www.gadsby.net/photoboy.html

[j_gadsby]

ya'll tell me what you think please

www.gadsby.net/photoboy.html

[jkantor]

Bear with me if I'm honest. You have some incredible work on your site

- as well as some that is pretty mediocre (technically and

artistically). You have done what a lot of photographers (and models)

do in their portfolios: collect all the pictures that mean something

to you regardless of whether they fit thematically with the style you

are attempting to develop. Just learn to be a bit more selective and

objective about your work. (If necessary, create separate galleries

for other types of images.) But I wish I had the kind of imagination

you show in your best stuff.

 

<p>

 

(As a side note, some of the scans, particularly on the first couple

of pages were a bit dark on my pc.)

 

<p>

 

By the way, are you still in Sarasota as the article mentions? I grew

up in St. Pete and live north of Tampa now. (And commute to a day job

in Orlando!)

[j_gadsby]

mr. kantor

 

<p>

 

thanks for taking the time to look, yes, still in sarasota. do me a

favor and point out where you think i'm lacking technically, i pride

myself on doing perfect film development, (can't make a perfect print

with an imperfect negative) and immaculate printing, granted, i'm not

using top of the line enlargers, but i am generally pretty effective

in getting what i want on paper. i tend to print a little dark, just

a leftover from a teacher that hated grayed out, light, wishy washy

prints. i usually strive for and get real high contrast prints. i

think maybe some of the ones that are dark to your eyes are because i

wanted them that way, though if the majority finds lighter prints

pleasing, stuff for public comsumption should be lightened up a bit,

don't make any money if you don't sell, right? :) give me some

examples if you have the time and the inclination please. i really

appreciate you taking the time you have already to look and tell me

what you think. i have a hard time sometimes with scans cause i scan

them one place and take the files home to put them online, my main

workstation at home has a monitor with a gamma problem, all of it

looks dark to me, ya know. i keep having to look at the pic, then

open it on another box and try to find a happy median. once again,

thank you very much for the compliments and yer time. hope to hear

back from you soon.

sincerely j gadsby

[alan1]

Okay - here's my opinion with specific references to specific photos.

If you don't have a thick skin. read no further. <p>

First off, throw out all the solarizing, sabbatier, high contrast and

collage stuff. I could tell you why, but that would just irritate both

you and I. Is it sufficient to tell you that such work may be

entertaining for the photographer to do once or twice, but for the

viewer its boring? If we throw out all the solarized, hi contrast,

etc., it gets rid of about half.<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/annsm.jpg --- chopping people up into little

artsy fragments shows us nothing about the people -- just their little

parts. I'm not particularly interested in nipples and elbows without

the people these parts belong to. You may as well be photographing

fruit or flowers if you are going to abstract your subject in this way.

On some level, to turn someone into an artsy fragmnent -- I think its

kind of insulting to your subject.<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/trishsm.jpg --- my rule of thumb: if it's not an

interesting picture WITHOUT the hand coloring, it's probably not much

better with it. If you want to use a brush, buy some canvas. There is

probably no real good way to photograph someone wearing raccoon eye

makeup squatting under a dark tree with the background blown out -

maybe you should wash her face and bring her out into the light?<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/jenna-jamesonsm.jpg --- is there any reason you

like this picture other than the size of those tits?<p>

http://www.gadsby.net/brainiacs_daughter.jpg --- too dark. I know your

art teacher told you to print contrasty, but lets face it -- he didn't

know what he was talking about. I can't see the woman's feet. I can't

see the legs of the guy sitting on the bumper. The lower half of the

picture is black mush. Availible light can only do so much when you

want to shoot art rockers dressed in black in a garage. The guy on

the left - his face is way too dark. These people look too posed for

this to be a "casual" shot but not posed enough for this to be an

effective group shot - in other words, they look uncomfortable and like

they don't know what they are doing but theres this photographer there

so... I mean, the way that woman is standing, it looks like there's a

pole up her butt. Look at someone like Irving Penn to see how he

photographs groups. Every gesture and body in a Penn is as carefully

considered as a figure in a rennaisance painting -- and that applies

whether he is shooting a garage band or a group of CEOs.<p>

I know I haven't been very nice oin my review -- but I have at least

tried to be honest. That should count for something. If you don't

like my review, you can retaliate by a savage review of my work on this

forum. http://alandale.freeservers.com

[jkantor]

By technical, I was primarily talking about elements concerned with

the taking of the picture: the lighting, composition, and things like

depth-of-field in some of your non-manipulated pics. (I can't see your

original, but I believe you when you say you take a great deal of care

with them.)

 

<p>

 

For a couple of examples:

 

<p>

 

The background in verosm seems detracts a lot to my eye. It's not

blurred out, yet it's a drab scenes of middle greys which diminishes

the impact of the silhouette. In fact the visible portion of the tube

isn't much better. Verobeach2a succeeds for all the reasons verosm

doesn't. Print verosm ultrahighcontrast and make them a diptych.

 

<p>

 

With Roen1 and 2, I can't tell whether you failed in what you

attempted (an actual glamour look of some kind) - or were purposely

creating this effect - as it looks like in steph1. I'd only believe

the latter if I saw these in the context of more works which played on

similar conventions.

 

<p>

 

This is the same problem with mj, self2, and the iguana - which seem

to be just snapshots - without any subject matter, compositional

elements, lighting, or color to give them any compelling interest - or

any evidence that you are specifically trying to break some of these

conventions.

 

<p>

 

A lot of your other images (like steph1) are quite interesting,

however. In fact, I didn't think anyone could show me a solarized

image that didn't look cliched, but bergblue is amazing. You should

definitely start by organizing these pictures by stylistic categories,

so that your pictures have some context in which to be appreciated.

And start winnowing out the ones that aren't outstanding. Overall,

people will form their impression of you from only two of your

pictures - your best and your worst. It only takes one clunker to

bring your stock down a lot.

 

<p>

 

I also like your website design. It's simple and clean. But the intro

text is just a bit pretentious considering your style (and if it's a

joke, it's not clear that it is). And I love Braniac's Daughter - but

I had to get within 3" of the screen to read the writing (once I

realized that it, in fact, was writing) and realize that it was a

hotspot.

[j_gadsby]

cool, have 2 people to answer, start with the first one first. Mr.

Dale, thanks for taking the time to look at my stuff, ummmm you were

pretty harsh, thats ok, they say everybody has an opinion, right?

yeah, the pic of the pornstar is just for the tits, and that i met

her, sorry, i work as stage and tour management for rock bands, i

meet lots of famous folks, you called that one to a t. about the

sabbatier stuff, no, no solarized, all sabbat. i get more good

comments about those than just about any other of my work, yours is

the first bad one i've ever had. so you don't like the litho

posterizations and offset pos/neg litho prints, i do and this is

about my art and vision, right? i sell these, they win prizes in

shows, where is the part that i'm doing wrong? the inside of the

elbow and the nipple, i liked the line in that vision, i was standing

over the model and looked down through my machine and saw that, so i

captured it :) the scan on brainiacs is a bit darker than the print,

sorry, the band loved it, that was who i was shooting for. look, i

dont mind criticism, but everything you had to say was negative,

that's ok too everyone has their own opinion......

i only have a couple things to say about your stuff, i try not to cut

off any of my subjects body, that's the way i was taught to shoot

people, all yours are whacked at the waist. i think your pics are

nice and pretty and "technically proficient", but i find them boring,

nothing makes you look twice to say "what the hell is that" yeah, i'm

abstract, i try to push the envelope, jerry uelsmann is my hero,

http://www.uelsmann.com/ i find ansel adams boring too, yer in good

company

most of my own prints are 11x14 and 16x20, they dont fit into my

scanner, and i dont trust anyone else to touch my stuff like that, my

site is only a fair representation of my work. to me you seem to be a

hardcore old-schooler, thats ok, if thats what makes you happy. keep

on shooting, that's why we do it, cause we like it............

............................

.............................................

 

<p>

 

for the second, Mr. Kantor,

 

<p>

 

thank you again for looking and your comments, i realize verosm is a

far from perfect print, i guess that i was just trying to draw

attention to the figure and the circle around her, i have numerous

other prints of that, all different, i never stopped to look past

what i saw in the pic, i realize now how washed out the rest of the

pic is, thanks for pointing that out, i'll try to find a better print

or two to put up, give me a week or so, i'll email ya when they're

up. yes, mj, self2 and daliguana are just snapshots, i just liked

them, the iguana has been used twice by others, self2 is a vanity pic

(sorry everyone, haven't done a better one of myself) an mj was for a

friend, allthough i kinda like the depth of field on that one, like

the framing of the grass too.

i think i'll take your advice and reorginize the pics into more

definite categories, i would appreciate your advice on how you think

i should do this, it's all just my work to me. yeah, the intro java

was meant to be a joke, i don't do commision work, :) i make art, and

sometimes people rent or buy it, sometimes i show alone or with one

or two others, i don't actively seek to, but i do sell stuff. give me

a hollar back when you can, here or my email, either is ok. if you

would ever like a print of anything, just ask, it's yours

 

<p>

 

thanks again, hope to hear from you soon

 

<p>

 

keep shooting...........j gadsby

[alan1]

<i>i get more good comments about those than just about any other of my

work, yours is the first bad one i've ever had. so

you don't like the litho posterizations and offset pos/neg litho

prints, i do and this is about my art and vision, right? i sell these,

they win prizes in shows, where is the part that i'm doing

wrong?</i><p>

"Yall tell me what you think please..."<p>

The problem is I see the technique, not the picture. Start with that

thought and you'll eventually arrive at why I don't hold with all that

eccentric darkroom work.<p>

[jkantor]

I had assumed that your splash page picture was Brainiac's Daughter

since that's the name that pops up with the cursor. However, the

picture is actually neur1. But I like the actual pic of Brainiac's

Daughter as well, though I did assume that the scan was darker than

the original.

 

<p>

 

I have to disagree with a lot of Alan's remarks. He seems to be

wanting to convert you to his style of photography (which I also like

by the way). I liked Trishsm and it looked like you intended the

effect you achieved. Annsm is killer.

 

<p>

 

Another aspect of presenting your work is the audience. Effects

like the solarization/sabbatier one (which I don't know much about)

are probably quite popular with nonphotographers. It's just that we

have seen it all so often before.

[twmeyer]

The interesting thing about criticism, is that you can learn more

about the critic than you can about the... ah.. victim?... er...

perpetrator?... eh... artist? <p>

 

Hi John, I'm gonna fall somewhere between these two guys. I've also

seen too much sabattier to be distracted from the other aspects of an

image by it's employment. I haven't identified any sabattier images

that I think are well put together. <p>

 

But that brings up the point Mr. Kantor raises. You need to organize

the site better. I haven't looked at every image because you're all

over the place and I don't remember which I've seen and which are

kinda the same as that other one maybe, but <i>hey</i>... it's the

same picture!... but solarized and what's this astrophotography doing

here oh it's an oil slick now where was I oh yeh what's this smeary

red thing but wait is that girl naked and crawling around in a

bathroom?<p>

I get worn out just trying to figure out what I've seen and so I'll

come back in a month and try again.<p>

But the elbow/breast picture isn't organzed (composed) well enough,

that band picture is too blocked up and (Alan's right) they look

unsure. And why even include the shot of the guy in the doorway...

totally uninteresting. (<i>Edit!</i>) <p> The green girls smokin' in

the parkin' lot is definately my favorite, very edgy. But lots of the

pictures of girls seem kind of trite (the projected pattern should

just be on the wall, not the girl. It looks like she's got a rash and

who thought of that pose? What is she <i>doing?</i>...speaking of

which the crawlin' girl just doesn't work (in an old bathroom?). The

light on her face looks accidental, and the dress is blocked up so I

can't tell if her breasts are bare or it's a lowcut blouse. John K.,

would you speak to that issue please: How to make people look like

they have a mind of their own (or the photographer/A.D. does) and

aren't just doing something weird/aimless for the camera... I'll

whine more later, if you want... t

[jkantor]

The key is consistency and context. If you can show a number of

pictures in a similar style that exhibit obivious control over the

technique, then your viewers will leave with a definite impression of

what you can do.

 

<p>

 

I suggest you create one gallery for your highly manipulated images,

another for your more traditional portraits (like Brainiac's Daughter

and steph1); another for abstract images like the fragmentary nude,

and another for the very avant-garde people shots.

 

<p>

 

However, if you are really interested in making a living as a

photographer, you need to pick a couple of these areas (at most) and

concentrate on them. (Keep experimenting and stretching your skills,

but don't post a style until you have a true portfolio.)

 

<p>

 

And you are going to have to solve the problem of getting good

representations of your work on the internet - otherwise it's only

counterproductive to post them.

[j_gadsby]

thanks john and tom, i'll probably start working on the new layout

this weekend, and be asking yer advice along the way ( if that's ok

with ya'll, and u have the time) just to point out one thing that

keeps coming up, i don't really have one particular style, nor am i

really looking to fence myself in by leaning in that direction, i

realize most professional photographers do, but i guess i think of

myself as an artist first, i just try to capture or create the visions

that i see. thanks again for your input, both positive and negative,

thats what i was looking for :) be talking n posting soon........

 

<p>

 

john gadsby

[jkantor]

As I pointed out in another post (I'm not sure whether here or on the

Philosophy of Photography forum), unfortunately, to be successful as

an artist of any kind in our society you have to commodify yourself by

creating an identifible image by which people can recognize your work

(and you).

 

<p>

 

That doesn't mean you have to limit what you do - just be very careful

about how you present it. Pick one of the styles that you like that

you also think has a market and emphasize that. (That is, if you want

to make some money doing this. If not, then you can do whatever you

want.)

[twmeyer]

Yeah, I think that's very good advice. It's dependant on a good dose

of patience, of which this internet thing is the antithesis. If you

were presenting this work through a gallery type exhibition, you'd

really see the value of developing a style to a higher degree of

sophistication before incurring the expense of mounting a "brick and

mortar" exhibit, so to speak. Plus, a real gallery, well managed,

would never allow such a schizophrenic collection of images to be

shown, without an intense edit and careful sequencing and grouping.

Self editing is one of the greatest challenges a photographer, or any

artist, must face, and a skill that <i>must</i> be either developed,

or hired out... t

[j_gadsby]

thanks again tom and john, i'm starting to develop the new site as you

read this, going to scan a bunch of new stuff and catagorize my stuff

and layout the site a little nicer, (already changed that presumptious

java up front) keep up the comments, will inform you as new things

happen and will continue to value your thoughts and assistance

 

<p>

 

peace........john

[j.r._farrar]

Coming from the anal person that I am, I'm sure most people who know

me would be suprised at what I'm about to write. I really like your

work. One of the things I like best is the disorganization of

everything. So what if there is no theme within the same page of

pictures. I think it shows the outside the lines kind of thinking

that is important. It is way to easy to organize and judge it is much

harder, ala Alan, to step away from the norm: perfect lighting,

perfect composition, etc. There are too many "perfect" pictures. I

also like that you threw in a few snapshot type pics. They make you

seem real and I think really associated the artist with the photos.

 

<p>

 

Yours are different and it's one of the first photo sites I spent

some time on. I've gone through your pages more than a dozen times

now. There are some I don't care for, but why would I ever think I

would like every single one of someones photos?

 

<p>

 

I will agree about verosm, that is a great shot, but would be much

better with a vastly different background. I'm not sure it would look

good with more contrast or blown out, but it has potential.

 

<p>

 

Keep up the good work!

 

<p>

 

J.R.

[j_gadsby]

Mr. Farrar,

 

<p>

 

thanks for taking the time to go and look at my work. thank you also

for the praise. it seems that you look at what i do a bit closer to my

own vision than most old-school photographers. like i have said

before, i guess i'm an artist first, as i go by my vision and

inspiration, rather than by the accepted structures of the mainstream

photo world. I just choose photography as a medium to express

what i see. alas, i am going to tidy up the site a bit, there is

something to be said for at least the hint of order. but probably not

go as far as to satisfy the majority of my peers. it fills my heart

with joy to read a critique like yours, this is the kind of response i

generally get, but from john q public, not from adams, walker, etc

clones. structure to me is to predictable, boring, yeah, you get good

photographs, but it doesn't blow me away to take a perfect pic of a

perfect subject with perfect light and composition. i guess a lot of

the comments prior to yours will have to be taken into consideration

in order to facilitate an accepted entrance into the world of gallery

owners and the public shows. that won't stop me from following my

heart though, and that to me is what art is all about.

 

<p>

 

thanks for your thoughts,

 

<p>

 

sincerely, john gadsby

[alan1]

You guys are right. The masses just love your pictures so why do

anything different? Why even ask a dinosaur like me who is so anal

that he bothers to change his chemistry once in a while what I think?

What I tell you will just interfere with your very forward looking

vision, never mind that it was boring when Man Ray did it in 1920.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

I'll try it in plain speech....quit concerning yourself with "art" or

"artistic photographs" many of the photos on you site would be much

more appealing without the manipulations. You simply are not an artist

or even artistic yet...you have too much craft to learn. I agree with

Alan and t...at some point we've all been through this overly creative

stage and it's always soon after we grasp the basics and we know, John

Allen, exactly what it means...for both you and Man Ray. It means you

are masking poor techniques in the name of "creativity" but Man Ray

did it first so you don't have to. I tutor many students and I've

seen this trait in nearly every one and I let them do it despite my

feelings...I only pray that they don't get stuck there. It can be

very fun and invigorating to your work but don't develope a fetish for

infrared or others to the exclusion of learning your craft. I'm as

guilty as the next...I have one solarization that I'm quite fond of

despite it's trite nature....just one. I have hand tinted and labored

over gum prints and platinotypes...and I learned some valuable lessons

in terms of alt processes...tricks that I use to this day in more

"straight" photos but the most important thing I've learned is that

you don't need to use these techniques but once in a blue moon and

only with an image which might be enhanced by the process and never,

ever used to cover poor techniques or in the name of creativity. So

John Allen, the truth is that I've seen a million of these types of

images. The last thing in the world you need right now is to listen

to a photoclub judge, or a critic....you at this point need to learn

more than they know and never seek awards or money or praise and

realize that when someone coo's over your work.... filter that praise

with what they know of photography.

 

<p>

 

good luck,

 

<p>

 

Trib

[j_gadsby]

geez, dont you guys have anything better to do than cut people down?

i'm going to be putting up more of my straight edge stuff, i'm looking

forward to ya'll tearing them apart too :)

i have had a lot of input from professional photographers, not an

artist huh? look at yourself first before you bust my ass. sorry i

don't work for olan mills pthbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

 

<p>

 

jg

[alan1]

<i>i have had a lot of input from professional photographers, not an

artist huh?</i><p>

Yep. And one of the professionals you have had input from is me. I

have been supporting myself on photo dollars alone for 4 years -- no

pizza delivery job, no waiting tables, no government grant, no trust

fund, no checks from mom. You can ignore my opinion if you like.<p>

<i>look at yourself first before you bust my ass. sorry i don't work

for olan mills pthbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.</i> Or you can look at my work

and respond in kind. I'm not afraid of what anyone can say about it -

but its only fair to warn you - I'm not interested in anyone elses

suggested changes. <a href="http://members.xoom.com/symmar">http://

members.xoom.com/symmar</a>

[twmeyer]

<i>Self editing is one of the greatest challenges a photographer, or

any artist, must face, and a skill that must be either developed, or

hired out... </i> unfortunately, grace under fire is also a learned

skill. Feeling a little shell shocked? This is all well intentioned

criticism, and pretty tame as far as this crowd goes. Believe me,

trib's got his kid gloves on. We all get as good as we give, so

toughen up and quit whining, it'll only make things worse. Oh, and

those little smiley faces are like red flags in the bullpen around

here... t <p>Try this place if you want more compliments<p>

www.photocritique.com<p>

[twmeyer]

whoa! I've never been to that site! I meant this one (oops)...

http://www.photocritique.net/<p>

sorry... t

[j_gadsby]

you know, i've thanked you for your time and opinions already, but

i'll do it again, thanks trib, john, tom jr. i do respect your

opinions and advice and work. i will be redoing my site and it will

include a lot more straight photos. this will take some time. alan,

i've already said everything i have to say about your work. you can

keep adding your opinions if you want, if they're constructive, i'll

read them, if they keep being destructive, i won't.have a wonderful

day

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

we wouldn't waste the keystrokes if we didn't think you were worth it!

 

<p>

 

cool yer shit and remember...these are our opinions and they shouldn't

given undue weight. You start reading every photo text you can and

shooting tons of film and then come back here and make us feel like

assholes...you can do it...

[j_gadsby]

thanks trib, i'm workin on it