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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
some of my work
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:30 AM |
Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon) | Dr. Slick | Large Format Photography Equipment | 6 | February 18th 04 01:44 PM |
Kodak to reduce work force by 20% | Michael A. Covington | Film & Labs | 39 | February 2nd 04 04:25 PM |