A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Fine Art, Framing and Display
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

some of my work



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 15th 03, 02:19 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message om...
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article ,
Michael Scarpitti says...


LOL!!!
You peg them all perfectly.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

Some points:

1. This is not intended to be a 'portfolio', just a sample of odds and
ends. I don't maintain a portfolio, though I may in future.

2. The work presented here was not intended as anything but personal
or for the yearbook. I have preented only because I was asked to do
so.

3. My criticisms of zonehead work are based the fact that despite the
extremely wide possibilities of photopgraphy and subject matter in the
world, zoneheads seem to be obsessed with confining themselves to
rocks and trees, ad nauseam. Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')
represent a wide variety of subject matters and treatments. Those
criticisms stand.



That is the biggest bunch of "dreck" I've ever heard. You continually
state your photo's are works of art i.e. waffle boy, and that you are
one of the best printers in the world. Then when confronted with your
"dreck", you then revert to the above statement.

This part: "Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')represent a wide
variety of subject matters and treatments. Those criticisms stand." is
a crock. Your technique and subject matter's are vitrually identical
to each other. One might have more shadows than the other but they in
no way show any range of style, technique, or interest, for that
matter.

You are good for a laugh though...keep it up.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com



You know, Alexis, I don't really care what you think any more. You're
irrelevant to me.

I said, in so many words 'THIS IS NOT A PORTFOLIO'.

'nuff said.
  #12  
Old October 16th 03, 08:27 AM
Alexis Neel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message om...
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article ,
Michael Scarpitti says...


LOL!!!
You peg them all perfectly.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

Some points:

1. This is not intended to be a 'portfolio', just a sample of odds and
ends. I don't maintain a portfolio, though I may in future.

2. The work presented here was not intended as anything but personal
or for the yearbook. I have preented only because I was asked to do
so.

3. My criticisms of zonehead work are based the fact that despite the
extremely wide possibilities of photopgraphy and subject matter in the
world, zoneheads seem to be obsessed with confining themselves to
rocks and trees, ad nauseam. Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')
represent a wide variety of subject matters and treatments. Those
criticisms stand.



That is the biggest bunch of "dreck" I've ever heard. You continually
state your photo's are works of art i.e. waffle boy, and that you are
one of the best printers in the world. Then when confronted with your
"dreck", you then revert to the above statement.

This part: "Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')represent a wide
variety of subject matters and treatments. Those criticisms stand." is
a crock. Your technique and subject matter's are vitrually identical
to each other. One might have more shadows than the other but they in
no way show any range of style, technique, or interest, for that
matter.

You are good for a laugh though...keep it up.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com



You know, Alexis, I don't really care what you think any more. You're
irrelevant to me.

I said, in so many words 'THIS IS NOT A PORTFOLIO'.

'nuff said.




LOL!!!

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
  #13  
Old October 16th 03, 03:50 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message om...
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article ,
Michael Scarpitti says...


LOL!!!
You peg them all perfectly.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

Some points:

1. This is not intended to be a 'portfolio', just a sample of odds and
ends. I don't maintain a portfolio, though I may in future.

2. The work presented here was not intended as anything but personal
or for the yearbook. I have preented only because I was asked to do
so.

3. My criticisms of zonehead work are based the fact that despite the
extremely wide possibilities of photopgraphy and subject matter in the
world, zoneheads seem to be obsessed with confining themselves to
rocks and trees, ad nauseam. Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')
represent a wide variety of subject matters and treatments. Those
criticisms stand.


That is the biggest bunch of "dreck" I've ever heard. You continually
state your photo's are works of art i.e. waffle boy, and that you are
one of the best printers in the world. Then when confronted with your
"dreck", you then revert to the above statement.

This part: "Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')represent a wide
variety of subject matters and treatments. Those criticisms stand." is
a crock. Your technique and subject matter's are vitrually identical
to each other. One might have more shadows than the other but they in
no way show any range of style, technique, or interest, for that
matter.

You are good for a laugh though...keep it up.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com



You know, Alexis, I don't really care what you think any more. You're
irrelevant to me.

I said, in so many words 'THIS IS NOT A PORTFOLIO'.

'nuff said.




LOL!!!

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com



LQTM
SITKOMOSAE
  #14  
Old October 16th 03, 05:19 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message om...
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article ,
Michael Scarpitti says...


LOL!!!
You peg them all perfectly.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

Some points:

1. This is not intended to be a 'portfolio', just a sample of odds and
ends. I don't maintain a portfolio, though I may in future.

2. The work presented here was not intended as anything but personal
or for the yearbook. I have preented only because I was asked to do
so.

3. My criticisms of zonehead work are based the fact that despite the
extremely wide possibilities of photopgraphy and subject matter in the
world, zoneheads seem to be obsessed with confining themselves to
rocks and trees, ad nauseam. Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')
represent a wide variety of subject matters and treatments. Those
criticisms stand.



That is the biggest bunch of "dreck" I've ever heard. You continually
state your photo's are works of art i.e. waffle boy, and that you are
one of the best printers in the world. Then when confronted with your
"dreck", you then revert to the above statement.

This part: "Mine (though not a true 'portfolio')represent a wide
variety of subject matters and treatments. Those criticisms stand." is
a crock. Your technique and subject matter's are vitrually identical
to each other. One might have more shadows than the other but they in
no way show any range of style, technique, or interest, for that
matter.



You're obviously blind:

This
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/S020.htm

does not resmble this:
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/S500.htm

or this:
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/S570.htm

You know Alexis, I really don't care what you say or think. Your
incompetence to judge any work is obvious to me and to others. Your
pronouncements are worthless prattling.
  #15  
Old October 16th 03, 06:22 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message

Laughing out lod at
http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteOne.html

#1. Palm trees with cable. How inspired! No modelling. Boring and
useless photo.

#2. River with old boat and tall smokestack. Half of house on right,
with tiny figure entering. Says nothing. Poor composition, choice of
angle, flat lighting. Pointless.

#3. Bicycle under water. Yawn. Someone's trying to be clever. How
nice. Try again!

#4. Shrine. OK, nothing terribly special. Merely ordinary.

#5. Cowboy with hat and rope. Gosh, do you really think he could be
DOING SOMETHING? Useless, pedantic photo. Says nothing.

#6. Not even worth my time to comment.

#7. Poncho boy. Someone stole his pancakes! How about a close-up? That
would be nice, don't you think? Is the photographer so timid he can't
approch people? Is he so incompetent he can't focus a longer lens?
Maybe both.

#8. Young girl in dress. Could we find a less intersting angle? Could
we try selective focus maybe, so that the annoying background doesn't
intrude. Incompetent at best.

How about he

http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteTwo.html
#1. Man sleeping on steps. Even when trying to find a humanist point
of view, the photographer has to make a geometric statement, and shoot
the scene ata perfect right angle, destroying the whole thing.
Incompetent.

#2. Farmhand with young boy. Nice. I like it a little, but there could
be more activity. SOME activity. Looks stagey and posed.

#3. Girls on swing. OK, nothing special. Ordinary. I've done similar,
and better.

#4. Solo dancer with shoes as 'partner'. Needs to be cropped. Also,
reflection off wall behind should be darkened or lighting changed, as
it's very distracting. Why not use rim lighting? Idea good, execution
very poor.

#5. Glamour Portrait. Shadow poorly placed, nostril black. Looks like
she has the Black Death. Shadow should be longer, with more light into
nostril, like this:
http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford34.jpg
or this:
http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford40.jpg
This is a better photo by far:
http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford19.jpg

#6. Girl with stringy hair. Poor composition. Too low in frame. Too
high angle, demeaning to subject. For some reason, the film edge is
printed, as if to add some quality that a nice clean border does not.

#7. Civil war re-enactor? OJ, nice, but light too soft.

#8. Glamour hands. OK. Professional.
  #16  
Old October 17th 03, 03:33 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

Alexis:

Here's how it's done:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html
  #17  
Old October 17th 03, 08:41 PM
Alexis Neel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in
message

Laughing out lod at



You want to critic successful working photographers
work, fair enough. Granted they are not yearbook
photographers from 30 years ago, and their work
certainly does not resemble off-the-cuff snapshots
like yours, but since they have made a good living,
won awards and acclaim from their peers (something you
have yet to accomplish), doing what they do, and they
have the knowledge, skill and desire to shoot
something other than contrasty lifestyle photo's, I
fail to see how you can be a judge of their work.
But since they aren't here to defend, or explain, their
reasons and concepts for the images, I will have to do
that for them. I don't expect you to understand any
of it, since you have only one way of thinking,
especially in black and white photography, so this is
most likely futile.
I must also preface this by saying this is a portfolio
of my skills and ability as a printer. The simple
fact that I am a successful business owner, printing
for a wide variety of clients, with a wide variety of
styles, with a wide variety of films, exposures, etc.
for a wide variety of uses, i.e. advertising,
publication's, gallery's, museums, archives, etc. I
feel puts the work presented on my site far beyond
your simple approach of contrasty printing. Again, I
don't expect you to get it, but I really don't care.
Having printed probably over 100,000 negatives, and
for over 3,000 different photographers in my 32 years
of printing, I feel my ability is beyond your
comprehension. Being sought out by successful
photographers and institutions because of my ability
speaks volums to me of the trust that has been placed
in my charge.
Maybe if I had been sought out by OSU yearbook 30
years ago to print for them, you might have a better
appreciation. But alas, I wasn't.



http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteOne.html

#1. Palm trees with cable. How inspired! No

modelling. Boring and
useless photo.



This photo was a spec shot by the photographer,
thinking it would make a good ad for Palm Inc., the
maker of handheld personal devices. Indeed, when the
president of the company saw it, he immediatly got the concept of
telephone wires running between two palm trees,
symbolizing communication between two Palm devices,
and bought it for an ad. There were no models...oh
you mean overly dark areas (a staple of your shots) in
the shot. You are right there, but neither was needed
(models or modelling). Useless? Palm Inc. didn't
think so.


#2. River with old boat and tall smokestack. Half of

house on right,
with tiny figure entering. Says nothing. Poor

composition, choice of
angle, flat lighting. Pointless.



China. This area is forbiden area to Westerners, although the
photographer somehow got permission to go there. If
you have ever been to China, you would know that it is
a largely overcast, either with clouds or pollution,
place. There just isn't much stark sun, not that it
was needed for the shot or for any shot either. A lifestyle shot

showing a typical small village in China, with large boats
pushed to the end of a small river/creek. It has been exhibited at

several museumsaround the world.
Not your typical yearbook shot granted.


#3. Bicycle under water. Yawn. Someone's trying to

be clever. How
nice. Try again!



Yes someone was. First used as a self promotion for
the photographer, then bought as a concept shot for an
ad. Don't remember which company used it. He did
"try again" and sold several more simular shots to
the same company for an ad campaign.
Again, not a off-the-cuff shot, so its concept is surely beyond your

understanding.


#4. Shrine. OK, nothing terribly special. Merely

ordinary.


Mexico. A lifestyle shot showing the importance of
religion in the country, and how some people construct
shrines in their homes, for either worship or for
morning loved ones, like this one for a child. I
thought you would like this, seeing how it is very
contrasty and directional lighting, from the lightbulb
overhead. Oh, it has too much shadow detail for you,
thats right.



#5. Cowboy with hat and rope. Gosh, do you really

think he could be
DOING SOMETHING? Useless, pedantic photo. Says

nothing.


A portrait of a cowboy on the range. Does he need to
be lasso'ing a horse to appeal to you? Not an image
of a red haired girl with a blown out face, true.
Does show range of a backlit shot, where the face is
in deep shadow, and retains contrast and information, white shirt

next to the face with detail, and bright background. Not obtainable

using any technique you have ever spewed about.



#6. Not even worth my time to comment.



Didn't think you could appreciate contrasting circular
shapes with the straight lines of the clothes, with the large, angled

white shape cutting across. A
lifestyle snapshot showing the range of highlight
seperation and contrast of those highlights. Nothing
more.



#7. Poncho boy. Someone stole his pancakes! How

about a close-up? That
would be nice, don't you think? Is the photographer

so timid he can't
approch people? Is he so incompetent he can't focus

a longer lens?
Maybe both.



Guatamala. The photographer lived with this boys
family for the 3 months he was there, photographing
for the non-profit organization "Refugee Children of
the World", so I think he could have gotten as close
as he wanted. Composition is done for a reason...his. Closer would

have missed the texture (which you seem so fond of and rave at its

virtues in Waffle Boy) of a kids feet, who's feet look like they

should belong to an old man, not a child of 11.
BTW, the photographer, who is Parisian, is a close,
personal friend of one of your hero's, Salgado, who
liked the image so much he bought a print. They have
been peers for over 30 years...Salgado went in one
direction (making books), Christophe went in another,
showing simular images but to help the poor people in
the photographs, not make personal monetary gain from
their suffering, like Salgado.
As for the expression, well hunger can do that to a person. Not that

you would know.



#8. Young girl in dress. Could we find a less

intersting angle? Could
we try selective focus maybe, so that the annoying

background doesn't
intrude. Incompetent at best.




Same photographer as above, working for the same non-profit

organization "Refugee Children of the World", again showing the

living conditions of poor people, especially children. Framing shows

her environment without having to be so literal as to show the rest

of the falling down house behind her, which she lives in. I guess

you missed the happy expression she has on her face, showing a

childish innocence despite her dire situation.
Perhaps if she had some syrup and pancakes...




How about he


http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteTwo.html
#1. Man sleeping on steps. Even when trying to find

a humanist point
of view, the photographer has to make a geometric

statement, and shoot
the scene ata perfect right angle, destroying the

whole thing.
Incompetent.



First, its a woman. Second, she's homeless. The graphic,

composition of the diagonal line in the background (in the same plane

/angle as she is) with the stairs leading into the jumbled mass of a

less than graphic person forces the viewer to take a look at the

stark realities of today. Usually people walk by homeless people

without even noticing them, or purposely ignoring them. This forces

the viewer to confront the issue of homeless.
As for the photographer, a search of his name on www.alltheweb.com

came up with about 100 links that include his name, and tells who he

is. Besides being a Professor of Humanities at SFSU, he has curated

many shows about the rich photographic history of California. Here

are several of those links for your education...you need some.

http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/experts/15.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/crossroads/dis/86birt.html
http://www.conferencerecording.com/m...pics/grs98.htm
http://bss.sfsu.edu/calstudies/faculty.htm
http://www.npg.si.edu/pubs/books/cvander.htm
http://www.tfaoi.com/newsmu/nmus5f.htm
http://home.att.net/~cha2000/about.html
http://www.thinker.org/deyoung/exhib...sp?exhibitionk

ey=29

I chose it because of the graphic nature and the graininess of the

print, which adds to the symbolism. Plus, I needed to add reportage

to my portfolio, since I am showing it in Paris, and they do a lot of

that type of work here.



#2. Farmhand with young boy. Nice. I like it a

little, but there could
be more activity. SOME activity. Looks stagey and

posed.


Cuba. The father working hard in the field (you need the realism of

him actually bending over pulling something out of the mud for it to

have "activity" for you? You can't see he's just been working? You

need to actually see it to believe it? Oh boy.) and showing the

dirtiness of the work, juxtaposed to that of the young boy, in clean

white cloths and a pacifer. The look on the boys face is one of

lament, most likely realizing he too will someday be hunched over,

toiling in mud and have his son there too, perpetuating the misery

these poor people go thru each and every day just to survive.
Another example of harsh, backlit subjects that still has detail and

contrast in their face, which is in shadow, and highlight seperation

and detail, in the boys shirt and pants. There is also tone in the

sky. An example of a technique and quality that can be produced when

shooting and developing accordingly to have those zones there on the

negative...a concept of which you know nothing about nor could ever

produce, without being flat and drab.
This is also one of about 30 images that I will print, approx. 4' by

4', and will be exhibited at the National Museum in Cuba in 2004, and

hopefully here in Paris at the Maison European de la photograhie.
Maybe if it was printed in the OSU yearbook...



#3. Girls on swing. OK, nothing special. Ordinary.

I've done similar,
and better.



Russia. A simple shot showing a full range of tones, from the bright

sky (yes there is tone) and the contrast range of the shadow area,

without being flat and dull. A quality you couldn't produce with

your technique of exposure and development.
Used to show the range and contrast of the print.


#4. Solo dancer with shoes as 'partner'. Needs to be

cropped. Also,
reflection off wall behind should be darkened or

lighting changed, as
it's very distracting. Why not use rim lighting?

Idea good, execution
very poor.



Shot for the 30th aniversary cataloge of Wilkes Bashford,

http://www.wilkesbashford.com/ (which BTW, all the images on the main

page I printed, although their scanning is horrible), a high-end

clothier in San Francisco, on Union Square (probably one of the most

high-priced retail locations in the states). The cropping is

intentional to create a sense of space and include as much of the

rough looking background, juxtaposed with the elegent and very

expensive cloths, as possible without making the subject appear too

small. Good use of negative space.
The "reflection" as you put was purposely put there and is part of

the painted background, NOT lighting. An expert eye would notice the

lighting coming from above, not from the side, and it gobo'ed/flagged

off the background, which is lit by natural light coming from the

RIGHT, not the left, which would be impossible given the angle of the

studio, its windows and the direction those windows face, which is

south. I know this because I was on set, hired to consult on the

shoot, for the exposure and film used. The originals were printed

differently, with the print being bleached heavily, to further

deteriorate the background, but not the clothes. The bleaching added

a tan color and the exposure had to be correct so the background

would be the only thing affected. By following your suggestion of

burning the upper left side, it would have made that area more

distracting, not less.
Another example of your ignorance of such things.



#5. Glamour Portrait. Shadow poorly placed, nostril

black. Looks like
she has the Black Death. Shadow should be longer,

with more light into
nostril, like this:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford34.jpg
or this:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford40.jpg
This is a better photo by far:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford19.jpg


A portrait for an actress who wanted to represent herself as if she

was in the 40's and 50's. Printed simularly to the style of the

time, on Forte's graded, #2, warm tone paper. Lighting is soft yet

with enough contrast to give a nice contrast range. Contrary to what

you think, the nose is shadow is not to dark, but did pick up a bit

of contrast in the scan, soemthing that couldn't be helped (I don't

manipulate my scans after calibrating them with a scanned color and

grey scale).
Of the samples you provided, to suggest that it would be better to

look UP someones nose, #34, rather than seeing a slightly darker

shadow, is riduculous. The lighting in #34 is classic female

portrait lighting, seen hundreds of times, and churned out by

hollywood portrait studios. While it is appealing, it is not the

only way to shoot such subjects.
And if you want a critic of #34, the object in the lower right should

have been cropped out and the backlight seperating her from the

background shouldn't have been so strong, as the shape and tone are

also distracting. #40 isn't the same type of lighting and is a poor

example for a critic on your part. #19, with its elongated shadows

of the eyelashes is nice, but they too become distracting to the

sublties of the skin tone and facial texture.
Understanding how the eye views images, and the science behind it, is

crutial if one wants to understand how people view images.
You obviously have an understanding of neither.




#6. Girl with stringy hair. Poor composition. Too

low in frame. Too
high angle, demeaning to subject. For some reason,

the film edge is
printed, as if to add some quality that a nice clean

border does not.


Mazzy Star, singer. She commissioned the photographer for this shot

and 8 others. Shots were used in a magazine article about her, and

for her own home portrait. The singer is somewhat unusual in her

personal life and the resulting pictures showed this. The camera is

not to high, and in fact, her eyes are dead center of the image. It

is all to easy to do the classic head and shoulders or 3/4 portrait,

and cram the head close to the top of the frame. This photo also

uses negative space in a positive way and gives more of a sense of

air around and about her. Rebate edge was left in on purpose as she

liked the effect the 4x5 negative holder added.
For someone who admires HCB and his continued use of "filament noir",

its weird that you would then make negative comments about its use.

I guess you don't like Irving Penns use of it either.
Call me when you get commissioned by a world famous person, and not

the local OSU quarterback, to do their portrait for publication and

personal use.


#7. Civil war re-enactor? OJ, nice, but light too

soft.


Yes, Civil War re-enactor. Shot on location where the re-enactment

was taking place, in a "tent studio" that had a white parachute

hanging on the side where the sun was. Soft lighting, yes, but a

full, rich print, showing you don't need strong, side lit subjects,

to get rich, deep prints with a nice tonal range and mid-range

contrast.
Another example of a different style of photography that you know

nothing about.


#8. Glamour hands. OK. Professional.



Has nothing to do with the hands. A rep in San Francisco, who

represented the top 10 commercial photographers in the area, threw

annual parties. This one, being her 4th, had the theme "4" and she

had all the photographers do a photograph somehow involving "4". The

title of this image is "Foreplay". It is an example of the type of

printing I was doing 18 years ago. The top being a straight print,

on a grade 1 or 1 1/2, and the bottom, on Portriga #3 warmtone, the

final. The technique involved, which doesn't show up as good on the

web, is diffusion. All of the areas, except for the mans hand, are

diffused in a ratio of 1:3 (1 part straight exposure, 3 parts

diffused exposure). I purposly left the mans hands "straight"

exposed (no diffusion) to symbolize the masculinity of the man, in

contrast to the softness of the woman. A concept print? Precisely,

as it was my intention.
The photographer, who I was working for at the time, like the style

so much, he incorporated it into his portfolio. The technique, which

at the time was new and no one else was doing it. Because of the

technique I "made", he got jobs ranging from Visa (the credit card

company...used in a national ad campaigh) to Phillip Morris, to

Accura cars, to Microsoft, to Wyse Computers, to countless of other,

multi-national businesses. All because of a "concept" print I did

for a party.





Now you are intitled to your opinion, and you certainly have a very

specific style in your black and white photography, that you

personally like very much. Thats fine. However, before you open

your mouth about things you really don't know anything about, and

make yourself a bigger fool than you already are in the process, you

might want to expand your horizons in photography, and quit making

yourself out to be this all knowing photographer, and one of the best

printers in the world. You are neither.
Your biggest claim to fame is having been a photographer for a

college yearbook 30 years ago. Some people liked your images...I

hope so, cause they have been used for all this time in books people

keep to remember their college days, nothing more. They are snap

shots in time. I too was a yearbook photographer, in Jr. high

school. I would no more show that work or think it had any

importance or relevance today than shoot myself. At the time, back

in 1970 thru 1973, I thought it was good. And it was, for the time

and for my skill level. Even did advertisement shots for local

businesses that advertised in the book. But that has nothing to do

with the here and now. I moved on in photography and am successful

in the business.
You should move on too.


Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
  #18  
Old October 17th 03, 08:44 PM
Alexis Neel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
Alexis:

Here's how it's done:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html

Do you know his printer? I do...lives in Oakland. Had a show 2 years
ago at Calumets gallery in San Francisco. Nice guy. He's just trying
to hang on to Hurrells technique and keep it alive. I admire him for
that. Takes a lot of guts. He has a few other ways to print as well.
Decent work.
BTW, he likes my style's of printing as well.


You just can't open your mouth without showing your ignorance, can
you?
You should try it though, at least once in your life before you pass
on.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
  #19  
Old October 18th 03, 06:34 AM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...

http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteOne.html

#1. Palm trees with cable. How inspired! No

modelling. Boring and
useless photo.



This photo was a spec shot by the photographer,
thinking it would make a good ad for Palm Inc., the
maker of handheld personal devices. Indeed, when the
president of the company saw it, he immediatly got the concept of
telephone wires running between two palm trees,
symbolizing communication between two Palm devices,
and bought it for an ad. There were no models...oh
you mean overly dark areas (a staple of your shots) in
the shot. You are right there, but neither was needed
(models or modelling). Useless? Palm Inc. didn't
think so.


The intention or use of this photo was not given, right? Aside from
any commercial association with Palm, it has no special merit.


#2. River with old boat and tall smokestack. Half of

house on right,
with tiny figure entering. Says nothing. Poor

composition, choice of
angle, flat lighting. Pointless.



China. This area is forbiden area to Westerners, although the
photographer somehow got permission to go there. If
you have ever been to China, you would know that it is
a largely overcast, either with clouds or pollution,
place. There just isn't much stark sun, not that it
was needed for the shot or for any shot either. A lifestyle shot
showing a typical small village in China, with large boats
pushed to the end of a small river/creek. It has been exhibited at
several museumsaround the world.


So, that excuses its miserable, confused composition? Just because
it's an exotic place does not excuse the photographer from his duty to
make an interesting composition and use of light and shadow. This is
simply a photographic mess. Criticisms stand.

Not your typical yearbook shot granted.


No, of course not. Not as good as many of mine.

#3. Bicycle under water. Yawn. Someone's trying to

be clever. How
nice. Try again!



Yes someone was. First used as a self promotion for
the photographer, then bought as a concept shot for an
ad. Don't remember which company used it. He did
"try again" and sold several more simular shots to
the same company for an ad campaign.
Again, not a off-the-cuff shot, so its concept is surely beyond your
understanding.


I didn't say it was horrible, just pretentious. It is. Criticisms
stand.


#4. Shrine. OK, nothing terribly special. Merely

ordinary.


Mexico. A lifestyle shot showing the importance of
religion in the country, and how some people construct
shrines in their homes, for either worship or for
morning loved ones, like this one for a child.


People? I see no people. Not even a shadow of a person, or an out-of
focus person. It needs something like that. Too static. Criticisms
stand.

I
thought you would like this, seeing how it is very
contrasty and directional lighting, from the lightbulb
overhead. Oh, it has too much shadow detail for you,
thats right.


The amount of shadow detail is an aesthetic choice. Too much is
distracting in some cases. A B&W photograph is an interpretation, not
reproduction, of a secene. Criticisms stand.

#5. Cowboy with hat and rope. Gosh, do you really

think he could be
DOING SOMETHING? Useless, pedantic photo. Says

nothing.


A portrait of a cowboy on the range. Does he need to
be lasso'ing a horse to appeal to you? Not an image
of a red haired girl with a blown out face, true.


The man could be an actor for a cigarette ad, for all I know. Or for
the Palm company. Who knows? Good composition, by the way, but too
static. Criticisms stand.

Does show range of a backlit shot, where the face is
in deep shadow, and retains contrast and information, white shirt
next to the face with detail, and bright background. Not obtainable
using any technique you have ever spewed about.


That doesn't make it intersting, just technically sound. Criticisms
stand.


#6. Not even worth my time to comment.



Didn't think you could appreciate contrasting circular
shapes with the straight lines of the clothes, with the large, angled
white shape cutting across. A
lifestyle snapshot showing the range of highlight
seperation and contrast of those highlights. Nothing
more.


I've seen---and done---better of this type.

#7. Poncho boy. Someone stole his pancakes! How

about a close-up? That
would be nice, don't you think? Is the photographer

so timid he can't
approch people? Is he so incompetent he can't focus

a longer lens?
Maybe both.



Guatamala. The photographer lived with this boys
family for the 3 months he was there, photographing
for the non-profit organization "Refugee Children of
the World", so I think he could have gotten as close
as he wanted. Composition is done for a reason...his. Closer would
have missed the texture (which you seem so fond of and rave at its
virtues in Waffle Boy) of a kids feet, who's feet look like they
should belong to an old man, not a child of 11.



I **was** thinking of this when I wrote my critique. The major failing
of beginners is 'trying to put too much into one picture'. The
photographer should have made a series instead of trying to cram it
all into one shot. The eye wants to see particulars, details, and the
photo fails to emphasize any one element, so the whole is a confused
mass. Criticisms stand.


BTW, the photographer, who is Parisian, is a close,
personal friend of one of your hero's, Salgado, who
liked the image so much he bought a print. They have
been peers for over 30 years...Salgado went in one
direction (making books), Christophe went in another,
showing simular images but to help the poor people in
the photographs, not make personal monetary gain from
their suffering, like Salgado.
As for the expression, well hunger can do that to a person. Not that
you would know.



#8. Young girl in dress. Could we find a less

intersting angle? Could
we try selective focus maybe, so that the annoying

background doesn't
intrude. Incompetent at best.


Same photographer as above, working for the same non-profit
organization "Refugee Children of the World", again showing the
living conditions of poor people, especially children.


What? Funny, all his shots look the same. I would never have guessed.
Too much depth of field. No selective focus to emephasize some aspect
of the image. Too much include in the frame, or not enough. Horrible
composition and dull lighting. Criticisms stand.

Framing shows
her environment without having to be so literal as to show the rest
of the falling down house behind her, which she lives in.
I guess
you missed the happy expression she has on her face, showing a
childish innocence despite her dire situation.
Perhaps if she had some syrup and pancakes...


I guess you missed the happy expression on the face of the red-haired
girl, which was the reason I took it!

How about he


http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteTwo.html
#1. Man sleeping on steps. Even when trying to find

a humanist point
of view, the photographer has to make a geometric

statement, and shoot
the scene ata perfect right angle, destroying the

whole thing.
Incompetent.



First, its a woman. Second, she's homeless.


I gathered that.

The graphic,
composition of the diagonal line in the background (in the same plane
/angle as she is) with the stairs leading into the jumbled mass of a
less than graphic person forces the viewer to take a look at the
stark realities of today.


Quite the opposite. The photographer's formal approach suggests that
he considers the subject merely the formal element in a composition,
depersonalizing her. This calculated effort suggests that the
photographer is so unmoved by the scene that he has the time to
arrange the photo in such a formal manner, with perfect exposure,
focus, etc. His emotional distance insults and demeans the subject.
Horrible. Criticisms stand.

Usually people walk by homeless people
without even noticing them, or purposely ignoring them. This forces
the viewer to confront the issue of homeless.


It does no such thing, just the opposite. Dorothea Lange's work, inter
alia, far surpasses this dreck.

As for the photographer, a search of his name on www.alltheweb.com
came up with about 100 links that include his name, and tells who he
is. Besides being a Professor of Humanities at SFSU, he has curated
many shows about the rich photographic history of California. Here
are several of those links for your education...you need some.


I have all I need. I don't need to see the work of hacks and
incompetents.


I chose it because of the graphic nature and the graininess of the

print, which adds to the symbolism. Plus, I needed to add reportage

to my portfolio, since I am showing it in Paris, and they do a lot of

that type of work here.



#2. Farmhand with young boy. Nice. I like it a

little, but there could
be more activity. SOME activity. Looks stagey and

posed.


Cuba. The father working hard in the field (you need the realism of
him actually bending over pulling something out of the mud for it to
have "activity" for you? You can't see he's just been working? You
need to actually see it to believe it? Oh boy.) and showing the
dirtiness of the work, juxtaposed to that of the young boy, in clean
white cloths and a pacifer. The look on the boys face is one of
lament, most likely realizing he too will someday be hunched over,
toiling in mud and have his son there too, perpetuating the misery
these poor people go thru each and every day just to survive.
Another example of harsh, backlit subjects that still has detail and
contrast in their face, which is in shadow, and highlight seperation
and detail, in the boys shirt and pants. There is also tone in the
sky. An example of a technique and quality that can be produced when
shooting and developing accordingly to have those zones there on the
negative...a concept of which you know nothing about nor could ever
produce, without being flat and drab.


They have had films fast enough for 'instataneous' exposures for more
than 100 years. People don't have to stand stock still anymore. An
action photo, even with a little blur, would have been far superior.

This is also one of about 30 images that I will print, approx. 4' by
4', and will be exhibited at the National Museum in Cuba in 2004, and
hopefully here in Paris at the Maison European de la photograhie.


That doesn't make it good. Criticisms stand..

Maybe if it was printed in the OSU yearbook...


#3. Girls on swing. OK, nothing special. Ordinary.

I've done similar,
and better.



Russia. A simple shot showing a full range of tones, from the bright
sky (yes there is tone) and the contrast range of the shadow area,
without being flat and dull. A quality you couldn't produce with
your technique of exposure and development.


....and you have seen all my work? Criticisms stand.

Used to show the range and contrast of the print.


#4. Solo dancer with shoes as 'partner'. Needs to be

cropped. Also,
reflection off wall behind should be darkened or

lighting changed, as
it's very distracting. Why not use rim lighting?

Idea good, execution
very poor.



Shot for the 30th aniversary cataloge of Wilkes Bashford,
http://www.wilkesbashford.com/ (which BTW, all the images on the main
page I printed, although their scanning is horrible), a high-end
clothier in San Francisco, on Union Square (probably one of the most
high-priced retail locations in the states). The cropping is
intentional to create a sense of space and include as much of the
rough looking background, juxtaposed with the elegent and very
expensive cloths, as possible without making the subject appear too
small. Good use of negative space.


I invented negative space.

The "reflection" as you put was purposely


....don't you mean 'stupidly'?

put there and is part of
the painted background, NOT lighting. An expert eye would notice the
lighting coming from above, not from the side, and it gobo'ed/flagged
off the background, which is lit by natural light coming from the
RIGHT, not the left, which would be impossible given the angle of the
studio, its windows and the direction those windows face, which is
south. I know this because I was on set, hired to consult on the
shoot, for the exposure and film used.


None of this is detectable from a small screen image.

The originals were printed
differently, with the print being bleached heavily, to further
deteriorate the background, but not the clothes. The bleaching added
a tan color and the exposure had to be correct so the background
would be the only thing affected. By following your suggestion of
burning the upper left side, it would have made that area more
distracting, not less.


The worst-executed photo here, especially considering the wonderful
potential of the concept. It would have been far better with a 1930's
Busby Berkely treatment, spotlights, rim lights, etc. Perhaps even the
shadow of a dancer without a dancer (projected?). Criticisms stand.


#5. Glamour Portrait. Shadow poorly placed, nostril

black. Looks like
she has the Black Death. Shadow should be longer,

with more light into
nostril, like this:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford34.jpg
or this:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford40.jpg
This is a better photo by far:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford19.jpg


A portrait for an actress who wanted to represent herself as if she
was in the 40's and 50's. Printed simularly to the style of the
time, on Forte's graded, #2, warm tone paper. Lighting is soft


Mistake No. 1

yet
with enough contrast to give a nice contrast range.


Not the point. Some of Hurrell's work is quite limited in range,
deliberately.

Contrary to what
you think, the nose is shadow is not to dark, but did pick up a bit
of contrast in the scan, soemthing that couldn't be helped (I don't
manipulate my scans after calibrating them with a scanned color and
grey scale).


You should see some of my prints too....

Of the samples you provided, to suggest that it would be better to
look UP someones nose, #34, rather than seeing a slightly darker
shadow, is riduculous.


Hardly. Depends on the length, shape, and width of the nose.

The lighting in #34 is classic female
portrait lighting, seen hundreds of times, and churned out by
hollywood portrait studios. While it is appealing, it is not the
only way to shoot such subjects.



And if you want a critic of #34, the object in the lower right


a flower?

should
have been cropped out and the backlight seperating her from the
background shouldn't have been so strong, as the shape and tone are

also distracting.


Perhaps.

#40 isn't the same type of lighting and is a poor
example for a critic on your part.


You're right.

#19, with its elongated shadows
of the eyelashes is nice, but they too become distracting to the
sublties of the skin tone and facial texture.


I disagree. It's perfect.

Understanding how the eye views images, and the science behind it, is
crutial if one wants to understand how people view images.
You obviously have an understanding of neither.


LQTM

#6. Girl with stringy hair. Poor composition. Too

low in frame. Too
high angle, demeaning to subject. For some reason,

the film edge is
printed, as if to add some quality that a nice clean

border does not.


Mazzy Star, singer.


SO? Who's that? I never heard of her.

She commissioned the photographer for this shot
and 8 others. Shots were used in a magazine article about her, and
for her own home portrait. The singer is somewhat unusual in her
personal life and the resulting pictures showed this.


The pictures of Helen show her somewhat arrogant personality. Did you
not 'get' that? By being SUPERFICIALLY like 'glamour' poses, but with
clever differences (slight sneer, bad complexion, no make-up, ragged
clothes) that manifest themselves to those capable of appreciating
such things.

The camera is
not to high, and in fact, her eyes are dead center of the image.


It LOOKS too high. If it LOOKS too high, it is.

It
is all to easy to do the classic head and shoulders or 3/4 portrait,
and cram the head close to the top of the frame. This photo also
uses negative space in a positive way and gives more of a sense of
air around and about her. Rebate edge was left in on purpose as she
liked the effect the 4x5 negative holder added.


Who's in charge?

For someone who admires HCB and his continued use of "filament noir",
its weird that you would then make negative comments about its use.
I guess you don't like Irving Penns use of it either.
Call me when you get commissioned by a world famous person, and not
the local OSU quarterback, to do their portrait for publication and
personal use.


I don't do pro work NOW. I have done pro and semi-pro (by that I mean
the yearbook) work, some of better than some of what I see here.

#7. Civil war re-enactor? OK, nice, but light too

soft.


Yes, Civil War re-enactor. Shot on location where the re-enactment
was taking place, in a "tent studio" that had a white parachute
hanging on the side where the sun was. Soft lighting, yes, but a
full, rich print, showing you don't need strong, side lit subjects,
to get rich, deep prints with a nice tonal range and mid-range
contrast.


So, the content isn't supposed to do anything for me? Is this just a
technical exercise?

Another example of a different style of photography that you know
nothing about.


I would never shoot this in the way it's been done. I'd use Hollywood
style lighting, perhaps criminal lighting along with a big shadow on
the background and a strong backlight/rimlight as well, to suggest the
horrors of battle. The lighting should be quite different from that of
a straight portrait. Use some imagination!

Perhaps (looking on internet frantically) something like this
http://home2.planetinternet.be/verja...ding_hhprn.htm

See 'Citizen Kane' for ideas.

or:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html
http://www.lafterhall.com/shearer.html


#8. Glamour hands. OK. Professional.



Has nothing to do with the hands. A rep in San Francisco, who
represented the top 10 commercial photographers in the area, threw
annual parties. This one, being her 4th, had the theme "4" and she
had all the photographers do a photograph somehow involving "4". The
title of this image is "Foreplay". It is an example of the type of
printing I was doing 18 years ago.


So, that is an excuse for you but not for me? Is that it?

The top being a straight print,
on a grade 1 or 1 1/2, and the bottom, on Portriga #3 warmtone, the
final. The technique involved, which doesn't show up as good on the
web, is diffusion. All of the areas, except for the mans hand, are
diffused in a ratio of 1:3 (1 part straight exposure, 3 parts
diffused exposure). I purposly left the mans hands "straight"
exposed (no diffusion) to symbolize the masculinity of the man, in
contrast to the softness of the woman. A concept print? Precisely,
as it was my intention.


The photographer, who I was working for at the time, like the style
so much, he incorporated it into his portfolio. The technique, which
at the time was new and no one else was doing it. Because of the
technique I "made", he got jobs ranging from Visa (the credit card
company...used in a national ad campaigh) to Phillip Morris, to
Accura cars, to Microsoft, to Wyse Computers, to countless of other,
multi-national businesses. All because of a "concept" print I did
for a party.


In high school, I learned the different effect obtained from diffusing
the print and diffusing during the making of the negative. I used
celeophane.


Now you are intitled to your opinion, and you certainly have a very
specific style in your black and white photography, that you
personally like very much. Thats fine. However, before you open
your mouth about things you really don't know anything about, and
make yourself a bigger fool than you already are in the process, you
might want to expand your horizons in photography, and quit making
yourself out to be this all knowing photographer, and one of the best
printers in the world. You are neither.


Your biggest claim to fame is having been a photographer for a
college yearbook 30 years ago. Some people liked your images...I
hope so, cause they have been used for all this time in books people
keep to remember their college days, nothing more.


That was why they were made, and they performed that task well.

They are snap
shots in time.


I agree. What zoneheads tend to forget is that that's perhaps the most
important use of photography, not 'self-expression'. In 1973, as the
editor of the yearbook that year, I got a letter from the mother of a
student whose picture had appeared in the 1972 Makio. It was a long
exposure of him riding a bicycle, so there was the motion blur in the
background. She wanted a copy of the picture. Her son was smiling and
happy in that picture. Do you want to know why she wanted a copy of
that picture? It was the last picture taken of him. He died shortly
after it was taken.

I too was a yearbook photographer, in Jr. high
school.


What we did (by 'we I mean Lee Jenkins, who was chief photographer
when I arrived, and my mentor until I felt confident in my own style,
and the brilliant editors) between 1969 and 1973 tranformed the way
the OSU yearbooks had been treated graphically and photographically,
as you can see if you were to look at a 1966 or 1967 Makio. There were
far more creative and bore no relationship to the then-current
yearbook style. We actually came close to getting in trouble a few
times, for being 'too creative'.

I would no more show that work or think it had any
importance or relevance today than shoot myself. At the time, back
in 1970 thru 1973, I thought it was good. And it was, for the time
and for my skill level. Even did advertisement shots for local
businesses that advertised in the book. But that has nothing to do
with the here and now. I moved on in photography and am successful
in the business.



You should move on too.


You do, then, understand that this work was not intended to be a
'portfolio', and that it was at the insistence of some of the members
of the group that I put it up. Some of these images I had not looked
at for a long time. The pictorial quality of some of them astonished
me, as if I had never seen them before. That's all I'll say.

I have moved on. I did that long ago. What depresses me is that some
people are producing crap that in some ways is a regression from what
was done before (and I'm not referring to my own work specifically,
though I don't intend to exclude it).



Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

  #20  
Old October 19th 03, 02:01 PM
Alexis Neel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default some of my work

I knew it would be a waste of time and go over your head.
And to think I fell for it.

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...

http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteOne.html

#1. Palm trees with cable. How inspired! No

modelling. Boring and
useless photo.



This photo was a spec shot by the photographer,
thinking it would make a good ad for Palm Inc., the
maker of handheld personal devices. Indeed, when the
president of the company saw it, he immediatly got the concept of
telephone wires running between two palm trees,
symbolizing communication between two Palm devices,
and bought it for an ad. There were no models...oh
you mean overly dark areas (a staple of your shots) in
the shot. You are right there, but neither was needed
(models or modelling). Useless? Palm Inc. didn't
think so.


The intention or use of this photo was not given, right? Aside from
any commercial association with Palm, it has no special merit.


#2. River with old boat and tall smokestack. Half of

house on right,
with tiny figure entering. Says nothing. Poor

composition, choice of
angle, flat lighting. Pointless.



China. This area is forbiden area to Westerners, although the
photographer somehow got permission to go there. If
you have ever been to China, you would know that it is
a largely overcast, either with clouds or pollution,
place. There just isn't much stark sun, not that it
was needed for the shot or for any shot either. A lifestyle shot
showing a typical small village in China, with large boats
pushed to the end of a small river/creek. It has been exhibited at
several museumsaround the world.


So, that excuses its miserable, confused composition? Just because
it's an exotic place does not excuse the photographer from his duty to
make an interesting composition and use of light and shadow. This is
simply a photographic mess. Criticisms stand.

Not your typical yearbook shot granted.


No, of course not. Not as good as many of mine.

#3. Bicycle under water. Yawn. Someone's trying to

be clever. How
nice. Try again!



Yes someone was. First used as a self promotion for
the photographer, then bought as a concept shot for an
ad. Don't remember which company used it. He did
"try again" and sold several more simular shots to
the same company for an ad campaign.
Again, not a off-the-cuff shot, so its concept is surely beyond your
understanding.


I didn't say it was horrible, just pretentious. It is. Criticisms
stand.


#4. Shrine. OK, nothing terribly special. Merely

ordinary.


Mexico. A lifestyle shot showing the importance of
religion in the country, and how some people construct
shrines in their homes, for either worship or for
morning loved ones, like this one for a child.


People? I see no people. Not even a shadow of a person, or an out-of
focus person. It needs something like that. Too static. Criticisms
stand.

I
thought you would like this, seeing how it is very
contrasty and directional lighting, from the lightbulb
overhead. Oh, it has too much shadow detail for you,
thats right.


The amount of shadow detail is an aesthetic choice. Too much is
distracting in some cases. A B&W photograph is an interpretation, not
reproduction, of a secene. Criticisms stand.

#5. Cowboy with hat and rope. Gosh, do you really

think he could be
DOING SOMETHING? Useless, pedantic photo. Says

nothing.


A portrait of a cowboy on the range. Does he need to
be lasso'ing a horse to appeal to you? Not an image
of a red haired girl with a blown out face, true.


The man could be an actor for a cigarette ad, for all I know. Or for
the Palm company. Who knows? Good composition, by the way, but too
static. Criticisms stand.

Does show range of a backlit shot, where the face is
in deep shadow, and retains contrast and information, white shirt
next to the face with detail, and bright background. Not obtainable
using any technique you have ever spewed about.


That doesn't make it intersting, just technically sound. Criticisms
stand.


#6. Not even worth my time to comment.



Didn't think you could appreciate contrasting circular
shapes with the straight lines of the clothes, with the large, angled
white shape cutting across. A
lifestyle snapshot showing the range of highlight
seperation and contrast of those highlights. Nothing
more.


I've seen---and done---better of this type.

#7. Poncho boy. Someone stole his pancakes! How

about a close-up? That
would be nice, don't you think? Is the photographer

so timid he can't
approch people? Is he so incompetent he can't focus

a longer lens?
Maybe both.



Guatamala. The photographer lived with this boys
family for the 3 months he was there, photographing
for the non-profit organization "Refugee Children of
the World", so I think he could have gotten as close
as he wanted. Composition is done for a reason...his. Closer would
have missed the texture (which you seem so fond of and rave at its
virtues in Waffle Boy) of a kids feet, who's feet look like they
should belong to an old man, not a child of 11.



I **was** thinking of this when I wrote my critique. The major failing
of beginners is 'trying to put too much into one picture'. The
photographer should have made a series instead of trying to cram it
all into one shot. The eye wants to see particulars, details, and the
photo fails to emphasize any one element, so the whole is a confused
mass. Criticisms stand.


BTW, the photographer, who is Parisian, is a close,
personal friend of one of your hero's, Salgado, who
liked the image so much he bought a print. They have
been peers for over 30 years...Salgado went in one
direction (making books), Christophe went in another,
showing simular images but to help the poor people in
the photographs, not make personal monetary gain from
their suffering, like Salgado.
As for the expression, well hunger can do that to a person. Not that
you would know.



#8. Young girl in dress. Could we find a less

intersting angle? Could
we try selective focus maybe, so that the annoying

background doesn't
intrude. Incompetent at best.


Same photographer as above, working for the same non-profit
organization "Refugee Children of the World", again showing the
living conditions of poor people, especially children.


What? Funny, all his shots look the same. I would never have guessed.
Too much depth of field. No selective focus to emephasize some aspect
of the image. Too much include in the frame, or not enough. Horrible
composition and dull lighting. Criticisms stand.

Framing shows
her environment without having to be so literal as to show the rest
of the falling down house behind her, which she lives in.
I guess
you missed the happy expression she has on her face, showing a
childish innocence despite her dire situation.
Perhaps if she had some syrup and pancakes...


I guess you missed the happy expression on the face of the red-haired
girl, which was the reason I took it!

How about he


http://www.alexisneel.com/gallerys/B...dWhiteTwo.html
#1. Man sleeping on steps. Even when trying to find

a humanist point
of view, the photographer has to make a geometric

statement, and shoot
the scene ata perfect right angle, destroying the

whole thing.
Incompetent.



First, its a woman. Second, she's homeless.


I gathered that.

The graphic,
composition of the diagonal line in the background (in the same plane
/angle as she is) with the stairs leading into the jumbled mass of a
less than graphic person forces the viewer to take a look at the
stark realities of today.


Quite the opposite. The photographer's formal approach suggests that
he considers the subject merely the formal element in a composition,
depersonalizing her. This calculated effort suggests that the
photographer is so unmoved by the scene that he has the time to
arrange the photo in such a formal manner, with perfect exposure,
focus, etc. His emotional distance insults and demeans the subject.
Horrible. Criticisms stand.

Usually people walk by homeless people
without even noticing them, or purposely ignoring them. This forces
the viewer to confront the issue of homeless.


It does no such thing, just the opposite. Dorothea Lange's work, inter
alia, far surpasses this dreck.

As for the photographer, a search of his name on www.alltheweb.com
came up with about 100 links that include his name, and tells who he
is. Besides being a Professor of Humanities at SFSU, he has curated
many shows about the rich photographic history of California. Here
are several of those links for your education...you need some.


I have all I need. I don't need to see the work of hacks and
incompetents.


I chose it because of the graphic nature and the graininess of the

print, which adds to the symbolism. Plus, I needed to add reportage

to my portfolio, since I am showing it in Paris, and they do a lot of

that type of work here.



#2. Farmhand with young boy. Nice. I like it a

little, but there could
be more activity. SOME activity. Looks stagey and

posed.


Cuba. The father working hard in the field (you need the realism of
him actually bending over pulling something out of the mud for it to
have "activity" for you? You can't see he's just been working? You
need to actually see it to believe it? Oh boy.) and showing the
dirtiness of the work, juxtaposed to that of the young boy, in clean
white cloths and a pacifer. The look on the boys face is one of
lament, most likely realizing he too will someday be hunched over,
toiling in mud and have his son there too, perpetuating the misery
these poor people go thru each and every day just to survive.
Another example of harsh, backlit subjects that still has detail and
contrast in their face, which is in shadow, and highlight seperation
and detail, in the boys shirt and pants. There is also tone in the
sky. An example of a technique and quality that can be produced when
shooting and developing accordingly to have those zones there on the
negative...a concept of which you know nothing about nor could ever
produce, without being flat and drab.


They have had films fast enough for 'instataneous' exposures for more
than 100 years. People don't have to stand stock still anymore. An
action photo, even with a little blur, would have been far superior.

This is also one of about 30 images that I will print, approx. 4' by
4', and will be exhibited at the National Museum in Cuba in 2004, and
hopefully here in Paris at the Maison European de la photograhie.


That doesn't make it good. Criticisms stand..

Maybe if it was printed in the OSU yearbook...


#3. Girls on swing. OK, nothing special. Ordinary.

I've done similar,
and better.



Russia. A simple shot showing a full range of tones, from the bright
sky (yes there is tone) and the contrast range of the shadow area,
without being flat and dull. A quality you couldn't produce with
your technique of exposure and development.


...and you have seen all my work? Criticisms stand.

Used to show the range and contrast of the print.


#4. Solo dancer with shoes as 'partner'. Needs to be

cropped. Also,
reflection off wall behind should be darkened or

lighting changed, as
it's very distracting. Why not use rim lighting?

Idea good, execution
very poor.



Shot for the 30th aniversary cataloge of Wilkes Bashford,
http://www.wilkesbashford.com/ (which BTW, all the images on the main
page I printed, although their scanning is horrible), a high-end
clothier in San Francisco, on Union Square (probably one of the most
high-priced retail locations in the states). The cropping is
intentional to create a sense of space and include as much of the
rough looking background, juxtaposed with the elegent and very
expensive cloths, as possible without making the subject appear too
small. Good use of negative space.


I invented negative space.

The "reflection" as you put was purposely


...don't you mean 'stupidly'?

put there and is part of
the painted background, NOT lighting. An expert eye would notice the
lighting coming from above, not from the side, and it gobo'ed/flagged
off the background, which is lit by natural light coming from the
RIGHT, not the left, which would be impossible given the angle of the
studio, its windows and the direction those windows face, which is
south. I know this because I was on set, hired to consult on the
shoot, for the exposure and film used.


None of this is detectable from a small screen image.

The originals were printed
differently, with the print being bleached heavily, to further
deteriorate the background, but not the clothes. The bleaching added
a tan color and the exposure had to be correct so the background
would be the only thing affected. By following your suggestion of
burning the upper left side, it would have made that area more
distracting, not less.


The worst-executed photo here, especially considering the wonderful
potential of the concept. It would have been far better with a 1930's
Busby Berkely treatment, spotlights, rim lights, etc. Perhaps even the
shadow of a dancer without a dancer (projected?). Criticisms stand.


#5. Glamour Portrait. Shadow poorly placed, nostril

black. Looks like
she has the Black Death. Shadow should be longer,

with more light into
nostril, like this:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford34.jpg
or this:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford40.jpg
This is a better photo by far:

http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmo...crawford19.jpg


A portrait for an actress who wanted to represent herself as if she
was in the 40's and 50's. Printed simularly to the style of the
time, on Forte's graded, #2, warm tone paper. Lighting is soft


Mistake No. 1

yet
with enough contrast to give a nice contrast range.


Not the point. Some of Hurrell's work is quite limited in range,
deliberately.

Contrary to what
you think, the nose is shadow is not to dark, but did pick up a bit
of contrast in the scan, soemthing that couldn't be helped (I don't
manipulate my scans after calibrating them with a scanned color and
grey scale).


You should see some of my prints too....

Of the samples you provided, to suggest that it would be better to
look UP someones nose, #34, rather than seeing a slightly darker
shadow, is riduculous.


Hardly. Depends on the length, shape, and width of the nose.

The lighting in #34 is classic female
portrait lighting, seen hundreds of times, and churned out by
hollywood portrait studios. While it is appealing, it is not the
only way to shoot such subjects.



And if you want a critic of #34, the object in the lower right


a flower?

should
have been cropped out and the backlight seperating her from the
background shouldn't have been so strong, as the shape and tone are

also distracting.


Perhaps.

#40 isn't the same type of lighting and is a poor
example for a critic on your part.


You're right.

#19, with its elongated shadows
of the eyelashes is nice, but they too become distracting to the
sublties of the skin tone and facial texture.


I disagree. It's perfect.

Understanding how the eye views images, and the science behind it, is
crutial if one wants to understand how people view images.
You obviously have an understanding of neither.


LQTM

#6. Girl with stringy hair. Poor composition. Too

low in frame. Too
high angle, demeaning to subject. For some reason,

the film edge is
printed, as if to add some quality that a nice clean

border does not.


Mazzy Star, singer.


SO? Who's that? I never heard of her.

She commissioned the photographer for this shot
and 8 others. Shots were used in a magazine article about her, and
for her own home portrait. The singer is somewhat unusual in her
personal life and the resulting pictures showed this.


The pictures of Helen show her somewhat arrogant personality. Did you
not 'get' that? By being SUPERFICIALLY like 'glamour' poses, but with
clever differences (slight sneer, bad complexion, no make-up, ragged
clothes) that manifest themselves to those capable of appreciating
such things.

The camera is
not to high, and in fact, her eyes are dead center of the image.


It LOOKS too high. If it LOOKS too high, it is.

It
is all to easy to do the classic head and shoulders or 3/4 portrait,
and cram the head close to the top of the frame. This photo also
uses negative space in a positive way and gives more of a sense of
air around and about her. Rebate edge was left in on purpose as she
liked the effect the 4x5 negative holder added.


Who's in charge?

For someone who admires HCB and his continued use of "filament noir",
its weird that you would then make negative comments about its use.
I guess you don't like Irving Penns use of it either.
Call me when you get commissioned by a world famous person, and not
the local OSU quarterback, to do their portrait for publication and
personal use.


I don't do pro work NOW. I have done pro and semi-pro (by that I mean
the yearbook) work, some of better than some of what I see here.

#7. Civil war re-enactor? OK, nice, but light too

soft.


Yes, Civil War re-enactor. Shot on location where the re-enactment
was taking place, in a "tent studio" that had a white parachute
hanging on the side where the sun was. Soft lighting, yes, but a
full, rich print, showing you don't need strong, side lit subjects,
to get rich, deep prints with a nice tonal range and mid-range
contrast.


So, the content isn't supposed to do anything for me? Is this just a
technical exercise?

Another example of a different style of photography that you know
nothing about.


I would never shoot this in the way it's been done. I'd use Hollywood
style lighting, perhaps criminal lighting along with a big shadow on
the background and a strong backlight/rimlight as well, to suggest the
horrors of battle. The lighting should be quite different from that of
a straight portrait. Use some imagination!

Perhaps (looking on internet frantically) something like this
http://home2.planetinternet.be/verja...ding_hhprn.htm

See 'Citizen Kane' for ideas.

or:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html
http://www.lafterhall.com/shearer.html


#8. Glamour hands. OK. Professional.



Has nothing to do with the hands. A rep in San Francisco, who
represented the top 10 commercial photographers in the area, threw
annual parties. This one, being her 4th, had the theme "4" and she
had all the photographers do a photograph somehow involving "4". The
title of this image is "Foreplay". It is an example of the type of
printing I was doing 18 years ago.


So, that is an excuse for you but not for me? Is that it?

The top being a straight print,
on a grade 1 or 1 1/2, and the bottom, on Portriga #3 warmtone, the
final. The technique involved, which doesn't show up as good on the
web, is diffusion. All of the areas, except for the mans hand, are
diffused in a ratio of 1:3 (1 part straight exposure, 3 parts
diffused exposure). I purposly left the mans hands "straight"
exposed (no diffusion) to symbolize the masculinity of the man, in
contrast to the softness of the woman. A concept print? Precisely,
as it was my intention.


The photographer, who I was working for at the time, like the style
so much, he incorporated it into his portfolio. The technique, which
at the time was new and no one else was doing it. Because of the
technique I "made", he got jobs ranging from Visa (the credit card
company...used in a national ad campaigh) to Phillip Morris, to
Accura cars, to Microsoft, to Wyse Computers, to countless of other,
multi-national businesses. All because of a "concept" print I did
for a party.


In high school, I learned the different effect obtained from diffusing
the print and diffusing during the making of the negative. I used
celeophane.


Now you are intitled to your opinion, and you certainly have a very
specific style in your black and white photography, that you
personally like very much. Thats fine. However, before you open
your mouth about things you really don't know anything about, and
make yourself a bigger fool than you already are in the process, you
might want to expand your horizons in photography, and quit making
yourself out to be this all knowing photographer, and one of the best
printers in the world. You are neither.


Your biggest claim to fame is having been a photographer for a
college yearbook 30 years ago. Some people liked your images...I
hope so, cause they have been used for all this time in books people
keep to remember their college days, nothing more.


That was why they were made, and they performed that task well.

They are snap
shots in time.


I agree. What zoneheads tend to forget is that that's perhaps the most
important use of photography, not 'self-expression'. In 1973, as the
editor of the yearbook that year, I got a letter from the mother of a
student whose picture had appeared in the 1972 Makio. It was a long
exposure of him riding a bicycle, so there was the motion blur in the
background. She wanted a copy of the picture. Her son was smiling and
happy in that picture. Do you want to know why she wanted a copy of
that picture? It was the last picture taken of him. He died shortly
after it was taken.

I too was a yearbook photographer, in Jr. high
school.


What we did (by 'we I mean Lee Jenkins, who was chief photographer
when I arrived, and my mentor until I felt confident in my own style,
and the brilliant editors) between 1969 and 1973 tranformed the way
the OSU yearbooks had been treated graphically and photographically,
as you can see if you were to look at a 1966 or 1967 Makio. There were
far more creative and bore no relationship to the then-current
yearbook style. We actually came close to getting in trouble a few
times, for being 'too creative'.

I would no more show that work or think it had any
importance or relevance today than shoot myself. At the time, back
in 1970 thru 1973, I thought it was good. And it was, for the time
and for my skill level. Even did advertisement shots for local
businesses that advertised in the book. But that has nothing to do
with the here and now. I moved on in photography and am successful
in the business.



You should move on too.


You do, then, understand that this work was not intended to be a
'portfolio', and that it was at the insistence of some of the members
of the group that I put it up. Some of these images I had not looked
at for a long time. The pictorial quality of some of them astonished
me, as if I had never seen them before. That's all I'll say.

I have moved on. I did that long ago. What depresses me is that some
people are producing crap that in some ways is a regression from what
was done before (and I'm not referring to my own work specifically,
though I don't intend to exclude it).



Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

 




Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post your photography work online Stiki In The Darkroom 0 April 30th 04 05:27 AM
Free Online Gallery For Your Work Stiki In The Darkroom 3 April 22nd 04 12:11 AM
Now it's starting to work Collin Brendemuehl Large Format Photography Equipment 0 March 9th 04 03:30 AM
Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon) Dr. Slick Large Format Photography Equipment 6 February 18th 04 02:44 PM
Kodak to reduce work force by 20% Michael A. Covington Film & Labs 39 February 2nd 04 05:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.