Why do I like the work of Neil Buchan Grant so much??

<p>Ian, I know what artificial lighting looks like. It looks just like these photos. Did you look at the catchlights I've mentioned in two previous posts?</p>

<p>I you really believe that he just snapped these walking around and fixed them up in Photoshop, please explain these large, consistent catchlights in nearly every portrait. He walks around looking for identical, side by side, lights occurring naturally? Maybe he painted those in with Photoshop? He goes walking around, alone, with strobes and large white cards or umbrellas with stands?</p>

<p>I would think an assistant with reflectors maybe, but I'm sure the catchlights can be done in photoshop too.</p>

<p>Assistant = crew. And those are not reflectors, they're lights. They're too consistent. </p>

<p>You'd think the street/documentary forum would have people who know what the light in photos of people taken in the street look like, and what it doesn't look like.<br>

<br />Whatever. Believe what you want.</p>

<p>He painted in catchlights with photoshop... right.<br>

Had one assistant float two reflectors that, no matter what time of day or where the sun is, look exactly the same in almost every photo... absolutely correct.<br>

Wandered the streets finding random, perfectly made-up strangers... who doesn't?</p>

<p>I just wrote a letter to Santa. He said he would bring me a magical camera, glow in the dark models, and the famous photoshop catchlight filter this year. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Assistant = crew. And those are not reflectors, they're lights. They're too consistent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

First of all, a crew is a group. Read the dictionary. He travels alone. You are wrong.<br>

<br /><br>

Second, he does use a ZipDisk for some shots. He uses continuous lighting in the studio.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My point was that nobody could expect to walk down the street</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />No, your point was that he didn't enhance the photos in post. You were wrong. In fact, I can tell you that he uses Nik in post. I don't know whether he uses Lightroom or Photoshop though.</p>

<p>Damon..Why are you so know it all condescending..makes you sound kind of arrogant...not becoming. IMHO (smirk) anyway its a moot point..this is lovely photography but definitely far from the rock n roll of street photography. Its like westernized Chinese food....bland but palatable to the masses.</p>

<p>Alot of great responses, I appreciate everyone contributing their views. I haven't posted here in almost 3 years, and I see that not much has changed. Still a lot of fierce debating and when will you guys all learn to just be nice and respect differences of opinion? LOL People get very passionate about the art, so I guess it should be expected.</p>

<p>Luis, to answer your question what I like about this work is a few things. I like the warmth in the mid tones that the photographer applies (how it is accomplished whether in post or not is irrelevant IMHO) and the warmth invites me to linger awhile and take in the beauty that he is trying to capture and portray through his work. After I stay awhile, I notice other subtle details like the composition and selective focus help to appreciate the fine art quality of his portfolio. Again, how that is accomplished and whether it is right or wrong according to some of you is irrelevant except to photography students and art directors. I agree with MH -- this style is not for everyone, but isn't that what making a unique work of art is all about? Photography for the masses is too easily forgotten, but Neil's work here is distinctive and very memorable and likely will never forget my experience of exploring his work. <br>

Anyways, since Luis asked, I wanted to throw my $.02 in for whatever its worth. But don't let me stop you guys from arguing various POV, it is enriching and amusing at the same time! :) </p>

<p>Your right Steve, ..its not bland as I stated. Its like a naturally beautiful woman who wears makeup but doesn't need it. Sometimes less is more. I think his work has appeal, but maybe its too commercial for 'purists' lol.<br>

Them's fightin words lol. :)</p>

 

 

<p><em>"I just wrote a letter to Santa. He said he would bring me a magical camera, glow in the dark models, and the famous photoshop catchlight filter this year."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

WTF?<br>

I take <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=224293290966000&set=a.222396367822359.55989.171846589544004&type=3&theater">portraits</a> for a living. I like to have catchlights in most of my shots, whether taken inside or out. I don't use any lighting or reflectors. Nor do I have a "crew" following me around in a Winnebago. </p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Ian, your photos are wonderful, love those kids.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nor do I have a "crew" following me around in a Winnebago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

That's because your Winnebago is not cool. If you were really cool, you would have a <a href="http://cdn.airforums.com/forums/attachment.php?s=d3504b765a64142e05cf0246fd68d80c&attachmentid=11327&stc=1&d=1112933446">1937 Airstream</a> with your crew in it.</p>

<p>love Ry Cooder..I think Ian is more of a 1974 Volkswagon Westfalia kind of guy. ;)</p>

TheyI look heavilyprocessed at least some of them. I wouldn,t be surprised if he used fill flash on some of the portraits,

but not positive.

<p><em>"I think Ian is more of a 1974 Volkswagon Westfalia kind of guy."</em><br>

<em><br /></em>My sisters both have Westfalia's. I want one too!</p>

<p>lol camera and westfalia..works for me.</p>

I looked at a few of the images before I couldn't look further. Too much of something and not much of something else.

I guess I agree with MH and others.

Not to say these wouldn't be appealing.

It would be a shame if we all liked and disliked the same things.

<p>A few of his shots connect for me, but I agree with Brad that they are without soul and the post exposure in Nik software seems over the top.</p>