Your Background

cyanatic · October 25, 2013

(I’m also not very good at knowing how to attach more than one photo to a single post. No matter.)

2nd background example:

Lifeguards were running a drill at Foster Ave Beach in Chicago. Hot but overcast summer day. I wanted to create a sense of solitude and surrealism by isolating one of the lifeguards running into the water with no one else around and have the clouds and the quay and quay-light in the background. I also wanted to time it so that a wave was breaking in the foreground (it “felt” right in a geometric, placement of objects, kind of way -- I rely a lot on intuition and what feels right, as opposed to having a set formula, if that makes sense). So, in this photo, I was able to isolate one lifeguard without anyone else appearing in the photo, as well as have a wave break fortuitously at just the right time. Probably one of my more “intentional” background candids. <div></div>

lex_jenkins · October 25, 2013

Julie, just coincidentally a few days ago I read William James' quote: "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." I'd already been pondering that in another context.

When I first saw the title to this discussion, I assumed it was referring to our personal historical background.

So now I'm rearranging my own preconceived notions about whether I'm responding to what you actually meant, or what I only thought you meant.

Physical background, historical background, and physical background as a mirror or echo board for our personal historical backgrounds...

Either way, fascinating stuff. And it's helped me finally identify a more or less coherent theme in some of my photos, something elusive.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2013

Steve, I like what you did with both photos, and particularly the way the frame got divided up in the photo of Josiah. It's also rich to consider the ideas of intentionality with backgrounds and instinct. Instincts are often not as accidental as is originally thought, because they get built up over time and with much experience. They may not be so different than more intentional choices we make in that they come from us and have a lot to do with how we see things. So, though I don't see your Josiah background as having had a whole lot of thought or intentionality other than a "move here, I like the train tracks" spur-of-the-moment thought, I do see it as a product of your own photographic experience and a photographic eye you've developed. Though not much went into the thought of including that background, there is MUCH there, in the choice and in the result.

We often don't have the time or luxury to pay that much deliberate attention to backgrounds, though I do sometimes have and exploit that luxury. Yet, backgrounds being stilled by a camera somehow take on an air of more intentionality. Well, maybe that's not the right way to put it. They take on an air of more significance than they often might have seemed to be playing at the time the shot was taken. IMO, good photography demands not an intentional or deliberate long-winded consideration of background at the time of shooting but it demands an awareness that can be felt and modulated in the blink of an eye (or the time it takes to bring the camera to the eye and snap the shutter).

There's often a little more mystery, atmosphere, intrigue, and ambiguity to backgrounds than to subjects focused on, if only to say the focusing on a subject often feels like an active choice whereas the inclusion of a background often feels more like happenstance. I appreciate the sort of accidental/second-nature-but-with-awareness way that backgrounds so often have to be approached. It often gives them a commanding but much more subtle role than the subject.

cyanatic · October 25, 2013

Fred – I hope I did not come across as being against (or worse, thinking myself superior to) intentional thought in regard to backgrounds, or any other aspect of photography. Intuition is all well and good, but it can also be a mask for laziness. There are many things which I do not see as well, or as quickly, as I would like to. How many things do I miss that might have improved a given photograph? Quick example is your pointing out the way the backgrounds were divided in the photo of Josiah. You immediately saw that. I think I took that photo in early September. Know when I first noticed it? About an hour ago when I resized it for placement in this thread. “Oh! Look at that! It’s almost divided right down the middle.” I feel that I should have noticed it at the time that I took the photograph, and that it should have been utilized (or avoided) by intention.

I think I understand how much you pay attention to details. In your photo of <a href="/photo/6357458">Jeremy</a>, I doubt that either his shirt, or the background, was a happy accident. You thought about it and utilized it intentionally. Intuition is fine, but it can be enhanced by the hard work of thinking about what effect one wants to achieve and by really looking and paying attention.

I like your take on the role of mystery and atmosphere that a background can give. I can't think of any examples at the moment, but I know I have seen photographs in which, over time, the background comes more to the fore, creates an "Ah ha!" moment in the viewer, and adds a different nuance to the main subject.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2013

Steve, no you didn't come across as being against intentional thought at all. Your post just stimulated me to think about some things. It just led me to consider how much similarity there may actually be in intentionality and what appears to be instinctive thinking, and that what they share is that they are both often so influenced by experience. That was all I was trying to convey. But, of course, there are significant differences between the extremes of intentional and instinctive shooting, even though there can be a lot of overlap. I sometimes find myself wishing I could be more instinctive in my shooting and, instead of just wishing for it, I actually find myself making it happen and feeling it for what it is and noticing the results. I definitely don't think either is better per se than the other. I think there are good uses for each method regarding my own making of photographs and would like to be able to use both.

As to Jeremy, I'm not sure what I'd say other than there was some degree of instinct and some degree of thought at play. Jeremy wears those shirts and I had no input into his wearing that shirt that day. He and his family were visiting from Holland and we were going to Haight Street to see "hippies" and then to the de Young museum to see "art." We got to the de Young, which I hadn't been to many times before this as it had recently been reconstructed and as we entered the lobby, I saw the artwork on the wall which is hard to miss because of its size and blatant graphics. I quickly asked Jeremy to stand in front of it and took two or three shots. Sure, I guess I had the thought that his stripes would look cool against the polka dots but that was about it, except I do remember noticing how his big eyes worked well in the environment. I've always loved Jeremy's wide eyes, which seem to suit his personality. It wasn't planned in the way some of my other photos are, even when they're planned on the spur of the moment. Interestingly, some viewers have mentioned Andy Warhol as a reference and pop art as well. I see that here and we could discuss that endlessly, but none of that was in my reflective consciousness when I took the photo. Yet, I would never deny the influence of Warhol or pop art on my overall consciousness that might have helped in my instinctually noticing that this could make a cool photo and was particularly suited to the Jeremy I know and love.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2013

Steve, just a further thought. Looks can be deceiving, another beauty of photography! So that when I shoot relatively spontaneously, which I guess I consider the shot of Jeremy to be compared to a more planned portrait, I think I just naturally gravitate toward a sense of definition, organization, and staged-ness. I don't think the shot of Jeremy looks nearly as spontaneous as it was and it probably works best as is, which it sounds like you agree with. It looks the way it does both because of my own proclivities and way of seeing and because it's a photo of Jeremy who gets much credit from me for just being who he is, for looking like he does, and for being there for me at the time. I know a couple of photographers who I generally think of as much less organized and "stage" oriented than me who can plan a shot, even stage it, and yet the photo will have an air of spontaneity that is uncanny.

cyanatic · October 25, 2013

<blockquote>Julie H: "I do it painfully slowly (crawling around for hours picking out bits of stuff from the dirt when gathering bird-backgrounds)."</blockquote>

This interests and amazes me. Composites are so utterly intentional. Designed and conceived from the ground up (or so it seems to me). It was interesting to see one of your photos as Photo of the Week recently, because you talked about the specifics of it, and it seems that you rarely talk about your own work other than in the most general or abstract philosophical terms. I have never really created a composite, but I've found that, with only a few exceptions, my most conceived and staged photographs turn out poorly. Execution never meets the expectation of concept.

Spearhead · October 25, 2013

As much as I love finding backgrounds that work, I also find that shooting with a plain background allows working with the subject as the entire subject. It's different and you have to interact a lot with the subject at times to get something more out of it. This is comedian Tony Baker. I think I captured a lot more than<a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/gabriel-iglesias-presents-stand-up-revolution/bios/tony_baker"> his headshot on Comedy Central</a>.

charleswood · October 26, 2013

<a href="/photo/14092612">Here </a>the subject may first seem like insects in a background of back light. Or it may look like the background of back light is the subject. Placed near the middle of the right edge is a bird that is supposed to be seen only after a delay. When seen, the subject becomes a bird with the story being a bird and its prey. But without the background, the bird is uninteresting. Without the bird, the interest in the insects is kind of flat. The bird and the insects bring in 'background' as in background story (the story is simple, birds eat, are in places where there's food.) And the background becomes part of the story because it time stamps the action as late in the day when insects and birds are out.

<a href="/photo/14916352">Here </a>the background is a void, exists only to emphasize the subject.

But <a href="/photo/10913650">here </a>the background is yes, a black void. But the black background is not a meaningless void: instead the black background completes the story by suggesting the existence of a hive, brings movement into the story because the bee in its work has a familiar destination.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku">Haiku</a>. It seems to me with its shortness, and with its cutting contrast, it should be possible to do a sort of visual Haiku with photography. Background would have a prominent place in a Haiku photographic form? Are there any examples? Has anyone tried to do that before?

Julie H · October 26, 2013

Jeff Spirer, great portrait, but (topic being backgrounds) do you realize the work that the seamless does? Invisibly slipping background complications out of reach of the viewer (like putting the cookie jar on the upper shelf and closing the cabinet door). It clarifies, but it also (deliberately) limits.

Rather than doing an out-of-sight-out-of-mind, discrete removal of the background, a la Jeff and Avedon (though Jeff's has color/tone), if you make background-deprivation explicit, sometimes you can (or I can) actually "feel" it being messed with -- whereas, in general, it operates subliminally. See Brad's most recent post (the chain-link) and the "friction" that the mind experiences because of that fence. Or, even better, look at these two examples from Irving Penn.

Penn has to be one of, if not THE most anal, control-freak of photographers. A very good photographer, but an anal, control-freak very good photographer. Which means "background" is not happening in his pictures. He had the idea of doing portraits by pushing the subjects into "a small corner space" (his words) made by shoving two studio flats together. See if, when you look at these two examples, you don't "feel" your mind being boxed in, limited, prevented from playing/wandering/elaborating. And, when you click back to this thread, scroll all the examples and see if you don't feel an "Ahhhh ...!!" of liberation, like taking off a very tight pair of shoes. First Penn example is Joe Louis [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/penn_joulouis.jpg">LINK</a>]. Second is Marcel Duchamp [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/penn_duchamp.jpg">LINK</a>].

I'm going to give some examples of interesting background to illustrate, in addition to all of the very useful work posted (thank you so much -- it makes all the difference to have material in front of one while thinking about this stuff). I've chosen pictures that are 1) from photographers that are well-known, and 2) that are demonstrative without being confusing (I hope).

First, this one from Brassai [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/brassai_bar.jpg">LINK</a>]. He knew that we'd be looking at the couple on the left (two women, despite the clothing ... ). But his interest is in the man on the right. Notice, and he's contrived to make sure we notice on some level, not too deep, the hand of that man that is almost on exact center -- like a devil's fork in the back of the woman (in a dress). But further, notice near the top of the frame, those three downward pointing triangular things -- one for each figure on the left; then bounce to the right edge of the picture, and find a similar triangular (hanging cloth with shadow) that drives into the similarly shaped angle of the back of the neck of the man on the left. This picture is full of this kind of stuff.

The danger is that one can get into this kind of dissection, and, rather than letting it lead you, can start to use it in a sort of crossword puzzle, Rubik's cube kind of cleverness -- letting the tail wag the dog. The Brassai is going in that direction, for me. I don't find the structural cleverness adds to the picture other than a small buzz from the forked hand -- which he worked on so obviously.

One of Steve's pictures is, or seems to me to be (apparently accidentally, which I find hard to believe and/or amazing), doing a wonderful, delicate tip-toe dance along the horizon. The three pronged dark thing that breaks the line, the ship that rides it, the third thing that just touches it, the pier that amplifies/thickens it -- and the bent railing on the pier that echoes the woman's bent arm. And the sky mocking/answering the shadings of the water (the wave to the bright focus above the tower) etc.

The picture of Josiah, to me is a near miss, just because all lines seem to lead to (converge on) the right upper edge -- and there's nothing there to "take" the push. I think a good photographer (such as Steve) will, after all these years, have the compositional sense to get those strong lines (the scene-split and the strong structural lines on the right) quite naturally. What wants an extra bit of inspiration, to me, would be noticing Josiah's left ear (the ear on the right), the spider on his shirt, and the blurry figure (man?) in the jaws of his angled walkie-talkie. (I would mention Josiah's un-matching eyes, but everybody "gets" eyes ...)

Last (apologies for the over-long post), here are three examples of really good and yet really easy background work, all from Alex Webb:

In this first one [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/webb_paintedwoman.jpg">LINK</a>], especially notice the work done by that square piece of paper lying on the road -- how it binds the two sides together by its brightness and by its particular angle. And, (this being Webb) notice the use of color.

In this next one, [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/web_wallhat.jpg">LINK</a>] very easy, most of it too obvious to qualify as "background" if you spot the lady's face in the upper center, and pay attention to the color -- but notice, again the necessary work done by the trash in the upper left quadrant. Those bits of white (Styrofoam cups and the whitish angled line, along with the scumbled color that's in it).

Finally, this one [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/webb_redcar.jpg">LINK</a>] an obvious color composition, but how many of us can "see" the color in the reflection while shooting? It's easy to see it in the proof (too late!). Also notice the importance to the connect of the boy on the left, of the round headlight of the car on the right.

************** Lex wrote: "When I first saw the title to this discussion, I assumed it was referring to our personal historical background." Well, DUH! :) [i know people read these threads way too fast to get any too-clever double-whatevers, but I like to put them in anyway because, well, I can, and if someone gets them, it's all gravy. I feel like a five-year-old who has told a successful knock-knock joke.]

A photograph can't be a Rorschach (it *is* figure), but it can turn the tables -- we are being read.

Norma Desmond · October 26, 2013

"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Haiku</a>. It seems to me with its shortness, and with its cutting contrast, it should be possible to do a sort of visual Haiku with photography. Background would have a prominent place in a Haiku photographic form? Are there any examples?"

Maybe <a href="http://divtan.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dsc_0570.jpg?w=614&h=405">THIS?</a>

cyanatic · October 26, 2013

This has become a very rich thread, and it's a bit hard to comment and digest everything everyone has said and all the photos that have been contributed. Julie, you have remarked twice in this thread (in different contexts) to the effect that some thoughts and observations are not remarked upon, or that people go quickly through threads. Sometimes it's simply a matter of time, energy, and selective commentary. I try (and I think most of us do to a certain extent) to read all comments and look at all the links.

Getting briefly back to Fred's photo of Jeremy. I wonder how much knowledge (or assuming we have knowledge) of a given photographer plays in our interpretation of background and the intention or spontaneity of that background. If I was not familiar with your work, Fred, or your writings about your approach and methodology, I don't think that I would have so quickly jumped to the conclusion that "Jeremy" was a planned portrait. Objectively, I'm not so sure that the photo points more toward formality (planned) or spontaneity. Probably more so the latter. But, to your point that experience and prior application of intentional, planned photographic elements leads to the quick, intuitive application of them, your background was, in essence, planned. Your more formally planned portraits, and your eye for geometric elements, quickly led you to choose that background.

I went back and took a longer look at Brad's photograph. The chain link fence, it's color and the light upon it, leads me to the background of the woman framed by the various (almost ominous) shadows. And "leads" is not quite the right word. It grabs and pushes me? Not sure. The fence has a powerful effect. A very strong foreground element which I cannot avoid, yet which also serves to emphasize the background. A really nice use of the fence as a strong compositional element, as opposed to seeing it as a hindrance ("Damn! The woman against that wall in this light would be a really cool photo, if only that stupid fence wasn't in the way!")

Jeff Spirer's portrait of Tony Baker. I don't have a lot to say about this in regard to background (we've already covered that in regard to Avedon, isolating focus with a white, or monochrome, background, etc.). But...I can't let this pass without commenting:

I think I captured a lot more than his headshot on Comedy Central.

</blockquote>

Effin 'A', bubba! Personality and humor (this is a comedian, right?) bleed from your photograph. The headshot on Comedy Central isn't necessarily bad, but it shows no personality other than giving the impression of a hipster indie filmmaker. Poor poor choice of a headshot, I thought. At least in comparison to your photo of Tony.

Now, on to the Brassai photo. Julie points out a number of interesting background elements. Rubik's cube and Rorschach test indeed. As interesting as those elements may be, I suspect they are all by chance unless Brassai posed this shot (I believe Doisneau was known to do this on occasion, I don't know if Brassai ever did). Even if he did, I could imagine him posing the human elements against the bar, but not choosing that location intentionally because of the triangular cloths hanging down. But, to take the Rubik's cube even further, let's add the photographer commenting upon the Brassai photo and add <a href="/photo/8567840">her penchant for triangles </a>into the mix! ;-)

Okay. It's Saturday and I have things I must attend to. I wanted to get on to Allen, Lex, Dan, Charles, et al, but there just isn't the time. Interesting discussion.

Norma Desmond · October 26, 2013

Julie/Steve,

I read the photo of Josiah a little differently. Possibly my own bias in growing up down the block from a NYC elevated train. I hadn't noticed the linear movement to the top right Julie mentioned but do see it now. But what strikes me is that there is movement in that linear gesture and I don't think it's a drawback that the movement is away from the subject and out of the frame, if that's what Julie is getting at. Those tracks, and vibrant city life, even when distilled into a moment such as this, are constantly on the go, things and sounds and sights constantly vying for attention. That I am drawn away from a subject often enhances the portrait for me, because I can't help but come back to Josiah even if swept away for a moment. It reminds me of conversations with my brother in our bedroom, which faced the tracks about a block away. They would get interrupted by the passing train and yet, seamlessly, we would continue just having barely (if at all) noticed the train. It became, as it were, a very accepted and natural part of our background. Now that the lines of the tracks have been pointed out to me, the movement I experience simply adds to the orchestration.

charleswood · October 26, 2013

Jeff - "I think I captured a lot more than<a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/gabriel-iglesias-presents-stand-up-revolution/bios/tony_baker" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> his headshot on Comedy Central</a>."

The Comedy Central picture of Tony also works without a background. Yours, his, look to me to be traditional 'sitting' portraits where the rule is to not have a background, or to blur it entirely with shallow depth of field. What doesn't work in the Comedy Central picture is the shirt. The shirt as a prop in your photo of Tony is the better approach.

One thing that I do like about the Comedy Central shot is that Tony is pictured as 'off stage', that is, he doesn't look like he is performing part of his act before the camera. (But of course, in both shots Tony is performing).

With a comedian, the type of shots available for a publicity image are limited to generally two. One, a clowning shot where Tony looks like we would expect him to look considering that we know him for being on stage as a comedian. The second type is the 'off stage looking type' where we see him not as clown, but as one who is more than a clown who performs on stage. Both are marketing images, Comedy Central's doesn't work toward that end because of the shirt - the shirt is too busy and that is an error from which there is no recovery.

cyanatic · October 26, 2013

Fred -- Your first Haiku link ("THIS") doesn't work. The second is interesting, the face suddenly appearing between the toes. I don't know that I could come up with a visual haiku example, but I see where the "toes" one fits the bill.

Lex's gritty night shots frighten me. I want to both run, and yet also be there. Shadowy figures in the dark against nondescript slump block walls. Background and atmosphere.

Allen's images, one b&w, one color. The color version both strengthens the background, and gives a greater sense of depth. We lose detail in the woman, and a sense of depth, in the b&w version I think.

No comments on Gary Peck's images? Urban environment as background. The man against the columns, and the blue tones, give an air of power -- almost sinister. Stockbroker as villain kind of thing. Interesting processing (HDRish, tone mapping?). I can see some people being prejudiced against the photos for the processing, some liking them for the dramatic, graphic novel look it lends. I've experimented with this myself so I appreciate that type of aesthetic even if I don't really use it much anymore.

(An aside -- every time I scroll down this particular page, Jeff's shot of Tony pops out at me and makes me laugh. Almost like he's commenting on our seriousness.)

Norma Desmond · October 26, 2013

"No comments on Gary Peck's images?"

Hey! I did!

cyanatic · October 26, 2013

<blockquote><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 26, 2013; 02:27 p.m.

"No comments on Gary Peck's images?" Hey! I did!

</blockquote>

Gaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! I quit!!!! (I am laughing so hard, Fred...the irony.)

(and I claim to read everyone's posts????)

Spearhead · October 26, 2013

With a comedian, the type of shots available for a publicity image are limited to generally two.

</blockquote>

Not that it pertains to background, but I disagree completely with this. I have over 100 shots of Marlon Wayans from last week, unfortunately there's an embargo on most of them, but there is a wide variety that can be used for publicity, from in-camera to formal portrait. I'm doing one of him with the same setup as Baker next week, I can do something completely different than Baker's. That one I won't have an embargo on.

Invisibly slipping background complications out of reach of the viewer (like putting the cookie jar on the upper shelf and closing the cabinet door). It clarifies, but it also (deliberately) limits.

</blockquote>

I disagree. Removing background "complications" inserts a whole other set of complications into a portrait, and it only "clarifies" if the photographer does the "clarification." I've shot with backgrounds where I could do almost anything with the subject and it would work because it does, like this one:

charleswood · October 26, 2013

If I was going to do some sort of Haiku with an opportunity to photograph say a Tony Baker: First, and this is all a new sort of 'exercise' in trying to get contrast and story into an image, working with figure and ground and other visual elements: first compose a brief poem in my mind riffing off the visual elements. It would be an attempt in a simple poem to grasp what I am trying to say in the image. So with Tony I might look for the contrast between Comedy and Tragedy and try and bring that out in a verbal poem. It won't be a good poem, but would be a grasping for something to express. And it wouldn't be in proper form as Haiku, but form isn't strangling in that genre anyway. But in looking for contrast in story: in comedy I find rage sublimated into a humorous form, comedy itself as an art form using contrasts to trigger laughter at things we really just can't stand. Also, to try and achieve clarity in thought and purpose, I might turn my mental poetry exercise into a sort of performance art, me acting out in gesture, me trying to tease from my own nature a depth of story that I might not get to if I didn't act it out physically. Tony is a master of contrast and it is that connection between subject and background that with intention formed in the poem, both verbal and acted out in a sort of performance art all done before I clicked the shutter: now at least I have a chance of having something genuine to say in the visual art called photography. If I visualize my camera as a Samurai sword, whose point I want to focus and energize: maybe then, maybe then....

charleswood · October 26, 2013

OK Jeff, I agree that there is certainly variety in those photographs. My point was/is a sweeping generalization, more narrowly applied to real actors, but the same point the bard made: all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players. I literally mean that an entertainer/actor is either in character or they are not in character. Either in or not in character can be the only types from which publicity photos can be made. At some point in exploring the 'out of character' public figure: it isn't a publicity photo any more.

The woman in your next picture: she is playing and for me, for no reason, just silliness. But it is an environmental portrait. The background means a lot to me, more than just that it has complications. PERSONAL ASSOCIATIONS TO A PUBLICLY POSTED WORK OF ART PRESENTED FOR ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY. CONTAINS PSYCHOLOGISMS AND DISORGANIZED OUT OF CONTEXT THINKING SO BEWARE: Here to me the background suggests that her inner life is entirely culturally derived, a parade of substance-less- imagery she has constructed as a personality mainly in opposition to an unsuitable dominant culture. The rub is that she has created for herself a new culture that dominates her and which is just so much dissatisfying noise; just so much noise and seeming complication that she can't see the forest for the trees. Still, she is holding a bottle of booze. Her search for genuine spirit therefore complicated by her reaching into a bottle for spirit as the antidote to the illness that our dominant culture is. But how can that illness of dominant culure be replaced by a culture that isn't also infected? The spider on her dress is our warning that all is not what it seems, although really, is this a Halloween shot? Nevertheless, the spider, the 'Other' represents a source of a healing venom, a path to true spiritual differentiation..... and on and on

charleswood · October 26, 2013

Anyway, I'm not sure why, except for name dropping and self- aggrandizement, a picture of a celebrity with such an elementary and basic principle from portraiture such as using a screen as used for over 100 years is presented as an honest example of use of background.

Spearhead · October 26, 2013

Well I don't name drop but I do credit the people in my pix when it's appropriate. I have certain restrictions on usage. There is no self-aggrandizement. Maybe that is why you would do it, but it certainly has nothing to do with me. I have posted hundreds of photos here, often crediting the people in them whether they are known or not. Seems like you have made all sorts of wild comments about my later photo with absolutely no validity to those comments. You don't get youth culture, that's obvious, so try to understand instead of making all caps out-of-context statements.

Other types of backgrounds have been used for over 100 years, some demonstrated above, and you didn't make any accusations. Seems like there's some sort of issue here that has nothing to do with photography or philosophy.

Spearhead · October 26, 2013

With a comedian, the type of shots available for a publicity image are limited to generally two

</blockquote>

Show us some of yours. I don't feel limited. I'd like to see why you do.

charleswood · October 26, 2013

Jeff, we can agree to disagree on a lot of things. For example, I do understand bits about youth culture, but from my own personal perspective. In any event, I do get a lot out of your picture of the young woman and her environs. I appreciate that you put it up for discussion.

charleswood · October 26, 2013

"Show us some of yours. I don't feel limited. I'd like to see why you do."

No one would hire me to either fly an airplane, drive a truck, or photograph someone in the entertainment industry, or anywhere else for that matter. I don't feel those facts as a constraint of any kind. In fact, its kind of liberating. I don't have to fly an airplane, I don't have to drive a truck, I don't have to photograph someone in the entertainment industry or anywhere else for pay. Those aren't my jobs.

Sign In

Your Background

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in