mona_chrome

Fritz, your shot is nice except for the treatment. Here you have a nicely lit car, a car that is very interesting on its own and then you present it as flooded. I am not sure what the point is. I assume it is the flood filter, can't remember the name, but I wonder if it would not be more effective if you didn't increase the canvas size and just make it look like it is in an inch or so of water.

 

Right now it just screams digital manipulation as no one would flood such a car, let alone light it while in this much water. It is fun to sometimes make these things, but they just have to make sense on some level.

A photo that certainly has some appealing color and depth. Is there a story, the woman

demands our attention and is she doing something important? Maybe that will be the crux

of the discussion. Apparently, emptying the trash wont carry this, but is that what she is

doing, I don't know, but what matters is how one looks at this--it is pivotal I think and if

she doesn't work, the photo isn't going to work.

 

I have to second the statement about the reflection, it absolutely serves no purpose here.

It does not give us any information, we already know that the street is open above, it does

not

add any "missing" element, we know the buildings are orange and are there and the sky is

blue, so what is it doing for us? It is pretty, but is that enough?

 

My only other comment is that I feel the upper right side is not holding its own and thus

the eye is being pulled over to a relatively minor element. I think the pinkish wall and the

light orange are the culprits and a burn is probably in order to bring balance here.

 

Bottom line, I think this image suffers a bit from being a little disjointed, but has some

potential. The irrelevant reflection could be removed, the light balanced and maybe we

could not think of the lady as removing trash. This was technically well done, if it is a

montage of sorts, but I think the message is lost amongst the wonderful colors and

technique.

"the woman is too far away to evaluate what her expression is saying" you see David, that is probably the most perceptive thing stated here. Caleb is presenting two neighbors of a friend. The reality is that his friend is probably pretty close to the man and probably is very distant with the woman. Your suggestion might be that they should try to get closer to this woman--very perceptive, I think!

Should have said that in the first place, David!

 

In some ways, your description is what the photo is about. I think Bond saw it. Whether Caleb did it intentionally or subconsciously, even the way he photographed these people makes us look at them a certain way--one distant and one intimate. Sometimes it is the things we don't like about a piece of art that are exactly what it is about.

After reading all of the above and doing a little research, I can certainly understand why David might feel his time would be better spent trying to figure out how to sell his work--certainly a massive undertaking!

 

But the problem with the rest of his statement is that the work you are doing, Caleb, is probably too original for him to understand, given his reference point. I like the way you are putting things together and playing with these types of juxtapositions.

Jim, I too do a lot of things that are designed to "change" the way things are seen and presented. What I have found is that the difficulty is not in shooting the film, but rather "seeing" with the chosen method of capturing an image. Sometimes it is subject, sometimes environment and sometimes just the way the subject needs to be approached with the particular set of characteristics of the material/camera being used to capture and or present a scene.

 

I totally understand where you are coming from and, when I saw this, it just raised the issue above for me. One I have been dealing with for the last 30 years.

I am not sure what is going on here. I have seen many star trail photos, but this is the first where the trails are not only not parallel, but actually bend in opposite directions--can you explain this?

Honestly, I really don't like the effect of the lens baby generally, but you may have found the perfect use for it, and used it to good effect.

 

Very nice.

You know, maybe this wasn't the best subject for IR. I say this because, other than the sky, I am not sure you gained anything with IR and the sky effect made you lose detail in parts of the tree--merging into sky. I think it might have been a more delicate, and beautiful, photo with normal film and no red filter. Except for the trees in the distance, I think this result could have been had with regular film and a red filter--which I wouldn't have recommended--red filters are rarely the proper choice in landscape. Either way, too much detail is lost and the result is the loss of clarity and separation of the subject.

Since it repeats in a similar pattern on the vertical shadow on the left, I wonder if it could be a

blinking light on the train or a some specular highlight caused by a secondary light source it

is reflecting--like car windshields passing--I guess it just doesn't look that fake to me and

would be an odd thing to fake--even placing a shadow over a background would not look

like this.

it was also my hit on certain of the sharper

elements here--that they were in fact stationary on the other side of the train--seen thru the

train windows as they passed. Second, of course the lines of the train would travel thru the

shadows. These shadows are not opaque, there is a degree of ambient light in them from

the sky and so the shadows darken and lighten with the background. If there were no show

thru detail, I am sure there would be complaints about blocked up shadows!

My only surprise is that my math hasn't been ripped apart yet! I realized something was

wrong with my math above as I drove to the studio. My table for motion is set up in inches

not feet, so the shutter speed would be a bit longer than indicated above to achieve this

amount of motion. But still doable at between 1/2 and 1 second I would think.

The woman's shadow places here within close proximity to the tracks. In

fact, if one measures the distance between the woman and her shadow and the sign and

its shadow, she is closer to the train than the sign. knowing the placement of these signs

one could determine her proximity to the train, which I would guess within 15 feet.

 

Second, with her scarf, loose pant legs and even the short hair, if this train were moving at

a very high rate of speed, there would be signs of movement on her person. (I was blown

off a ladder by a train at about 100mph while within 8ft of the tracks--as the train passed,

I was buffeted quite a bit but it was the backwash that packed the big punch)

 

So, if we are to believe this is one shot and not post processed, we are left with the fact

that the train must have been at a slower speed, one slow enough not to ruffle her clothes

or pull her scarf at her relative distance to the train. If we were to assume that the

distance the train would need to travel to get this amount of blur would be at least 20 feet,

then we could have a train moving at 20mph and a shutter speed of approx 1/15 sec.

which seems very doable in this low (angle) light.

This photo does seem to have some curb appeal, probably in large part due to the colors

and the motion. But even on first glance a few things caused it to fall apart for me rather

quickly.

 

I am not saying that I hate this photo, but I think it's appeal are a few of the elements and

the wonder of what could have been.

 

The one thing that I do enjoy quite a bit is the woman and her shadow and these don't

mirror each other, but create the presence of two. The woman standing erect and static

while the shadow exhibits a lean and a bit of impending motion. But once I start moving

away from these two elements, I feel there are too many intrusions.

 

The first intrusion is the vertical shadow that bisects the blurred train on the left. We have

no sense of what this is and it is such a simple shape that it adds no mystery just a break

in the plane of the red streak. The second thing that I think diminishes the photo is the

awkward and relatively unattractive sign. The name of the stop grounds the photo in

place. I think I would almost prefer just seeing the pole, which might make me wonder

what it is and could also give some context for the shadow on the left. And then there is

the shadow from this sign--just an odd and awkward shape intruding on the space.

 

I think this was a great thing for the photographer to see, however, I wonder if it could

have been simplified. I think the photo in the folder with the blurred train and the person

leaning against the pole presents a much better example of the concept here, even though

I believe this one had the potential to be a more powerful photograph.

Nice photo, and I do think that you added the lightning well, but I am no lightning expert, but I guess I have never seen lightning that looks like it is wind blown. In any case, that does look a bit fake, I think also just as it kind of ends mid air, which also seems unreal. Maybe if the lightning were coming down to the ground it would look more real.

 

In any case, I like the photo otherwise.

Even if the look here

was

"requested" I don't think this is artiface nor do I think this is the type one practices for the

camera--especially not a child, nor most adults I have encountered. I think when one

photographs people, you run them through lots of emotions--at least requested--but that

serves to get the person somewhere and it is on the way that the magic happens. So, if a

portfolio is full of such expressions is it coaching or is it seeing? If someone is always

catching a revealing moment, as I feel this is, I certainly am willing to give them credit for

the

ability to see and react to it--if Tanya, or anyone else, can actually coach someone into

vulnerability,

then maybe

that isn't all bad.

 

Sometimes not saying anything confuses the model enough to get such a look--like the

lack of direction to get where you want to go--kinda sounds like a man driving the

highway or something tho,

sayiing it that way?!?

Have we gotten off on an apples and oranges discussion here? The shot proffered by

Kevin, whether liked or disliked, is not on the same playing field. It is a moment, a

document in life. This is a portrait and I don't think it pretends to be anything else. The

power of this photo is in the look and the eyes and in the contact one makes with this

young girl, which is supported by wonderful design and color. Regardless of how great

the other photographer is, that photo does not deliver, nor does it attempt to deliver, the

qualities I find wonderful here in the POW. Preferences for a type of photography does not

diminish another type.

 

So what is wrong with a photo that is set up, does anyone really think this is no better

than what one would get from the mall photographer? I want to know where your mall is if

you believe that and it is true!

 

When we see Avedon's work, do we complain about it being set up? I think we embrace

the images that transcend the individual and pass over those that merely present the

surface. Here, Tanya has determined to have us look into the eyes, to make contact. She

chose to catch a moment during her contact that is not the typical, expected look. Is it

posed or is the moment between poses. She caught the moment between, she caught a

moment of vulnerability, which is juxtapose to the security someone saw in the casual arm

posture. What a wonderful thing to see and capture--this dichotomy of life.

 

As to the tightness of the arms in the frame which was pointed out above, I think this

helps bring immediacy to this photo. We can get caught up in rules of composition, but if

you understand the rules, you realize that you can manipulate the scene and viewing by

breaking them. Manipulate, is that bad? Every decision we make as photographers is a

decision to manipulate what our photos say or mean and how people will look at them.

Too many times the decision is to meet someone elses expectations rather than express

our own

vision.

For me, looking at portraits is always difficult. The person photographed is someone I

don't know, shot with some preconceived notion, either the photographer's or the

subjects, as to what a portrait should look like and then, somehow, I am supposed to care.

But then there are those times where it goes beyond a portrait and is a window into

another world and that is what I see here. Art? I think so. Why, because this lifts me up

and makes me feel something, it speaks to youth, to possiblities and to basic humanity.

 

As to the basic photo itself, it is beautifully designed. Complimentary colors of skin and

background, warm with nice contrast, a beautiful use of triangle in the arm and repeated

with arms and head--my eyes are stuck on her eyes as they rivet me in place.

 

Looking through the portfolio I found several other examples of this ability to capture

those moments between ours or the subjects artiface and I think the next logical step is

for this artist to let go of safe and predictable and DO THIS!

Ryan, this is probably one of the best preserved ghost towns in the country.

 

It is hard to give you much advice about your work with only 4 images to look at. But the most important thing is to just shoot a lot, especially since you have a digital camera, there is no excuse not to do it often and a lot. that is probably the best piece of advice, alone, that anyone could give you.

 

As to this photo, it is nice that you did not center the church, but possibly you did leave a little too much dead space between the two buildings. Moving to the right would have helped you close the gap a bit and still maintain a nice view of the church. It is always good to take the shot you first see, but then to walk around looking at various perspectives. When I am shooting landscape I sometimes walk up and back 100 yards just to see how the elements of a shot change in their relationships, including climbing up hills and rocks. Otherwise, I would suggest trying to photograph at another time but mid day. Generally the light is a bit harsh for these types of subjects, but here you did a nice job keeping the shadows open.

 

It's funny tho, as this church was one of my first photos when I started shooting, back 30 years ago!

Ok, so I don't understand that you aren't adding color? Maybe I don't understand how you are doing IR. Generally, IR is done as black and white, but here there is color. Second, color IR is pretty wild stuff and this doesn't look like that. So if you shot IR black and white then you added color. So maybe your camera does something that I don't know about. But since there is color and you describe this as IR, I just assumed you added color back to the shot.

 

As to my comment, I love IR, but I have found it to be extremely muddy in the wrong light and here, I just felt you had that muddy quality, which is exaccerbated by the coloration here. I don't think I mentioned anything about reds or warm colors. But while I think there might be a nice photograph to be had at this location, I just think you missed it--maybe waited too long or, as there is a cloud cover, the conditions didn't ever materialize. It happens, to everyone, but I think this just falls a bit flat from my standpoint. It just isn't a photo that I find inspiring, and that too happens.

I have read a lot of going back and forth over the "set up" remarks that have been made

here and I feel, at least from my point, a little splainin' might be in order.

 

First, since we all know that this is not a vintage photograph, it is of course a set up. That

is a

given and not the meaning I was putting forth, nor others from how I read the comments.

 

Second, I think when we do a piece like this--or a series as Dmitry has done, we generally

make a decision on where we want to fall on the spectrum, and unfortunately, falling in

the middle, as this work does, is a fatal mistake. Do we "make" it look set up or do we

"make" it look real. I think the problem for me here is that the work, as a whole, doesn't

seem to know its place. When I say we might make it look set up, in a way I mean make it

a bit Kitschy, poke a little fun along the way. Here I think it has a bit of Kitsch, but just not

enough and the series is very inconsistent in either camp. So this piece, and the series of

work, just falls short for me.

 

A problem in the presentation of this work is that it has not been prefaced that it, and the

series apparently, were shot for an automotive magazine. In fact, even on the web site the

photos are presented as if they are a personal series with an afterthought added that they

were made for the magazine. I think not being outfront with this being shot for a

magazine also draws a bit more scrutiny on artistic levels than if we know a magazine,

with a certain goal, commissioned the work. This does not mean that commissioned work

gets to be less, but it does explain why maybe the car is central and the other actors do

not obscure it in anyway. At least that was my original thought, but then there are others

where the people cover the car, leaving one to wonder what was the criteria.

 

This photo, as well as the others, are generally nicely done technically. But they are very

uneven in their artistic execution and some, like the beefcake sailor in a couple of others,

really

beg the question as to what the series is all about. A magazine may require certain

compromises to meet their needs for publication, however, those compromises need to be

removed when we present work and we need to present a cohesive and coherent series if

it is to be taken seriously. Also, it is always beneficial to shoot alternatives that maintain

our own vision when shooting for a client, my experience is that they never want them, but

always use them in the end.

I like the danger rangers here. Of course it is dangerous, but who knows, the train was probably parked! I have a little experience shooting trains and I would say, at this distance, we wouldn't be seeing this shot if the train was at speed, if you catch my drift.

 

Anyway, I like the vantage point basically, but I think having the rail centered is a bit problematic. I wouldn't split the rails, been done many times, but I do think just a little off to the side, would probably bring a bit more immediacy into the shot, altho you apparently did that for a few already.

I guess for me, dapple light just isn't enough by itself. Here, I think I like the distant trees, the golden hills, but the foreground is so distracting that it really doesn't allow anything else to really take hold. I am surprised at the high ratings, the light is beautiful, but it is just wasted on the composition. I think there was something there and you saw it, but you didn't photograph it. Much as you expect from a beginner who has not yet learned to see with the camera.

To me, this one has all the elements to be a great shot, but it is so self conscious in it's

execution. There is nothing about it that does not scream "set up". Even in commercial

work we strive to make things look real. In fact, looking through the group of "vintage"

work, I am jealous of the settings and the wardrobe etc, but it is too bad it was wasted by

being underperformed and under directed. The photos just don't make any connections

within themselves. It is a fine line, but these are all on the wrong side.

 

Reading Dmitry's statement on his web site, I understand the cinema versus photography

angle, but these feel more like a bunch of self absorbed theatrical actors who are more

interested in their photo being made than in making a photo. Unfortunately, the

responsibility for the failure is not theirs, but the photographers.

 

I would luv that car tho!

Not sure what you are after, but this feels very muddy and mucky. I would never think Alpenglow. The problem with infrared is that it just looks grey if there is not a lot of sun to make it sing. I am not sure how you are adding the color, but the problem is that the underlying image is not very appealing.