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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
In article ,
Michael Scarpitti says... See: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/ Father and son: You cropped fathers foot for no apparent reason. Aside of that - a simple snapshot. And from the wrong position. Bend down, if people are below you. Raffle: Terrible lighting, and exactly what you complain about for "zonies". No artistic content in favor of a technical experiment. Moreso - your statement about TMY shows that you simply don't master the film and it's agreed tricky development. And again unmotivated cropping at the bottom. Old and new buildings / Bay window: Another one of those technical experiments without any message or artistic content. Graphical catastrophe with so many concurrent lines. Acutance effect: Yeah, right. Closing in on an image to count grain dots happens when you already passed by the image content. Not that there was any content..... Waffle boy: The first picture with some impact. Horrible Jpeg artifacts make it impossible to judge how you coped with the shadow detail. Jackie: You are right, hadn't you told us that the shadow was the subject, we would have thought that this was a very unflattering and highly distorted picture of poor Jackie. But now that we know that this was artistic intent, her maximum distorted head sure makes sense. Doesn't it? Jackie Infrared: Well, the house might have seemed perfect to you, but the 21 mm super wide angle lens does terrible things to poor Jackie's hips. But hey, artistic intent, huh? Joann at Stadium Window: Technically okay, but why does she look like she is puking out the window? Methinks that cropping the top window bow was also not the wisest move. Redhaired Girl: It's not sub par for the grain, it's sub par for the almost Asian eyes she's sporting to cope with the direct sunlight. If that had been dealt with, there would be time to worry about grain. Vicki: Another one with bad shadows in the face and obviously one, where mastering the zone system could have prevented the shadows from ending up as such a cloudy lump of darkness as they are. Man, for bashing "zonies" as you do, you have all the wrong samples for your statement. Guitar: "... is deliberately.." uh-huh. It's not a bug, it's a feature? Great approach. Cliff: I actually like this shot, but the scan looks like the shadows have no power. You state that you deliberately lost detail, but you also lost the power in the shadows. Worse is that also the highlights have very little variation. At least it is much less than what Tri-X can do. Disappointing, to say the least. I'll stop here, because the rest is pretty similar. You started out with a general bashing of "zonies", but you also prove that in many cases the technical details seem to push aside the image contents. If I have to judge your bashing by the samples you have shown - you lose big time. -- Michael Quack http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article , Michael Scarpitti says... See: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/ Father and son: You cropped fathers foot for no apparent reason. Aside of that - a simple snapshot. Yes, but a charming one. And from the wrong position. Bend down, if people are below you. I did bend down. I'm 5'4" tall. They were seated. Raffle: Terrible lighting, and exactly what you complain about for "zonies". No artistic content in favor of a technical experiment. Exactly. You're absolutely right! That was its intent. It was to see how the film/developer handled this sort of hoorible lighting situation. I make no artistic claims for this image. It's a test, plain and simple. Moreso - your statement about TMY shows that you simply don't master the film and it's agreed tricky development. Incorrect. the curve shape of the two film differs substantially. The same image on TMY wold look different, with higher contrast and denisty in the highlights than the HP5, and lower contrast in the shadows. And again unmotivated cropping at the bottom. Old and new buildings / Bay window: Another one of those technical experiments without any message or artistic content. Graphical catastrophe with so many concurrent lines. Test. Acutance effect: Yeah, right. Closing in on an image to count grain dots happens when you already passed by the image content. Not that there was any content..... Test. Waffle boy: The first picture with some impact. Horrible Jpeg artifacts make it impossible to judge how you coped with the shadow detail. Thanks. The image was made in 1968, with a yashica camera and lens. Developed in Neofin Red, devloping time recommended by Tetenal was too long, in my opinion. Neg is dense and grainy. Exposure was a little under by my standards of today. Jackie: You are right, hadn't you told us that the shadow was the subject, we would have thought that this was a very unflattering and highly distorted picture of poor Jackie. But now that we know that this was artistic intent, her maximum distorted head sure makes sense. Doesn't it? Yes, it's not a portrait. The distortion adds to the unreal effect and is intentional. Jackie Infrared: Well, the house might have seemed perfect to you, but the 21 mm super wide angle lens does terrible things to poor Jackie's hips. But hey, artistic intent, huh? Well, that's the result of such a lens.. Joann at Stadium Window: Technically okay, but why does she look like she is puking out the window? Just looking out the window, but I can see your point.. Methinks that cropping the top window bow was also not the wisest move. Maybe. I think I did some from a little farther away, but I chose this one for some reason.. Redhaired Girl: It's not sub par for the grain, it's sub par for the almost Asian eyes she's sporting to cope with the direct sunlight. If that had been dealt with, there would be time to worry about grain. Quick shot. Vicki: Another one with bad shadows in the face and obviously one, where mastering the zone system could have prevented the shadows from ending up as such a cloudy lump of darkness as they are. Man, for bashing "zonies" as you do, you have all the wrong samples for your statement. Made in autumn 1969 with cheap equipment. Under-exposed. Guitar: "... is deliberately.." uh-huh. It's not a bug, it's a feature? Great approach. Cliff: I actually like this shot, but the scan looks like the shadows have no power. Made on matte paper. You're very observant. You state that you deliberately lost detail, but you also lost the power in the shadows. Worse is that also the highlights have very little variation. At least it is much less than what Tri-X can do. Disappointing, to say the least. I'd like to reprint it, yes. I'll stop here, because the rest is pretty similar. You started out with a general bashing of "zonies", but you also prove that in many cases the technical details seem to push aside the image contents. If I have to judge your bashing by the samples you have shown - you lose big time. This is old stuff, technically inferior to my present capabilities (as shown on the first few shots). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article , Michael Scarpitti says... I made another print. See: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/A170.htm See: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/ Father and son: You cropped fathers foot for no apparent reason. Just missed it, I guess. I'm human! Aside of that - a simple snapshot. And from the wrong position. Bend down, if people are below you. By the way, they were sitiing on the curb, and I did bend down. If I had gotten any lower, the background (which is bad enough: it's that green plastic fencing stuff) would have been worse. Raffle: Terrible lighting, and exactly what you complain about for "zonies". Terrible lighting chosen because that was the most severe test I could put this film/developer through. No other motivation for taking this picture. (Most zonehead work I complain about is too flat, not at all like this.) No artistic content in favor of a technical experiment. That's correct. Guilty as charged. One has to make these tests on real-life situations. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
Michael Quack wrote in message . ..
In article , Michael Scarpitti says... See: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/ Father and son: You cropped fathers foot for no apparent reason. Aside of that - a simple snapshot. And from the wrong position. Bend down, if people are below you. Raffle: Terrible lighting, and exactly what you complain about for "zonies". No artistic content in favor of a technical experiment. Moreso - your statement about TMY shows that you simply don't master the film and it's agreed tricky development. And again unmotivated cropping at the bottom. Old and new buildings / Bay window: Another one of those technical experiments without any message or artistic content. Graphical catastrophe with so many concurrent lines. Acutance effect: Yeah, right. Closing in on an image to count grain dots happens when you already passed by the image content. Not that there was any content..... Waffle boy: The first picture with some impact. Horrible Jpeg artifacts make it impossible to judge how you coped with the shadow detail. Jackie: You are right, hadn't you told us that the shadow was the subject, we would have thought that this was a very unflattering and highly distorted picture of poor Jackie. But now that we know that this was artistic intent, her maximum distorted head sure makes sense. Doesn't it? Jackie Infrared: Well, the house might have seemed perfect to you, but the 21 mm super wide angle lens does terrible things to poor Jackie's hips. But hey, artistic intent, huh? Joann at Stadium Window: Technically okay, but why does she look like she is puking out the window? Methinks that cropping the top window bow was also not the wisest move. Redhaired Girl: It's not sub par for the grain, it's sub par for the almost Asian eyes she's sporting to cope with the direct sunlight. If that had been dealt with, there would be time to worry about grain. Vicki: Another one with bad shadows in the face and obviously one, where mastering the zone system could have prevented the shadows from ending up as such a cloudy lump of darkness as they are. Man, for bashing "zonies" as you do, you have all the wrong samples for your statement. Guitar: "... is deliberately.." uh-huh. It's not a bug, it's a feature? Great approach. Cliff: I actually like this shot, but the scan looks like the shadows have no power. You state that you deliberately lost detail, but you also lost the power in the shadows. Worse is that also the highlights have very little variation. At least it is much less than what Tri-X can do. Disappointing, to say the least. I'll stop here, because the rest is pretty similar. You started out with a general bashing of "zonies", but you also prove that in many cases the technical details seem to push aside the image contents. If I have to judge your bashing by the samples you have shown - you lose big time. LOL!!! You peg them all perfectly. Alexis www.alexisneel.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
(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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com... Michael Quack wrote in message . .. In article , Michael Scarpitti says... I made another print. See: http://zd.csimultimedia.com/A170.htm Why? And even then, the background is still burned in poorly, creating even more distraction with the unevenness of the burn. Upper left corner still sticks out, and you can see tha photojournalist burn above their heads. But whose ever paper you bought at least made a few cents on your purchase...I'm sure they are thankful. Alexis www.alexisneel.com I'm sure, as you note, it can be even better. I did as well as I could in the limited time I had. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
(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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |