schildt fine art photograp

this is very well done! I am honored that my images and "my" technique inspires others to "play" with the possibillities of the light!

great colours and the understatement in the lightning is very well controlled.

by all means: keep the "second" line! as you mentiones, it makes depth and form!

I like it very much!

to harry Windsor and others...

I'd like to tell a little storie! : once - many years ago, I saw in a baker shop, a cake named "toscka"-pie...

I couldnt help my self, and said to the young girl behind the counter: sorry, but you spelled this wrong... the right spelling is Tosca - without the "k" !!!

the young pretty girl looked at me and smilingly she just said: "It isn't that Tosca!!".....

I feel, that I should say, that even though I submitted this with a dedication, doesn't mean that I - when I did the image - wanted to make a copy of KlimPt....

but I have always thought of him when this picture is in front of me.....

I know what's "missing" - but that is not important for me....

And YES: I Have seen the originals! (or was that Klimt? hmmm....)

for those interested in the cyanotype technique :have a look at my home page....my homepage - or use this direct link...cyanotype - the technique

I have a homepage, in wich there are some articles.. this is the article about Painting with light..: Paint with light

well - I must say, that the comments on this image is overwhelming..
not in my wildest (nice word..?) dreams had I thought that it got the attention, it did..

AND I must thank you all for your comments - even the "first" (poor taste) remark..
NOW...
let me tell you a secret.. (don't tell others..)

I had the oputunity tho do this picture purely by accidence.. I was promised four pheasents from a butcher, and when collecting them, he told me, that he had a newly killed dears (from a farm!!) and would I like to borrow them?

I have never shot an animal - I don't want to!
but as so many others in this world, I do like to eat them!
I also happen to think, that they look absolutely beautiful - also when dead...Like I like the sight of fish - pheasants - craps and other animals..

( of course I like them better when alive, but I have no skills to photograph them then... (and they are SO difficult to do the "paint with light" when they are alive;-))

OK - enough about this...

my approach to photography is my own.. but I am very inspired by the old masters of painting, as put right by others here.. and I have NO problem finding images on the net...

Vanitas...

symbols of decade - death - Life - arts and so on...
I go about it by feeling..no "thinking"!! sorry - but that obviusly doesnt mean, that I don't know what I am doing - I just don't prepare it all in advance...
I this case I had theese animale and four hours before the butcher came to get them back...

so I went and bought some flowers and used of props, what I had...
I had the two "stuffed" (don't know the right word) and the small "toy" pheasants (christmas decorations - as the !butterflyes are).

I thought, it could be an interesting "twist" to use real objects with make - beleave objects...
the colours are because I like them!! and they are the colours of christmaas here in Denmark..
I use a 6x6 camera.. so the form! I can't go closer If I want to keep that format.. and I chose the dark lower part - because it is a vanitas symbol in it self!
let something hang out from a table of sort, and it is a symbol of death.. to fall into the darknes...
the whiskey bottles are NOT to show drunken animals... but they are also (the emty bottle) a vanitas symbol...

All in ALL a combination of aesthetic sense (?) - intuitive setting and knowlegde...

IMPORTANT I didn't intend to offend anybody - I never do..
And I have learnt, that there obviusly is a difference in my (danish/european) way of seeing pictures of dead animals, and the american way of seeing it (?) - I certainly was almost chocked to see the reactions... but that's a good thing - a learning experience....

Have a nice christmas!

the comment above has been changed - so mine is now absoleete.. I grant anyone to have their opinions on my images - as long as they are followed by an explanation.. Thank you for that one... I did not intend to offend anybody eith my picture or the title, and was surprised to see the reaction showed in this long line of comments.. But that's actually the great thing about you guys... you care enough to take a stand and use a fair amount of time writing here...

for those not familiar to the technique of painting with light..:

Technique

and it is! I am too a little distracted by the stars.. and personally I would have retouched them in a "fine Print" or removed them in ps...As they are so light, they take attention from, what truely is GREAT.

yes - this IS very beautifull also.. I find the technique interesting - the only (but important) thing I am not so fond of, is the use of a computer to make the print...(will the print last long?) - wouldnt it be possible to do something similar without? maybe not - but I think I have to try...

this is most interesting - besides the fact, that it is VERY beautiful! Cyanotypes as negatives!? why didn't I think of that my self?..must see about thoose details you mentioned..

now I have been looking at this picture for a week, and feel it is time to make a small comment..

Technically this picture is flawless! Very well excecuted light painting..

one question: You used a daylight film here - and by doing that, You obtained those subdued warm colors.. Was that intentional? I like it! , but also I wander, what result might have become, if you had used Fuji RTP II slide film.. SO deep and saturated colors!

There has been a discussion about this technique.. if it is anacronistic or not.. And of course it is not! It is only a technique. And actually an easy one at that! especially in color..

The difference between this and "normal" flash lightning is - of course - that we have the possibillity to choose exactely where to put the light. like a painting. But it is still not a painting.

I think the problem in pictures like this is, that we tend to go back in time and - in addition to the technique - we use "old fashioned" settings and props. Some are timeless: the flowers - the lilly that symbolizes innocence - the efeu, that symbolizes life concouring death.(where is death here?).. All those vanitas motives has to be put in with care, as evrybody knows about them - whether they think they do or not..it's a part og our common past /history of art..

SO: if you had used some more modern props/symbols, I think the discussion would have been different...

STILL: I applaud you on your way of making your images.

thank's for all your kind words everybody...

I have to add, though, that I am surprised, that I am called to submit something "new"...

In my opinion - I can only achieve really great pictures - and in my own opinion, I'm not there yet. - IF I continue the "search".. Otherwise I would be like a butterfly in terms - taking a little of a flower, and then - when things get thougher - just fly to the next flower...

TO DAN and maybe others..

I think I knew the name of mortensen when I took this picture... (maybe ten years ago) But untill recently, I had never seen the picture mentioned.. (I had the same question on photosig)..

I can see the recemblence, but it is pure coincidence..

hope you beleve me..

but of course - don't know, how I could forget it - sorry Stig.

If you go to my homepage you will find technical pages about painting with light - cyanotypes and more....keep clicking on a picture - and you will be there...I could write one on theese pages, but that would just be repeating my self..

www.98981010.dk/emil

It's in english, and yes: it needs to be corrected grammatically...

Dean: it's ok - I find it interesting, this discussion... as long as we knów, where we stand...

Marc: First a little background storie: I was here on a visit, when Rikke told me, that this was the day, when she was ment to deliver... WOW - then I must hurry.. and asked her and four(not three - sorry) students, if they wanted to participate.. I had no time to plan anything, and as I stated before, the cameras up here kept falling apart.. Except this old plastic polaorid camera... I didn't even know, wether I could use it to paint with light (the timing on it is automatic...turned out, that I could..) We ended up taking four pictures, and that was that...SO why did I do as I did? why where the arms in that direction? I must admit, that I don't know... I AM a son of a preast! so the cross isn't long away from me.. But I think I mostly thought of form - I thought, that it could be a nice sculpture....

Rikke almost fainted doing this picture!! I asked her why, and she replyed that she was overwhelmed by the greatness of the situation...In hindsight, I also see sadnes and doubt, but mostly I see admiration of women/womanhood - from young girls to the mother to be... She is older, and are protecting/blessing her yonger sisters...

The tecnical question: Well marc... ONLY my 25 watt bulp was used... I started standing on a chair in front of the girl on our right, to be able to reach high enough... then the backgroung, because of the arms ( if I waited too long painting the background, she would have moved her arms too much..) - then - after removing the chair ;-) I painted on the four girls... I think it took all in all about two minutes..not longer, maybe less..

Dean: You are absolutely intitled to your opinion - I have no problems with that..What I do have a problem with is, that you (and many others...) seem to think, that I regard myself as an artist and that i regard my images as ART -WHICH I DON*T... its just pictures...

JAke:over population???? wow.. I am speechless,and I deeply apologize for that failure.. BUT: Where I live (Denmark) it has been - for years - NOT "comme il faut" to do what I do..for the reasons you mentioned..There are numerus books etc.of morningsick women - delivery that goes wrong or that just are difficult.. The idea to celebrate womanhood - pregnancy - life - is not in good tast theese days... Well - I chose to take the romantic, old fashioned way to make my picture.. and that's my way! I AM old-fashioned and very romantic..so be it...

WOW...

your'e so right... I seem to overdo theese "..." - bad habit, sometimes, but regarding the titles, then yes: I AM uncertain(sometimes) I have trouble finding titles for pictures - would rather be without, mostly! I think they tend to be too obvius or too far fetched.. Sometimes, the title gives just the right meaning to it, but most of the times: A flower is a flower is a flower...

About the bright spot: As I stated before, I chosen not to remove it.. But here - in my home - is hangng a big one, made with liquid emulsion on paper. Here - with the normal use of coffee and ashes - it is not so clear, but the truth to be told: It's growing on me.. like it better and better...

about the technique: hvae you been reading my article? Maybe you will find the information you need - if not:dont hesitae to mail or write again..

http://www.98981010.dk/emil/teknik%20-%20PAINT%20WITH%20LIGHT.htm

Which actually is a faliore on my part! I COULD erase it in PS, but chose not to... Felt like cheating.. Actually I see it like a dim sun or a moon... so - I think I'll leave it there.

wow - that must have been difficult, if I did my picture like you surggest... NO - she is simply standing up a wall.. I use 25watt light( reflector),and then I paint.. First on her, and then on the background..Doing the background,I move the light rapidly around and very close to the wall... In that process MY ARM!! sometimes shows in the picture as a partially siluette... The cord from the lamp is also sometimes seen as small "worms" hanging in the air... It is quite simple... just requires some practice...

about the technique,, Please read my "article" about it,: http://www.98981010.dk/emil/teknik%20-%20PAINT%20WITH%20LIGHT.htm