paul_scott1

It sounds an interesting film, and this 4x7 format works to give the image a feeling of permanence, stability and unchangeability. 4 x 6.47 would be Golden Section proportions, the rectangle that can be divided into a square and a rectangle, which rectangle can be divided into a square and a rectangle and so on ad infinitum, or at least until you reach the limits of human endeavour. It also reflects the geometry by which you can grow a crustacean shell (sometimes quite useful on cold, winter days). 8^)

 

Does the image have connections with the film also, or is that pure Stavrou?

 

On the face of it, the combination of words and image gives the idea of a man confronted by or confronting the not me: vast, indifferent, organised according to inscrutable principles and richly endowed with the property of oblivion.

It reads like a synopsis of an obituary, though the ones I read in the Times are sometimes a bit more jolly, particularly when they relate to Harry ('Stingo') Harrison or Herbert ('Screwball') Maddox.

 

Words and pictures. Whatever next?

Great body tones, complimented very well by the green of the swimsuit. Personally, I would like to see the other hand, perhaps just to make sure everything is there.

It's got style, but she'll need eight fingers and both thumbs to play that piece.

Pure genius.

Good photo, better text.

Looks like Don Quixote of the Sea with a bottle of Sandeman's Port to me. Presumably the holy family is onboard ship playing skittles. Anyhow, highly original.

Extraordinary.

Interesting concept, something beyond the ordinary. Is this a business proposition? Photographically speaking, the gun itself does not stand out so well. Black objects, as black people, need some special techniques to show up well in photographs.

Interesting concept. The leaves look like they are dancing.

Great atmosphere.

Intriguing image.

Nice, but it really needs a story line and a mysterious figure about to embark, at which point it would be a classic. Unfortunate that the boat silhouette is confused, and the silhouette of the lamp is merged with that of the quay. Still, life is rarely ideal.

Powerful powerlessness.

This is a well taken photograph of a pretty girl in a torn top.

Humour and intelligence: a rare combination.

Neat, but looks too pink on my screen.

Very good eye.

Thanks for the compliments, Yasumasa, and you are right, there is a lot in medium format that is absent in 35mm. Fortunately the Contax camera now gives you a medium format that handles like a 35mm.

 

You are right about the low contrast in the image, and it produces an effect that is difficult for the eye to handle.

 

This next example reverses the idea, so the main subject is now out of focus. It gives the impression something like he is haunting the image, quite appropriate when you take into account the skull.

Thanks for posting those links, Yasumasa. Very interesting, but ideally to compare the bokeh of different lenses you should be taking the same subject / background, I think. That's why I found the comparison of out of focus background lights very illuminating (no pun intended). I fully intend to have a go with my Zeiss / Contax lenses sometime this winter. But in the meantime, here's one from a recent shoot I did. The chaos in this case is quite well rendered, I think, by the Zeiss 140mm lens at 4.0 combined with the cavorting shapes of those party animals. In fact, looking at your TV producer again, maybe he would like to join in?

Half a bicycle seems the right amount of cropping to me. The whole bicycle is a bit of a distraction.

 

There is a nice leading diagonal going into the image from the bottom right, which I think is the dog lead: Rubens couldn't have done it better. Then the subject breaks the gentle diagonal of the seats, which is also a good effect. After that, the bicycle actually stops the eye going off the image altogether as it blocks the gentle diagonal of the seats.

 

If you actually put all that in place, Yasumasa, I think you must be getting towards bokeh genius no 1.

This is roughly what I understood from the article by Ken Rockwell. The 'perfect' lens gives an uninteresting bokeh, while some of the 'imperfect' lenses give very interesting bokeh. His analysis uses in particular the way the lens distorts out of focus lights in the background to analyse whether a particular lens has good or bad bokeh, and to a certain extent I would go along with what he is saying. But I have to say there is a general point here about the use of out of focus stuff (as I understand it, 'bokeh' just means fuzziness) as an expressive tool which is largely ignored by photographers, and while your interest seems focussed (8^)) on the different bokeh produced historically by different lenses, your images nevertheless articulate some of the expressive capabilities of using out of focus generally to make a point, particularly your use of background chaos, which, while the nature of the distortion may have something to do with the lens you are using, is not lens specific, but rather a general philosophical concept which can work very well with any lens, particularly for portraits.

 

I had meant to post a photo here, but I don't know where it has gone. If I can find it, I will post it later.

 

Still, none of this theorising makes your TV producer look any happier as he sits here above my text box. Maybe you should buy him a present? A box of cigars? Or take him for a day out to the seaside? According to another photo.net member whose name I forget, Yokohama is very nice.

You make it look very appealing, but I was in Hamburg once.

Great idea.

You succeeded. 8^)