Morning

(sorry, the last picture was not uploaded)

It is wonderwul!!!

I hope you will up load each of these individually they are fantastic - thanks for posting to [photo.net.

 

Gerry H

"...if one can only fawn to be legitimate..." I don't know what that means, "fawn to be legitimate".

I was responding to your non-sequiter criticism that the image would be more valid if we replaced the pretty white girl with someone else. This says lots more about your relationship with art than it does about this image. That's also why I suggested it would be a better use of your time to make your own art, rather than wish this art were so substantially different.

I looked for some of your work here on photo.net or by a link, to se how you reflect the world, but... t

"I was responding to your non-sequiter criticism that the image would be more valid if we replaced the pretty white girl with someone else."

 

I'm sorry, Tom - it's only a non-sequiter because you don't read well: I challenged a squishy anti-intellectual spitball about beauty and how it's been divorced from art crit and art in general by asking if this image would still be "beautiful" had the subject been a man instead of the typical vision of beauty: the skinny white female. I hope that clears things up for you - I have no desire to change this work, nor do I condemn it, I merely say that it ain't photographic art.

 

"I looked for some of your work here on photo.net or by a link, to se how you reflect the world, but... t "

 

That's a cheap shot - would it make my comment less relevant if I suck as a photographer? I do suck, I'm sure, but that has nothing to do with this conversation (and, btw, you suck as well). I may be able to sell a portrait or a headshot or live band shot or a publicity still, but that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about art. I've posted my images many times - but I won't in this forum - we're looking at someone else's work. So assume my works sucks if it makes you feel better - and let me tell you you where I want to be as far as photography goes: I admire the work of AA and (particularly the later) Stieglitz and Modotti and Friedlander and the fashion and portrait work of Avadon (see his fashion work for a lesson in photography as fantasy) and ARbus and Henri Cartier-Bresson (RIP) and even Larry Clark and Nan Goldin and Ryan McGinley. SO forget about my work - I don't use it as a standard but merely a goal I'm hoping to achieve.

Everything posetive has been said about this picture, I would only repeat other comments!

Flame me, if you want, but to me it's just terrible trash (kitsch).

 

Ferdinand

REPOST :

 

I have to say I absolutely love the pictures.

One thing is very confusing for me - it has nothing to do with your previously published work. No connection in style, light or vision.

 

Looks like another person took it. I was searching for similarities in every shot of this set, and every single shot published before the set and did not find anything telling me - yes, this is the same guy.

 

Can you tell how this was done, how many people were involved, was it published somewhere? and what was your role and responsibility in this all?

 

Thank you:)

Wonderful! What else can I say?

Exquisite shot!

Gratuluje!

 

I like the fact that it's so ethereal she looks like she's made of Porcelain.

 

Lighting, setting, mood, theme - all very well thought out.

off yer meds this week, Jeffery? Take a chill pill man.

I think I've been pretty polite in my resposes to your observations. I'm not sure where all the vitriol and supposition about who "sucks" and who doesn't came from...Perhaps you just don't like me. Perhaps you might start a club.

It helps me to understand a person's point of view (at least concerning photography) if I know something of their values and aesthetic sensibility. I thought I had seen some of your work on another forum, and wanted to refresh my memory. If you take my mildly expressed disappointment as a "cheap shot", I can only imagine your life to be full of cheap shots. Perhaps others use such subtle tactics, but if I want to insult you, man, I'll be much more direct than that.

Regarding my "spitball" comment being de-fused by you asking "if this image would still be "beautiful" had the subject been a man instead of the typical vision of beauty: the skinny white female?." Silly me, I thought the "spitball" was the idea of putting a hairy fat man in this picture instead of a white girl. (And, please... as models go, this woman ain't that skinny).

My point was that a beautiful image doesn't suck, or necessarily "trick" you just because it's beautiful. There are many deep topics that can be initiated by the use of beauty as a starting point. In this thread, I'm disagreeing with the notion that we should "throw out the babe with the bathwater", and never make beautiful images because they are somehow disingenuous by their very nature.

So this was my "spitball"? ""it's a shameful trend in some contemporary attitudes that beauty isn't worth celebrating through the arts." " That "trend" has been repeatedly expressed here, most vociferously by you. I thought that attitude required a response, hence my "spitball".

I'll restate my position on this image, but I doubt we'll get any where near an consensus on it's value or potential: "The skin tone shift seems to indicate the woman is morphing (perhaps due to arrival of morning?) from a porcelain doll (greyish skin) into a real live woman with the blush of life's blood spreading over her...Given the fantastic nature of the transformation taking place in front of this mirror, I see illustrated in this photograph the challenge many women face every day, to transform themselves from a real woman into a living doll.".

You seem really pissed about something Jeffery, so I'm skeptical that further conversation will yeild any reconciling of our interpretations and valuations of this image. I'm going to get my camera and make some pictures... t

To Ivan Milovidov: There were two models, a bodypainter and me as photographer... The sessions (2 days) were at a shop of antique and ethnic furniture... Were used many small attributes given by my grandmother and friends... I used two flashes; a direct light and one umbrella... I did additional PS manipulations at the finish...

It was second set for Russian magazine HAIR'S HOW (July)... First set of photos was at April issue (one of the photo is http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2209496 )

 

Yes, you are right, I have no my own style regrettably and I am still learning photography by itself (I have no any special education regrettably) so I do many experiments and many mistakes :))

 

Have I answered your questions? :)

"Perhaps you just don't like me. Perhaps you might start a club."

 

I'm sure you're a fine human being and I certainly have nothing against you - I do like spirited debate. We can leave it at that...

Whatever.

But I'd still like to know what "fawn to be legitimate" means.

And while I'm at it, I'd lke to know what the premise of Ivans questions are, and what was meant by "Looks like another person took it". Are you suggesting that Maxim is not the photographer who made these photos?... t

Exquisite series,Maxim. Disagreement= not unusual,eh what. Informal polls show 80% will accept this as POW. 10% vote it kitschy. Balance still undecided.But. All find the model aethereally beautiful, and you have embellished her by this fantasy of photo art. Congratulations,I see a great career,envious of your talent I am. Thanks for opportunity to comment. GS

Fascinating coloring. I would love to see the raw image for comparison.

i don't say this too often on this web page, but your pictures are perfect. esspecially those couple of pictures you put on discussion page. wonderfull

complimenti bella foto colori luci soggetto ok

This is, in my view, the most remarkable image photo.net hosts. It's this shot that got me started in photography. I'll leave it at that.

I love this picture... you really captured a 20s-30s style. As for the question about the mirror reflection and the corner of the portrait on the wall... yes, the portrait is distracting to the image. You could just photoshop it out by clone stamping the wall over it. As for the mirror reflection, I'm not sure how you would fix that without reshooting the photo and having her move her arm so that it does not reflect. But it's not that distracting, to me anyway. Her closest arm being so gray is kind of distracting though. But perhaps it is body paint, or meant to be that way? I understood why you named the picture "Morning" when I first opened the image. She is getting ready for her day. Very well done, I love it.

Esp. to Tom Meyer
Tom, I appreciate that you are polite in this forum, unlike Jeffrey. But i do take his side.
I don't like this photo. The composition is nice etc, but everything else, especially the color looks very computery to me. That's my opinion.
I also think that your statement:
"The skin tone shift seems to indicate the woman is morphing (perhaps due to arrival of morning?) from a porcelain doll (greyish skin) into a real live woman with the blush of life's blood spreading over her...Given the fantastic nature of the transformation taking place in front of this mirror, I see illustrated in this photograph the challenge many women face every day, to transform themselves from a real woman into a living doll.".

is extremely sexist and naive. Um, this is not 18th century. This is statement that a GWC from Model Mayhem would make. Something along the lines of "the mysterious creature that is a woman".

Sorry. But I do not want to say this in a condemning way. But this is my opinion.