kwang_lee

I bet NPC would charge a fair bit for that adaptor. I wonder if there are any machinists out there who could fabricate one out of

aluminum? There's got to be someone willing to do it for a modest amount of $.

Damn. I wonder if someone will make an adapter to use 664 and 669 films for the Holga.....

I love the color in your work, Kim. The self-portraits are powerful and I think they show the sign of a genuine artistic vision which is maturing. There's an interesting comparison to be made between the photos of the dolls and the garish self-portraits. Who knows where it will lead?

 

I wouldn't worry so much about the people who don't like your work. It seems like you take it personally, or even that you're looking for a fight sometimes in your comments...or >GASP< you're looking for an actual dialogue with fellow artists. The latter is a good thing, but hard to find on a consistent basis on the web. The problem with dialogue on the web is that many of us don't have the same assumptions (or the same books for that matter) so that we end up having meaningless diagreements. Ah...I'm probably boring you...:)

 

Great work, keep it up!

Very cool work, guys. That color image of the pod is amazing. The semi-transparent 'skirt' toward the bottom of the pod makes me think

of dried squid held up to the light....hm. Might be time for a field trip..... :)

Took me awhile to find this link. <br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html">

http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html</a><br><br>

 

With the resolution of current flatbeds, one "might" be able to build

a makeshift large format digital camera.<br><br>

I like Annette Fournet's stuff as well on the same site.

 

Compiling a history of photography seems like a task for

a prophet or a fool. Perhaps both.

 

Though the chapter I would love to read (in such a history)

is the one about digital photography. I read somewhere

that the rise of digital is related to the Renaissance need

for perspectival control. I think there's this almost

antiseptic quality to many digital photos that are so "clean"

and "commercial"-looking that it makes it seem like reality

can be totally and virtually evoked without any nod to process

or the fact of actually being there (I'm thinking of photos

where creative cut and pasting creates the image).

 

I like Holga and pinhole images because the imprecise nature

of actually being "there" and taking a picture seems to be

part of the 'photographic act'. I guess this is a complicated

way of saying that I like the blurring, vignetting, and sudden

colors and shapes that Holgas and pinholes sometimes create.

 

k

What scanner are you using? It doesn't seem like it has enough dynamic range to pick up much detail in the blacks/dark browns while

retaining info in the bright highlights.

 

Drum scans are expensive - but it makes sense if you're only going to

do a few. Getting a Nikon or Konica film scanner might be an interesting alternative.

 

Her expression is ambiguous given the context of the single image. We don't have access to the 'narrative' of their union. If you're putting

together a printed portfolio book, you should heed people's first

reactions. However, I think there is something quite artful and

honest about her expression. It seems to evoke a kind of serenity

and peace - with maybe a hint of fatigue. But again, I get that

after spending more than ten seconds looking at it and thinking about it. How many potential clients will look at any single image with

that kind of patience and appreciation?

Does anybody use Wedding Fairs/Exhibitions to advertise their<br>

business? If so, how has it worked out? Worth the exhibition fee?

<br><br>

I'm just wondering if the marketing budget is better spent on

more<br> aggressive online marketing -- like theknot, wppi,

weddingsolutions.com, etc...<br><br>

 

Thanks in advance.<br><br>

 

Kwang

Really like am0042.jpg with the two kids taunting/teasing amongst the adults in flip-flops. <br>

And am0043-1.jpg is really interesting with the groom who seems to be leading a cautious <br>

bride into the darkness of a building. It's subtle, but the photo seems to capture something <br>

about the emotional dynamic between them. <br><br>

 

Good stuff :)

Floyd, I think you're on to something. The second one seems the best because our focus goes directly to the transclucent fabric. Which makes me think that the faces in the first and third pic need more light. You might be able to use a handheld zoomed fill flash directed at the face. It would be good to be able to see her eyes. Blank-faced children can sometimes be quite disarming. It might be useful to look at Loretta Lux's work with children as a possible reference.

Yes, attitude or style. I was at a friend's 3-day wedding recently --

acting as a amateur 'second shooter' (long story). The couple

had flown in a pro from N. Carolina and he was very friendly and

supportive of my own meagre equipment (Bronica EC kit and

Canon AE1 with 28-200). He described his own style as artistic

Photojournalism -- meaning he approached the job from a

minimalistic perspective as he often only had his D70 and Zoom

lens (28-200 I think). During the evenings he pulled out his

handheld mini-softbox and

used wireless slaves to light up the dance/event. He also

dressed in black - black slacks, black dress shirt, black shoes

and he was very nimble and "stealthy" for lack of a better word.

 

Frankly, I don't think he had time to worry about what the guests

thought of him. The more I watched him, the more I realized he

approached the event like a painter approaches a canvas -- his

movements, his angles, his timing -- all these were contributing

to his vision of the wedding as piece of art that he was sculpting

and creating along the way.

Why not buy a couple of Metz flashes, diffusers, mini softboxes, extra batteries and get moving with your current setup?

 

Upgrading your computer hardware AND buying a new camera (with two new good lenses) will be a substantial investment. Doing this AND adding flashes/strobes ...yikes. You get the idea.

 

Getting the flashes and being willing to do some formal shots

(including portraits) could really help earn you some extra change

and give you a broader potential client base.

Davidromano.com if you have to have the Kodak.

 

There's someone else, too, that cuts down 70mm HIE...but

I can't find the link.

 

If you want to try Macophot 820IR, bhphoto.com has occasional

stock.

 

Good luck....

Hi Tim,

I'm glad you posted this question. Since you are asking the question

in the context of your college education, you are also asking

us to consider the history of photography and art.

 

You asked:

Surely there is room in the gallery for imagery that simply aims to please without necssarily confronting issues?

 

Yeah, I would agree there's room. But your question implies a politically-

free approach to art and photograhpy. Sometimes people call this

"pure photography" or "pure art" and the defenders of such art

respond by asking how a picture of a screw or a flower can have

a political meaning of any consequence. It's a tough question.

 

Your own answer depends partly on your audience and community.

 

For folks around universities and "important" gallaries, art

and photography is always embedded in an ideological context.

To some, a diamond is simply a diamond. But if your father

died in a diamond mine in S. Africa, leaving your mother

to turn into an alcoholic abuser, then your connection to

a diamond might be different. You might see the diamond as a

sign of systematic oppression. You might see it as a complex

expression of governmentally-sanctioned racism. Whatever

your relationship to a diamond is, one has to acknowledge

that a simple diamond is a result of a complex process

involving economics, labor, nations, markets, business people, etc.

 

But all of this makes little sense to a man and woman who have

pledged to spend their lives together in marital bliss. Why

would anyone want to think about the troubling history of

race relations or labor exploitation when saying, "I love you"?

 

What I'm trying to suggest is that the relevance of postmodernism

isn't necessarily purely aesthetic. Postmodernism can also be

seen as a recognition of certain kinds of histories underlying the

simplest objects and concepts. If it's the case that the diamond

mines in S. Africa represent a troubled space -- both in the sense

of present day working conditions and their history -- it might be

possible to practice a photography that not only shows something

beautiful but reveals the diamond in its more complex state --

maybe photos of the miners superimposed on a diamond ring advert,

or having a muddy miner holding a diamond ring, or a pic of someone

in jail wearing a diamond ring.

 

Now, these kinds of photos aren't going to be hanging in the living rooms of middle-class America or Europe. More likely, if you come across a household that displays photos that aren't just family members, you'll find flowers, animals, beaches, churches, brick buildings, farms, freeways, cityscapes, and...sometimes, portraits.

These images might be seen as naive expressions of a consumer culture,

but the fact that I can make a list of common photographic subjects

implies a "popular" consensus...a popular culture. Those who feel good about making distinctions between themselves and "the masses" will often feel like they are defending important values by denigrating popular culture. But as time goes on, it seems like fewer people (not only academics) will play the "educated" elite role in any conversation.

 

Your reaction to complex postmodern/poststructural debates depends on how you see your own work in relationship to the marketplace. If you're a wedding photographer trying to establish him/her self, then your interesting ideas about "postmodernism" are always going to take a back seat to customer need and satisfaction. If you are more invested in photography as a meaningful expression, then your work really needs to consider some of the issues surrounding post mod aesthetics. Even if you consider yourself an "artiste", it doesn't mean you can't explore the simple, the basic, the 'pure'. Artistic history doesn't move in some endless march towards enlightenment. There will be moments when the concept-driven, latest pomo fad will take a backseat to a beautiful portrait of a child.

 

I think it comes down to this: Many people who make very good photographs do not consider themselves artists, but many bad photographers walk around and call their work 'art'.