhaps their policy changes. In the past I had to put al my bags and coats in the locker. To prevent that, I go as 'light' as possible

It's an interesting exposition, done by Atelier van Lieshout, I don't like to spoil it. There is a whole philosophy behind it. The mankind being slaved... etc. etc.    Wrote a small article about it. http://tilburgers.nl/grote-expositie-van-joep-van-lieshout-in-de-pont/. 

Sometimes the visitors are more interesting than the art-objects

[the solitaire]

I always liked (and still like) the works of Jheronimous Bosch. 500 years ago he was a visionary who searched for the boundaries between reality and religion, between social acceptance and exclusion. In that light I find the thematic of the exposition fitting and interesting. I also know some of the works of van Lieshout. I always found van Lieshout an excellent architect. As an Artist in the true sense of the word, he rather invents meaning then distill it in his works.

Unfortunately, after reading the article on the exposition I'm afraid the reference to WWII is too far fetched and the whole body of art would be much much stronger had van Lieshout concentrated on the essence of the title SlaveCity.

He could instead have addressed the slavery and reduction of mankind to part of the global economy more directly and controversely by relating it to media consume and how this reduces humans to "less-then-individuals" as well as "glass puppets" which could be seen as assets to the advertisement industry instead of linking back to historic events. It would, in my opinion, have given the installation a far stronger message.

With that in mind, I really like how strong your image is with the lady that looks at her smartphone where she could instead look at the installation in front of her, the drinking couple and the outsiders. Your image conveys the message better then the explanation van Lieshout gives in your article


(Interesting observation, the man on the left wears his keys the same way I do. Note to self: Fix holes in jeans' pockets so I can wear my keys inside the pockets again)