Ed in the studio

[michael_goode1]

Howdy, y'all. I've been lurking here for awhile, and decided to post

for the first time. <p>I'm curious what you think of this, what it

makes you think about this young man.<p><img border="0"

src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=207762&size=lg"

width="400" height="500"><p>(On a secondhand note, this photo proves

that Ilford SFX does not do anything more interesting to skin tones

than does a normal film with a deep red filter, but gives a lot more

grain).

[Tony Rowlett]

About the young man, this photograph makes me feel like he was simply

asked to remove his shirt and stand still for a few moments while

being photographed. The photograph has barely any impact on me. The

subject is engaged in nothing; his expression is blank; the background

is studio-esque and boring; his posture is impatient. If this was a

fashion shot for perhaps the belt, then I'm not compelled to go out

and buy the belt.<p>

Digital: If this is a photograph to test film, nothing can be judged

from viewing only this marginal quality scan. I'm not convinced that

optics or film can be properly judged from a jpeg, anyway, unless

there is something particularly extraordinary about one or both. From

the artifacts, particularly on his arms, I believe the photograph is

sharp, it's just the scan makes it look unsharp.<p>

Composition: Pretty good!<p>

Technically, I think the contrast is ever so slightly high to portray

a person with so much skin showing.<p>

Overall: The photograph almost completely fails for me. I'm not left

wondering or asking or hanging or amazed or interested.<p>

Respectfully submitted, however.

[Tony Rowlett]

Oops. My last sentence didn't come out right. I'm interested in

your work! Please know that! It's this actual photograph that has

left me basically disinterested. Please don't take that wrong. One

great thing about this photograph is that you posted it, which is a

heck of a lot better than I've been doing lately. How about some

more.

[nigel_smith2]

either he needs a feed or I've had one too many ;)<P>He looks relaxed.

[michael_goode1]

Tony, thanks for the reply. As to the technical details of the film,

you can't tell from the jpeg, but it is from a high quality scan, and

anyway, I've printed the original neg--and the grain was noticable on

an 8x10 from a 645 neg. That would not necessarily be bad, but the

Ilford SFX doesn't do anything interesting for me with portraits

besides giving high-contrast and big grain--the tonalities are really

not that different from a normal b&w film (ilford delta) with the same

(#29) filter. <p>Part of the purpose of this roll was to see how SFX

did for portraits, but that was not the main purpose.<p>As to the

aestheticism of the image, my thoughts are that the flat lighting

doesn't do anything good for the image. I think maybe the two things I

was going for in the image probably conflicted--the purpose of the

shirt is to show his athleticism (this would be shown by other frames

on the roll that I haven't scanned), but the pose, at least how I see

it, and was trying for, emphasizes personality more than form.<p>Oh,

and Ed is a medium distance runner, which explains his physique.

[edward_kang]

if this ed is a runner, then maybe you should be looking at his butt

and legs instead of his upper body :) I recommend biking shorts.

 

<p>

 

-ed (lame photographer and also a part-time triathlete)