Nash

Hey Jim, you've gotta be the American dream personified.

 

Saw your website man and I can just see Billy Bob Thornton playing you in a Film Bio.

 

Jim you've gotta be the best goddamn redneck on the net.

 

Cheers .CB

 

 

 

You've got to respect Tony and Vuk, but let's not be too quick to sentence Jim. It's too easy to condemn the guy (especially with that photograph in his bio) and lamb-baste all of his work based on a few pictures he posted on the site. If I had his skill I would be pretty damn happy, although I may not devote my new-found skills to fake breasts and face lifts. Maybe the black void everyone has been criticising expresses the blackness inside the beefcake, possibly some sort of carcinoma due to the excessive smoking. Seriously, though, we just don't know. I say give Jim a chance and I for one would love to see what else he can do. We know you can shoot naked women, Jim, now show us just how deep you go! No pun intended!

 

Alex

I suppose it's disappointing just how much of the above commentary is not about this photo (I'm sure there are plenty of anti-vice sites out there).

 

I think this is a well-done photo, with a very clean and neat feel to it, like the rest of Jim's portfolio.

 

My initial response, like that of Yves Jalbert above, is that this image evokes feelings of by-gone times (vice and all), and IMHO, evoking feelings of just about anything is a valid justification for any photo. And of course, those feelings are subjective.

 

On a closer look, however, it seems that the model is wearing jeans or thick pants (not a suit), and that his hat is more of a western style than a '50s fedora. Maybe he's a real Marlboro-man cowboy-type. Yet he is in an urban setting. I'm not sure who he is and why he is there, and it leaves me curious. Which, IMHO, is another valid reason for a photo.

 

Henry

From technical and fashion point of view it's a very good photo, very professional job, probably too professional. So that is why some of PhotoNet users called it boring due to lack of emotions of freshman. Sorry so say but I like Tony Dummett comment more than this picture. Many of us are more interested in learning, looking for ways of the photo expresion than just showing how perfect "my boring fashion shot are". From this point of view it's as good as a photo of car in the folder.

Jim is a pro, and as such creates images for a living. I think this is crucial in any assessment of the work presented here. Tastes vary, and while I don't necessarily *like* all of his work, I recognise the skills of the professional. His folders demonstrate to viewers that he is good at what he does, which is important when your photographs have to pay the bills.

 

This image is probably intended to appeal to a wider audience than photo.net's image makers. While it does nothing for me as personal expression, I still think it has aesthetic qualities. There is little to criticise in the composition. It's easy to dismiss work that we don't like of being of little or no value. I'd be interested to see some work which reflects a more personal outlook.

 

I disagree with the elves. There is nothing "ominous" about the man's expression. It reminds me of popular posters like those by Athena or a film still (the frame, which I dislike, reinforces this effect).

I have seen this somewhere before.

I can not even see his eyes clearly. There is so much shadow. Another downgrade is due to to the uneven contrast overall. Man's shadow on the wall itself is the most distinct feature in this photo, making this one very uninteresting picture to me.

It's a nice image, but at the same time, I want to ask, "so what?" Nothing particularly new or original, and not even that great of an example of a noir type scene. Lose the frame and I might like a little better, but still not much.

If the gentleman in the photo was Bogart, then I'd say it would be POW material:)

While not the kind of photo I like to take, I can see its merits. Well executed-- like a movie still.

...so what. Ominous? Penetrating? Please - it's contrived, and like so many other pictures we've seen. And I honestly mean this as no slam to the photographer - within context I can see how this would be acceptable and even compensated. But picture of the week? Please, let's celebrate what we haven't seen before.

As photo of the week, I'm not impressed. As a piece of work that was made for a specific purpose (magazine ad, cigarette ad, whatever), it does the job, but I'm just not impressed.

I'd like to amend my statement above. I should have first looked at his body of work to get a better idea of the context of this image. Now I see I the intent behind it.

Though this kind of work doesn't appeal to me (I'm a documentary shooter), at issue is the reasoning behind Photo.net naming this POW. The "ominous, penetrating" statement, in other words, seems out of context as well as inaccurate. That's all.

right on....a romanticized version of someone smoking....an addictive habit that causes lung cancer, impotence and a host of other health problems.

To all you folks who complimented the picture thanks alot.

 

I got married this week in Las Vegas, got stuck out there. When I arrived home yesterday, I discovered one of my pictures had gotten POW.

 

My new bride Nancy uploaded my images to this site. She really had no idea of the story behind the images, let alone the technical bolony.

 

This picture was shot in 1989 or 90, and is one of the few images posted that I consider a lucky shot.

 

My work is extremely contrived, planned and calculated. I meticulously consider the model styling and makeup. I direct my models precisely, I light everything I shoot these days indoors or out. If it requires the use of a generator I'll use that.

 

Snapping pictures of what exist bores me actually, and presents no challange, so I create the elements that I need to make my pictures. Landscapes and Still-lifes don't give me my fix. I use them only as elements in digital compositions.

 

This shot however was shot in my learning days and I was scraping out a living shooting model portfolios. The model hired me to shoot this picture. We had started out doing a James Dean knockoff and I was sure I had my shot, noticing that I had 2 frames left, we decided to try the hat, yes, he's wearing jeans, he was standing in the rest of the shoot and they didn't show.

 

So I asked him to stand in the window in downtown Atlanta and light the cigarette as he wanted one anyway. So with no assistant, no reflector, no nothing I went click..click with my Minolta XGM and a 135 mm lens at 2.8 1/60th of a second, TMax 100 film (handprocessed by yours truly), handheld and "presto", not much to brag about. And to the ones that went to the trouble to trash the shot, you went to alot more trouble than I did producing it :)

 

Thanks everybody!

Jim Hancock

Read that in proper context - his opinion. Like mine, which is that it's a greater challenge to capture what you can't control.

To michael spinak:

 

I find your previous comment to be in line with your very own biography listed on Photo.Net. see below biography of Michael Spinak:

 

"Biography: I'm 33 years old, but with the intellect of a teenybopper and the (im)maturity level of a toddler. If you want to know something particular about me, feel welcome to email me and ask."

 

__________________________________

 

Although we are new to Photo.Net, I believe that this forum is here for photographers (and others)to share their photos, and possibly learn from each other.

 

Obviously, Jim's art is very different from yours and many others on Photo.Net. It is not my intention to compare who's style is the more difficult to create. Nor do I believe that this is the purpose of this forum.

 

Thanks to all who have taken the time to comment on the POW!

 

Nancy Hancock

Okay, didn't mean to throw dirt in any landscape, photojournalist, still life or sports shooters eyes.

 

But snobbery of styles and choice of subject matter runs rampant amoungst photographers.

 

I'm no exception, I prefer what I do, I shoot people, (primarilly women) in a controlled environment and it works for me. And if my own efforts didn't impress me I would have set down my camera years ago.

 

I've pointed my camera at beautiful landscapes and still lives, I don't particularly find that satisfying. Thats not to say that someone else may not find it challenging, and downright stimulating.

 

Granted, traveling, being at the right place at the right time, keeping an eye out for precise moments or frames has it's challenges and certainly produces beautiful and emotional images.

 

But most importantly people pictures sell like hotcakes (especially girl pictures) and I have bills to pay. The vast majority of my pictures don't hang on walls, but rather reside in magazines stashed under guys beds.

 

Life is good,

 

Jim Hancock

 

 

Photo.net said "something penetrating and ominous about the man's expression....the grace of his hands, to the fall of the coat, to the shadows, to the reflection in the window." Come on! It is a well-executed commercial or studio shot. I don't believe for a second that this is a grab shot or a street shot. For me that lessens the impact.

Nancy.

 

If you'd explored Michael Spinak's contributions to Photonet, it would have become clear fairly quickly that his "bio" was a bit of humorous self-deprecation. He actually composes some of the most interesting and well thought-out critiques that I've read here. As for your comment regarding "style":

 

"Obviously, Jim's art is very different from yours and many others on Photo.Net. It is not my intention to compare who's style is the more difficult to create. Nor do I believe that this is the purpose of this forum."

 

If I may be a teenager for a moment, it is your husband who began all this, Mr. Spinak merely voiced an objection to such statements--so, ironically enough, you actually agree with Michael on this one.

The viewer is confident that everything in the frame was intended to be there by the artist. Nothing is there that shouldn't be there. I like relationships in a photo. This one has an interesting relationship between shadow and light, the figure and the frame. Use of sepia toning in this image seems just right, not gimmicky. I like this photo.

I won't claim I find the photo incredible, but then again neither does the photographer himself. But, I will add this - in terms of shooting "what's there", none of us want that. What we try to do is shoot what we, as individuals, see. Thus, my reasoning for why the photographer's comments were not inane.

Hello Vuk,

 

Actually, I did take the time to explore Michael's contributions to Photo.Net. I found his photos to be very nice, colorful, and exciting to look at. Some of them got a "wow, look at this one" out of me.

 

And, of course his bio was humorus....I laughed myself.

 

If you feel that Michael composes some ot the most interesting and well thought-out critiques that you have ever read, surely you agree this latest critique is not one of them. NO Vuk, I do not agree with michael spinak on this one....Not sure how you could have come to that conclusion.

 

And now....I bow out of this rock throwing contest.

 

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Nancy

Jim.

 

I was merely defending Michael Spinak's integrity. I actually agree with you for the mostpart in that it's far more rewarding *for me* artistically to entirely fabricate the photo (which is what I do most of the time). I accept that it's very different for other people and certainly not an absolute. As a viewer of photos, the end result is all that counts.

 

Probably had some of your pics stuffed under my bed a long time ago--OK,OK, not that long ago. If there's a chance of getting me involved (behind the camera) in your next shoot, don't hesitate to write. I may even bring along a fresh model.

If it was my model I would have ask to look at the job in hand rather, than focusing on the photographer.