The Lady Takes a Sailor

Do you have one exactly like this, without her face showing? The subject is "A lady takes a sailor," but she looks more interested in the camera.

Dmitry's automobile fantasy series is not bad in general, but this one is a throw out. For a

contrived setup shot I am amazed how thoughtless the image presents itself. If the subject

is a woody and the sailor is a black man and the girl is a twirling tease and the car has no

driver ( which means no competition for the sailor ) what are we suppose to deduce? I

won't go there. If the shot is composed by the photographer, why didn't he remove the

elements of the scene which clutter it up? Why is the lighting so bad that we have trouble

making things out. In my opinion this POW is an example of how to blow the moment. It is

proof how important the details are in relation to the whole. The fantasy motif is

successful though, and maybe some of us are seduced by the girl, but try to imagine the

picture without her. There really isn't anything else. It's just another version of the girl and

the car. We can only hope that the woody's got enough wood for the girl. The sailor

seems to be carrying his on his shoulder.

I think Dmitry is trying say by stating...'the lady takes a sailor' meaning she catches his attention! As it not occurred to you all she may be dancing? lovely sunny day, out for a drive?? a little flirtatious ?

The shot is superb, tone, capture and Dmitry,s perception . 7/7 for me.

Here is what I found interesting: when someone requests for critique for his picture, he most likely gets a many comments like "nice job", but when the status of this nice job changes, he/she gets an actual critique.

 

Of course it's a posed shot. It is hard to meet a sailor, the lady in a 50's dress and a woody these days. It is also true that there are some accidents in this photo, which is actually not my favorite, although I definitely like it. I was a bit surprised when this picture got very high ratings on different photo forums and was published in a car magazine's center spread.

Sailor's finger is a bad accident. Honestly, I did not notice that until now, since I grew up in the culture where this gesture does not mean anything. The car without a driver is not an accident. This is an element of the staged background, like theatrical decoration, or you may think that the lady drove a car towards an ocean side, stopped the car at the harbor and surprised the stranger, which happened to be a sailor during his harbor routine work. Why not? You do not expect from a one movie frame to contain too much information about the movie plot, right? HE IS LOOKING AT HER and this is the only subject he is looking at. This optimized picture is a bit distorted due to resizing when uploading (which I was not aware of), and it is very obvious on the high-resolution picture.

 

As I said before, this is a nice and very valuable feedback. I really appreciate everybodyﾒs attention and time. But there is no need to be "jealous" of the things like "settings or wardrobe". Sharing images or information is not the same thing as sharing food. We're all have hands, brains and cameras. Just do it.

While I am been taking pictures for decades I have never read the critique of a photograph before and it was beyond interesting to see all the responses to a picture. A true art form. Since I have no artistic ability I will leave the picture taking to the artists. Darn good photograph.

Cliche. At first glance I hated the photo. On second glance, hated it even more. The photo

is a play on a warn out Marilyn Monroe pose, the car seems a bit goofy, and adds nothing

other than screaming at you "THIS IS THE 1940'S!!!!!!!!!!" To me, it idolizes a time period

which never really existed. Like a bad neo-impressionist painting of crashing waves sitting

perched next to a stuffed lobster in some campy Camden, ME gift store, I rolled my eyes

insisting that we "move on already".

 

That said, on third glance from a more postmodern conceptual standpoint - the

photograph becomes a bit more interesting. Whether intended or not it begins to

comment on our views of 1940s glamour and our tendency to idolize the past and confuse

idealistic fiction with fact. The Marilyn Monroe appropriation seems fitting. The "stagey",

and "fantasy" qualities seem to fit better in this interpretation as it becomes the fantasy of

what war-time America, rather than how it really was.

 

The movie quality also says something about how we gather information about history.

 

If this is not the artist's intent, all the better. One thing which is unmistakable, the

photograph does on some level represent the photographer's view of what the 1940's

were or should have been.

Actually the 1940's did REALLY exist. A few folks fought in wars, some died. Tri-x was born, coated lenses came out more. The war surplus film we used as kids was many times tri-x sheet film. Split windshields tended to go away in the late 1940's. Folks remembered VE and VJ day, and the missing neighbors, the moms next door that lost a son, the neighbor who "didnt" seem right after returning home due to the horrors of war. Then there were these legends that "they" crushed and buried thousands of war dept speed graphics in a trench, to not ruin the camera market. Folks drank 6 oz cokes, were not so fat, and whining was considered the mark of a child.

"HE IS LOOKING AT HER and this is the only subject he is looking at ..." Dmitry Popov

 

... and the problem is that it's not so obvious, hard to say also from the larger version by detailed inspection of his face. So the photo doesn't work. Maybe it's a monitor black point issue I will check it at home on LCD. Otherwise the photo is very nice from aesthetical point of view.

Many, even very intelligent viewers will critique subject matter they like or don't or an approach that is their own or would have been their own or not. I think that imposes too much of themselves onto the work of another. We are human and we admire that which validates ourselves and fault that which is different.

Of course this is staged and the photog isn't trying to hide that fact. Therefore criticism that it looks staged is unfair. It's knowing that it's staged while at the same time being compelled by the well-executed fantasy that is it's charm for me. It is "pretend" and doesn't pretend to be anything more.

Still I would expect to see this as an advertisement in a magazine rather than hanging in a gallery. The difference is in how seriously we regard the photo. This has outstanding technical excellence and many may look no further but it is the profundity of the idea which distinguishes art for me.

I congratulate you on this and the entire series for an original idea executed with professional results to popular success.

Kelly, the Cokes I remember were 6.5 ounces, I believe, and I remember when they went from $.05 to $.06--and then suddenly to $.10, to everyone's outrage, but that was all in the fifties. I really don't remember the forties, but I believe that they existed, since I am now sixty-one years old and must have been born some time or another in the forties. Let me get my calculator. . . .

 

I frankly like this picture, staged though it may be. It is so self-consciously about the forties that it makes me want to go back and see Jack Nicholson in "The Two Jakes" again. I think that I would have liked Jo Stafford, too. Ah, the nostalgia for what I never really knew. . . .

 

--Lannie

I have read a lot of going back and forth over the "set up" remarks that have been made

here and I feel, at least from my point, a little splainin' might be in order.

 

First, since we all know that this is not a vintage photograph, it is of course a set up. That

is a

given and not the meaning I was putting forth, nor others from how I read the comments.

 

Second, I think when we do a piece like this--or a series as Dmitry has done, we generally

make a decision on where we want to fall on the spectrum, and unfortunately, falling in

the middle, as this work does, is a fatal mistake. Do we "make" it look set up or do we

"make" it look real. I think the problem for me here is that the work, as a whole, doesn't

seem to know its place. When I say we might make it look set up, in a way I mean make it

a bit Kitschy, poke a little fun along the way. Here I think it has a bit of Kitsch, but just not

enough and the series is very inconsistent in either camp. So this piece, and the series of

work, just falls short for me.

 

A problem in the presentation of this work is that it has not been prefaced that it, and the

series apparently, were shot for an automotive magazine. In fact, even on the web site the

photos are presented as if they are a personal series with an afterthought added that they

were made for the magazine. I think not being outfront with this being shot for a

magazine also draws a bit more scrutiny on artistic levels than if we know a magazine,

with a certain goal, commissioned the work. This does not mean that commissioned work

gets to be less, but it does explain why maybe the car is central and the other actors do

not obscure it in anyway. At least that was my original thought, but then there are others

where the people cover the car, leaving one to wonder what was the criteria.

 

This photo, as well as the others, are generally nicely done technically. But they are very

uneven in their artistic execution and some, like the beefcake sailor in a couple of others,

really

beg the question as to what the series is all about. A magazine may require certain

compromises to meet their needs for publication, however, those compromises need to be

removed when we present work and we need to present a cohesive and coherent series if

it is to be taken seriously. Also, it is always beneficial to shoot alternatives that maintain

our own vision when shooting for a client, my experience is that they never want them, but

always use them in the end.

Perfect synthesis and color tones. I like also the perspective. Bravo Dmitry. Regards Michael.

Nice shot, indeed. However, as I read that people are seeing a story in this image, I don't. I see three props from a period peice. There is a stern looking black sailor who may be trying to deal with his place as a veteran in a post-wwII america that still treats him as a second class citizen. Then there is a very attractive woman who is hamming for a photographer (the way that she's acting at the camera makes the photographer and camera very present in this image in my opinion, anyway). And then there is an old car, which seems to be saying, "Sixty years earlier..."

 

I have to think that more shots were taken... is there one of maybe the woman on one side of the car, moving flirtatiously while locking her gaze on the sailor. The sailor remaining stoic because of the social mores that stand between him and the woman, and the car standing between them as a symbol of the segregation at the time. In the 40s and 50s, roads to upper class neighborhoods and beaches were spanned by low bridges that kept public transportation out-- who used public transportation? Poorer poeple who were largely minorities... Hmmm...

 

I like the pic though... but as it is, it seems too cute and without direction...

Off topic note: Coca Cola bottles went from 6 to the larger 6 1/2 Oz size about in the mid 1950's. The bottles are labled "MIN CONTENTS 6 1/2 FL OZS", The older design patent for the 6 oz bottle is D-105529., and werr made in the late 1930's to mid/early 1950's. When my dad was a kid, Coca Cola bottles were hand blown.

Exposure is perfect indeed (very complete range).

Good technique, fun stuff, and yet... I have mixed feelings...

 

Firstly, I'd like to say, that unlike other posters, I'm very much into set-up photography - whether commissionned or just for my own fun, and so, I had an immediate interest in Dimitri's portfolio, and commented on several of his pictures, which I liked a lot. I kind of like this POW, but only to a certain extent. I feel it's an excellent choice for a POW discussion, and I feel the discussion has been very good, with lots of interesting points well stated by many posters both on the side of those who liked it and those who didn't.

 

This vignette feels a bit "Photoshoppy" as it was executed here, and certainly that wasn't intended - there was no Photoshop back in the 40s. :-)

 

This car, "just sitting there", could be there for commercial reasons only. And indeed, Dmitry confirms that the picture " was published in a car magazine's center spread".

 

"The low POV to get a shot up the lady's skirt puts the car in a dominant position in the near centre of the image, this distracts. The 3 separate subjects are spaced out and disconnected."

 

Agreed. But there again, the car SHOULD have a dominant position IF this was shot for a client who was aiming mainly at showing this car. Still, my regret, even if I take this as a commercial shot, would be the "disconnection" part. Dmitry could have somehow connected better the different elements of his fantasy.

 

"The subject is "A lady takes a sailor," but she looks more interested in the camera."

 

Yes, indeed. While this is "okay" from a commercial standpoint again - she's actually "calling the viewer into the picture" -, I wish the viewer could have something more to chew, once he enters...

 

"Has it not occurred to you all she may be dancing?" -

 

I did occur to me, very much so, but I'd add: dancing for the camera, for the viewers, to tease YOU & I, as much as the sailor, and that?s fun imo.

 

"From a more postmodern conceptual standpoint - the photograph becomes a bit more interesting. Whether intended or not it begins to comment on our views of 1940s glamour and our tendency to idolize the past and confuse idealistic fiction with fact."

 

True as well. And this quite nicely complements, imo, the commercial value of this photo.

 

"It's knowing that it's staged while at the same time being compelled by the well-executed fantasy that is it's charm for me. It is "pretend" and doesn't pretend to be anything more."

 

Right. And I'd add: this is what most humorous commercial set-ups do. Advertising isn't trying to make you believe what you see, but just to make you buy a product - even though it may put you asleep and use a dream-like fantasy to achieve this goal.

 

Is this "too" unbelievable, or "nicely unbelievable" ? More salt ? Less salt...?

 

Here's my view... This picture, IF it was commissionned by the Magazine, could be exactly what was asked - with very little input from the photographer. But I'd guess that this wasn't a commission per se, but rather a picture that was executed first, and sold later. Just a guess, and I might be wrong... but I'd sure like to know...

 

As a commissionned shot, I don't have much to say about it. But as a picture which was set up by the photographer with a fair amount of freedom (and only sold later), I have a lot more to say...

 

If the car needs to be seen "in full", then, why so far...? And why not a far away sailor instead...? I'd imagine the car, very nicely visible at left, taking the left half of the shot, with the girl coming from the right towards the car, and the sailor further away, somewhere around the middle, where he could be seen well, but "small" in the composition. After all, HE is just the prop. She's the tease, and the car is perhaps the main dish from a commercial standpoint.

 

OR... The car might not need to be seen so well... And that makes a very big difference in my view, because it would allow us to crop the car, and top use the CAR as a prop, whereas the story between her and the sailor would be the main subject. If this were the case, I'd seriously consider having the car parked turned three quarters away, entering from the right with its back cropped off. Then the lady would stand just next to the car's front left door, and the sailer would be on the left side of the picture somewhere. He could walk to her, or cross the picture from left to right and turn his head to look at her.

 

What difference would these different suggestions make ? Well, they would basically add an emphasis on either the car or the story - and put some "meaningful order" in this frame. The problem being here, that there's no real main subject, but rather 3 elements, each of them important in their own way. The 3 elements are juxtaposed, breaking the space in 3 areas, rather than uniting them into something conceptually stronger, and the viewer is left to alone to assemble the parts.

 

Letting the viewer guess a little is of course ok, but imo, this shouldn't mean that the composition shouldn't provide some clues...

 

Finally, I have been searching for more than half an hour on the net for a picture I remembered by Cheyco Leidmann, the master of "women and cars" photography. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the shot. This picture was, I think, in Leidmann's book titled "Foxy Lady". It's a picture of a pair of legs in a fluffy skirt, by the side of some great car, and the skirt is blown "upwards" by the wind, just like in M.Monroe's movie or in Dimitri's POW... and there is a story too, in Leidmann's picture, because there's a person standing in the background, far away. Leidmann's picture has his amazing and caracteristic flashy color style, and is therefore very different, but I think it succeeds wonderfully in terms of composition and story-telling, whereas Dimitri's shot doesn't really succeed on this account.

 

Now what I like is the way the skirt is flying, her joyful and weirdly over-sexy expression and pose, the lighting, sharpness and technical qualities.

 

Whereas I couldn't find Cheyco Leidmann's photo to illustrate the point I was making in my previous post, I just found, in Dimtry's portfolio itself, a picture composed, conceptually speaking, more or less like Cheyco Leidmann's photo. Here it is:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3702239

 

Basically, in this other photo, the 3 elements are ordered in some obvious way, opposing the policeman and the lady at the back, with the (cropped) car acting only as a prop. This is the kind of "order", "hierarchy" and emphasis I'm missing in this POW.

Nice collage... but to me the sepia toning and classic style of both the vintage car, the sailor and the glanourous pin up dressed is forty's style does not make it much. I miss both mood and story.

I thought that if the car was next to the girl, sailor same place, would have made a better story: the marine guy hesitating between joining his fellow-warrior on an uncertain warship and a nice adventure with a mysterious lady in a great car...

here is just juxtaposing 3 elements, and leaving the guy between the car and the girl...

I feel looking at Dmitry portfolio that there were far more interesting and telling photo to pick up like, for instance the 1938 Buick and Golden Gate bridge or this Vintage Golf #3 ... the latest one being quite a challenge in both commenting and moderating the comments!! but sometimes the elves are being nasty in picking the difficult one in some great portfolio

thanks Dmitry and my warmest congrats for the POW that your entire portfolio desserved!

Well, it's almost time for a new POW. I've enjoyed reading all the posts.

 

I'd just like to add a few things.

 

To me, the Lady looks more like a drag queen. The facial features seem quite masculine. Look again, and the legs, although nicely formed also seem to have a masculine edge. I guess this is what y'all meant by the "staged" comment.

 

Also, what's going on with the "woody," and the sailor carrying the block of wood? Is this an Enzyte commerical that's lost its focus?

 

A few nice elements, but it leaves me wondering why I am looking at this image . . . if that makes any sense to any of you.

 

-thanks

Not a block of wood. It's a hinged wooden box.

>>Not a block of wood. It's a hinged wooden box.<<

 

Then...it appears to be book-matched (look at the end grain, it appears to hold right across the supposed gap between lid and box). How unusual.

 

I'm not arguing, I just don't see it in my 100% view.

 

So what's your take on the model in dress?

Wow.......do all the pics receive so many comments? Hard to believe people are not just trying to make something out of nothing. It's a nice picture and you either like it or you don't. I like it. Why pick it apart. There is no underlying theme in my opinion.

Hugh - these are the instructions posted every week for the POW.

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum. We have this forum because future visitors might be interested in learning more about the pictures. They browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? So, when contributing to this thread, please keep the above in mind. Address the strengths, the shortcomings of the image. It's not good enough to like it, you should spend some time trying to put into words why that is the case. Equally so if you don't like it, or if you can't quite make up your mind.

I think the contemporary dress and shoes do not reinforce a 40's fantasy. The nod to Marilyn is actually from Seven Year Itch, a mid-50's film; the car is 1940 and her clothes are contemporary. Several of Dmitry's other fantasies are more consistent with respect to period and I think more compelling because of that.

it is a great photo with no doubts like it is, pherhaps it will be good to see better the face of the driver, but it is not a great probem beacause the driver is not the subject, i have seen above an horrible crop hope that no one take cares about it, old times glamour indeed.

f.