Condemned Man

Yes, Sugimoto stages the lighting of his wax models. He also works with a large format camera and takes all the time to photograph the models in different angles using different light set-ups. technical aspects aside, it is amazing how he can bring out the humanness(spelling)from the models. Considering all that, what Battey has done with what he had is quite good.

Okay, I'll be a little more verbose in an attempt to make it by the filter.

Try responding to the image, rather than responding to technical issues underlying it's creation. This may require that you respond as a well rounded human being rather than just using the teeny part of your brain that is labeled "unrelenting obsessive photographer". In fact, you might find a greater appreciation of all the images you look at here on photo.net (and life in general!), if you could employ that uniquely human attribute called the "bicameral mind". The basic idea is that you can actually hold two seemingly contradictory concepts in your mind simultaneously. That the term has vague references to a "camera" can be taken as a bonus for us photographers.

Look at the image as a representation, not reality. Art happens inside your head, not on a piece of paper or a canvas or a CRT or in LCDs or on a CD... t

Chris-

 

Beautiful image, well framed with a masterful PhotoShop technique. I think one analogy that can be made is: your photo is to "straight photography" as trip hop music is to original instrumental/ vocal music. A trip hop musician uses sampled instruments and vocals put together in the computer to create a new original work of music ie. artists like: Thievery Corporation, St. Germain, Moby, etc.

 

I think that what you are doing is very modern and valid. You have an eye for what a great image is and know what it takes to acheive it.

 

Erik Annis

As photography, its visually creative. As art, it conveys a feeling that has depth and meaning. Its dismal, but well done. Very nice!

Nice post, Tom... Wonder whether anybody will read it though...:-)

All of the thoughts about being able to appreciate this photograph "for what it is" without concern as to whether it's wax or real, posed or found, street or studio are fine for the purposes of discussion, but remember folks: This is a learning site, not a show off site. No one should feel any reservations for wanting to know more about the photo or how it was created. It wasn't posted here to promote "art," but to facilitate discussion about photography, which, surprise, surprise, has to do with shutter speeds, lighting, posing, serendipity, etc. I got caught up in that earlier this week (most of the thread has been deleted) but I'm older and wiser now, and I finally see the light.

Sure. I like details as much as any techie does. What I have reservations about is the position that there's an ethical or moral duty to alleviate any angst induced by information deprivation when it comes to seeing a picture hanging on the wall alongside a one-word title.

 

Had this been on the front page of the New York Time accompanying a news story about executions in Frodoland or wherever, I could understand the fuss.

Well, this is not "straight" photography, but a straight jacket one...:)

Possibly the only photo among the last five chosen for 'photo of the week' which may be worthy of this title.

It's a well-captured image of someone else's art. If I took an excellent photo of the Mona Lisa would everyone give me credit for the wonderful painting? I should get some credit, perhaps, for my technical skills in reproducing the painting as a photograph but that's about it. This is looked at differently by some because it looks like a real person, but that's no different IMO and has little to thank the photographer for.

Hi Rich,

 

A photo of a 2-dimensional object leaves less to the imagination of the photographer than a photo of a 3-dimensional object, surely?

 

Chris has said this scene was very blandly presented in the museum, and that he had to employ photographic skills - in the exposure and the "darkroom" - to present it the way he thought it should be presented. Doesn't this count for something?

 

I would have thought that the object of photographing a painting would be more akin to making a perfect "photocopy", and, on the other hand, that photographing a 3-dimensional object would allow for much more interpretation on the part of the photographer?

and others who compare this to a shot of painting --

I get the drift about photgraphing other's work. But comparing taking a photo of a painting to taking a photo of a sculpture is just not fair. It's NOT quite the same at all. A painting for the purposes of taking a photo, is just a 2 dimensional flat piece of work, no depth, no volume, no lighting subtleties, no surrounding atmosphere -- unless the painting is just a small part of a whole another shot. So, not to count all there is in the painting itself, the painting is a mere 2 dimensional strip of canvas for the photographer.

 

Give the photographer the credit he deserves here. Different people could have shot this same dummy in this exact scene and could have ended up with different (bad) outputs altogether. So it's not as if this isn't even worth considering under the umbrella of photography.

I guess Tony's comment made it in between the time I took to type mine (just so I don't like an idiot, regardless of being one or not).

I agree with the distinction between two and three dimensions, but if

ten of us went to this place with the same purpose, I think we would

in fact come up with very similar images. I was told years ago that

no two photographers would take the same image in the same way at the

same place and have found it to be essentially untrue.

 

The point to me is still whether or not you feel greater or less

appreciation of the image once you've learned that it is a wax figure,

rather than a person. The answer is clearly different for different

people, so mybe I should cut Chris some slack . . . . . well, a

little.

"I think we would in fact come up with very similar images. I was told years ago that no two photographers would take the same image in the same way at the same place and have found it to be essentially untrue".

 

Depends on the genre of the photography and the scale one uses to discern quality (and perhaps the number of people who shoot if it's in the order of millions). But regardless, it's a broad statement that's holds little truth. Even Chris perhaps would have shot it differently had he been on his ill-fated expedition on a different day and mood.

Agree with the genre and minor differences, but my point is that I

don't think the composition here is all that challenging. Eliminate

museum elements and don't show too much of his face, especially his

eyes. Lighting and, I suspect, background are predetermined. . .

"This is a learning site, not a show off site."

 

It is many things.

 

"No one should feel any reservations for wanting to know more about the photo or how it was created."

 

I specifically responded to those who felt entitled to additional information, or felt they "needed" more information than merely a photo. No photographer should feel pressed to provide any information with a shot that he does not want to give.

Chris,

 

what do you think?

I too am slightly peeved that more info wasn't given.I guess that means the shot definitely worked!!I'm intrigued-i want to hear his story-really fell for him.Photographically and artistically i fell the way it was dodged and burned(or left as is,whatever the case)leaves it TOO strong,TOO perfect.Obviously a minor quibble and i'm not sure why i think that.Awsome ,one of the best i've seen in a LONG time

Dear Chris,

 

I first thought this was Keith Richards getting out of a limo. (JUST KIDDING!)

 

No, this is a VERY POWERFUL image, an excellent photo!

 

The unexplained letter B just adds to the general sense of dehumanization. The texture of the canvas(?) jacket is very attention grabbing.

 

What I find amazing is the circular line that runs as a crease on the clothing to the deeply edged mark on the face. This evokes two emotive responses.

 

1)That the doomed are marked like in the film The Omen.

 

2)The circularity of the line reminds me of that famous old photo of the muscled workman applying a huge wrench to the circular face of some factory machine.

 

I could go on, but, congratulations!

very moving

like this very much !! if the background is a little more "lightened" and more sharpness on the person this so it would be awesome .. but I like this anyway!

truly excellent

it's a very expressive photo. Compliments