Published: Tuesday 13th of February 2007 12:20:06 AM
Beautiful, John. Alberto
Perspective issues... The problem with shooting with a back ground of lines and corners is that the lens limitations will show up. I would have moved myself more to the left so that both the prominent verticals in this image were as vertical as possible or that they were both 'out' by the same amount. The left vertical is a major distraction. But hey! What do I know?
Michael, thank you. This is a very interesting point that you raise that I have debated frequently on PN in the past. I have always maintained, alike you, that a certain amount of dogmas and rules exist that are of no interest, other than to those that are setting out to discover photography. Even if these rules did exist, which they do not (who wrote them?), they are of no interest to people that attempt to move beyond textbook photography, in the hope of creating something more personal. None of the succesful artists such as Newton or any of the leading magazines today show even the slightest attention to these details that are of no interest to an artist and in no way reflect on the impact of his work. In my photo above, the crooked wall that I chose to ignore originally may in this particular case be less pleasing to the eye than if corrected, simply because symmetry exists elsewhere. But it is an insignificant parameter per se to an artist. The picture that you join above done by Newton is a flagrant example of how pleasing, if not necessary, it is at times to break with these "rules". I posted recently a photo that you wrote under of a young lady seemingly propping up the wall because of it's slope. Without the leaning wall, the picture ceases to have any interest whatsoever. An artist will undertands this, those who cannot see beyond the elementary design will not. Indeed, straight lines are a conceptual artefact and those that have moved beyond elementary mathematics know that even parallel lines will eventually meet. Thank you again for your very useful input.
Bull "I have always maintained, alike you, that a certain amount of dogmas and rules exist that are of no interest, other than to those that are setting out to discover photography." If you want to publish a book then the ultimate answer is the dollars you receive. If you want to post your pictures on a site such as this then every opinion is valid. You continually show through your words that you are better than others and if that is your belief... so be it. Those that ACTUALLY know, know differntly... but that is only my opinion...
I agree that discussion is stimulating. The trading of insults and self gratification however should be restricted to a beer parlour, preferably shared among people of equal disposition. And if one just cannot control oneself, then at minimum one should vent one"s frustrations under one's own photos.
Harvey, thank you yet again for an interesting question. As I have just written elsewhere, a photographer can set the scene for a photo, but he cannot reproduce the qualites of poise, grace and charm that only the model may express. Actually, the bathroom was coloured deep yellow, and so inevitably (flash) there was an orange hue on all the photos that I changed.
Very perfect composition and mood! 6/6
Lovely image!! Regards cordiale saluto alex from italy........
My final point... John, I offered an opinion. It seems from your response you agreed with me. As for self gratification, I am not the one calling myself an artist. That said, I would remind you that you once emailed me to say that I was a better photographer than you. Honestly! I don't think so. We are different... as are our photographs and opinions.
Then send them this photo for critiques. And finally explain to them who was Helmut Newton. PS. In the physical world there are no straight lines or parallels at all. This is just a theoretical approach on the Geometry of Euclides.
A few points... I never said Newton was lucky although there is no doubt he was. The point I was making is that there are many great photographers who will never be as famous as Newton but deserve to be. I am not sure how I am wrong about Newton's picture. I didn't state any facts. I also never said it wasn't planned. Debate is good... often more interesting than the picture.
Biliana, you have the expertise here, not me. In the second shot, the figures were on a platform far above the stage and badly lit. I sneaked my camera in under my jacket and obviously could not use flash. Unfortunately, I was found out and politely asked to stop. Hum, but I am thinking of contacting one of the dancers ... :-) Yes, this is a French rendering of the film "Cabaret" with Lisa Minelli. The originality was situated in finding dancers that could also play the instruments. The casting must have really been something .. they had to play their instruments in their underclothes !
for shot like these, subject's pose become critically important. Did you tell her what to do? or she knows what to do? ：p Personally, I find the rug on the right side slightly distracting... have you tried a tighter crop? last question. I presume you use flash reflect off the bathroom ceiling. why there is a slight blue-ish tint in the picture? Harv
Though it is not commensurate with my disagreement for any need to have straight walls or horizons, limbs, ears and fingers all showing in an image, and may even subtract from the impact, I can conceive that the photo in this case may look more harmonious with a straightened wall. Moving to the left however would not allow for the same composition on which this photograph depends. It takes under 10 secs to straighten the wall and in this particular case, it probably improves it. Thank you.
Presuming that your remark is addressed to me! That's right, every opinion given is valid and appreciated. I do not have to agree with it, in the same that you do not either. Furthermore, not only your own but "other's opinions" are valid too, and it is my opinion that I express under MY photos! Indeed, in this particular case, I am agreing with another commentator on this page, and not with you! Now why don't you keep the recurrent "bull" to your own pages? You will find there all the attention that you want, but do try to accomplish that on your own.
I see this appealing figure with a certain "renaissance" style, I mean, her long dark curly hair, her astounding white skin, her pinky cheeks, the pose and body language, and -despite she's tiny- her rounded, sensual shapes. At all, almost an italian madonna. Such a great composition. About, straight, curved, parallel lines... well my friend, I dont care about that when I am talking about Art. On the other hand... your pics taken at the theater!! Extraordinary John, please if you have more shots post it as soon as possible!!
The meaningless... A few weeks ago I changed my bio understanding the meaningless of it, with this new one . "What is photography ? An art or just a frame of reality ? Reality or reproduction of the photographer's point of view ? Through, fake or just an illusion ? How many grey tones for the optimum capture ? How many colors ? B&W or colored ? Analog or digital ? And so on... Who cares ! Just enjoy or not. You like it or not. They like it or not. Some like it some not. Who like it and who not ? Why like it and why not ? The answer is simple or not... ? Why not ?" I think that the answer in the discussion, between two different pov people is lying there.
I think you are a genius David! I have stated repeatedly, month after month, that I am a point and shoot flash photographer and know nothing about camera technique, lighting or photoshop either. If some people despite that like my images, I am very flattered. As regards accepting other's point of view, though I decided on the advice of many to ignore you, I thanked you on this page for yours and changed my photo above accordingly. I regret that now. You, as frequently in the past, only want to make your point. Your tone has mellowed somewhat in this post, possibly because you were reprimanded in the past for your gratuitous and petty insults. I have difficulty believing that it is because of the goodness of your heart. Nevertheless, the cup has overflowed long ago, and I am tired of exchanging sterile correspondence with you. I do not find it rewarding artistically, and even less so from the point of view of ethics. You will find all the attention that you seek under your own photos. Try it.
If I may say... Much better.
yes .. nice shoot well done my friend
Ernest Wong, CA
Strange how others always seem more lucky than oneself Arnold Palmer once said : "It's a funny thing, I've noticed that the more I practice the luckier I seem to get". As for Newton's picture, wrong again. This was a carefully planned shot that was the main focus of a television film, and all the preparation leading up to it were shown in detail, right up to the newspaper with a face on it in the bin. This is what some unimaginative persons call luck.
post script Newton's image posted my Michael gets away with the imperfections because there is an attempt at humour in the picture. Had there not been it would have been as bad as your image as originally posted. I have no way of knowing but I am sure Newton wasn't thinking he was a great artist when he took this. It is generally for others to decide who is and who is not an artist although anyone can call themself an artist and I am sure if a person calls himself an artist, there will be those that believe him. I would also add that the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer is 'LUCK.' No one has yet explained to me why Terry Richardson is so well liked although I have to admit I love his humour. There are many great photographers some of who are artists who will never be known as much as Newton but I am sure they are better than him.
Incidentally, the girls were incredible musicians too .... the sax player was phenomenal.
The simplicity of CLASSIC BEAUTY Dear John you captured one more excellent image . Be sure that nobody cares about the lines and I see that some people with no artistic abilities but only Freudian perplexity are trying to improve that your magic lens is at least equal of their non existing artistic behavior . You are very patient to spent time for answers to their banal critiques.. They just try to make a link to their trash. The pose, the lighting, the dof and the whole composition is an example for every new photographer. Send to some people copies of this picture with e-mail and tell them to study it for a few months and they may come back for critiques. I am sorry that your ratings and the stupid system don't let me rate it 77. Friendly Michael.
Hy Biliana, because the room is small, could not withdraw and the feet are proportionately too large when so close to the lens. By the way, just for you, I tried shooting in a theatre for the first time the other day ... you must let me into your little secrets of how you get the exposure so right.
I agree with Biliana when she say that your theater shots are great. because it's true. And I disagree a bit when she says that the first shot is better than the second because is darker and bad lighning. For me is the opposite, the second shot is darker, right, but the atmosphera is more appealing, the color palette more rich, has more strong character and less "we are theatrically happy here" than the first. At all, the second shot is telling me more things, as a deep moving insight.