jim hancock

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

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

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

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