re_photography

Very nice use of lines; lends an excelent design quality to it.....beyond it's latent value as fine art, I could see it being used to market high-end lawnmowers...

When I was asked by the model to take a photo of her with her bass

guitar, this was not what I was expecting at all, but I liked how it

turned out. Yes, that is a softbox reflected on the guitar body. No

she was not completely naked (mom!).

"point taken" (man there are so many horrible puns) I actually chose this nail with the crushed tip intentionally, it's one I used as a sort of punch/sink for a few other nails (different type).....I guess this is somewhat more of a "model shot" of a nail rather than a "portrait," but while it isn't bent, it is a bit tarnished and there is also a notch out of the head, there is additionally some of the dust left on the glass it is sitting on to show that it is real and not an edited reflection.....long story short, if I had to compare this to a human model, this nail is more of an "art model" than a fashion, glamour, or commercial model (thus this is an art-oriented photo, not a commecially viable shot of a nail), i.e. attractive, but not "perfect," interest/character over commercial beauty.....that's just my take on it.....

Any opinions/critique on this macro shot of a small nail on a sheet

of glass? Has not been digitally modified other than the normal

level/curve/contrast and a bit of dust removal and image sharpening.

This was something I found at a yard sale in NH. It's a small

child's reccord player. I don't know ecactly how old it is, but I'm

22, so reccord players generally look old, but in a good

way......The seller told me it didn't work, I said great and bought

it for $2 knowing it might come in handy as a prop sometime. Several

months later I grabbed some things from my yard and composed this in

my studio, again, just as an alternative working on wedding

editing/printing all day.

Ive done a couple of these with mountain scenes in NH, where the mountains are admittedly much smaller, but still beautiful. I really like this image as is, but I wonder if it might be better cropped in a bit as a regular rectagle super-wide panorama.....it's a matter of taste whether or not you want to make-obvious the fact that it is a composite in the image itself: either way is interesting.

fair enough on the last comment.....I sort of think of it as a backward version of the wonderful M.C. Escher drawing where 2 hands are drawing each other into existence......(certainly not trying to compare it to the Escher drawing in terms of quality, and it's just a relationship I came upon after taking the photo, I wasn't trying to imitate anything when it was shot)

Any opinions, critique, etc. would be much appreciated. This is what

I came up with one evening in my studio after looking around for

different props/elements to combine for a still-life.....after

shooting a couple of family portraits, it at least made my evening a

little more interesting......

Just a word of clarification, I may have used the term "crop" to refer to the amount/area of the subject/scene which is shown in the photograph when "frame" might have been a more correct term, as I have no way of knowing whether the image shown is the full extent of the original exposure or a cropped in area of said exposure. "Framing" I guess can be done either with the camera when originally composing the subject or afterward during the postprocessing/editing, whereas "cropping" would be specific to limiting during postprocessing/editing the displayed area of the image in relation to the original exposure.

I do not know to what degree this was intentional, but the first thing that caught my eye, the thing that to me made this otherwise quite good photo much better, is the way the old building in the foreground very specifically memic the form of the mountain in the background, which is so drastic as to be rather refered to as the "upper ground" instead. On the left structure, you have a roof line which is generally horizontal which then runs into a peak of the roof which is seperated into front and back peaks as the roof between the gable walls has fallen in. On the left peak of the mountain, you have a generally horisontal ridge which flows into a more pointed/elevated peak slightly separated into two parts by a small break in-between. The right structure is singular and maintains its peaked roof. The right mountain peak also comes to a more perfect singular top point, or rather intact, small, "roofline" ridge of a peak.

I'll agree with the previous comment insomuch as I am somewhat bothered by the cropping of this photo. This cropping, which is neither really close on the eye, nor wide enough to show the shape of the head, is awkward. This middle of the line cropping combined with a lack of contrast/tonal range give the photo a flat, nondimensional feel to it. There needs to be more depth leant to the subject either by the above-mentioned methods alone, or perhaps combined with a slight change of perspective, especially since the eye, which is the apparent subject of the photo is quite obscured by the lashes.

Certainly amazing light and contrast to this image. I don't , however, undestand what you were getting at by asking is the image is better in B&W or color? Are you refering to the cool cast to the image vs. a neutral B&W or an original natural color version of image which this has been converted from? I like it as B&W image, though I might like it better if it were either neutral or a warm tone rather than cool. This series (other photos from similar setting/lighting) as a whole has an otherworldly/unnatural feel to it, and I would love to see them at their original resolution; some of them almost look like illustrations presented at this resolution anyway.

It is obvious that your lighting and work with bodyscapes is very good, but you have gone the extra step to throw in the additional element that elevates the photo above being strictly about quality. The spider serves to add not just an interest as an additional element, but more intportantly it adds the additional element of percieved conflict, if not in the model/spider interaction, then in the viewer/image interaction.

I've always liked images that throw together seemingly unrelated elements; they create conflicting views/interpretations, which is right may be discussed and is ultimately a matter of opinion for viewers unless at some point the artist blatently tries to "explain" the work; to me, the signifficance is rather that people are have spent time trying to discuss, interpret, or understand the piece in the first place.

This photo, especially with the slightly yellowed toning imediately suggests classical paintings. As someone mentioned mythological themes are implied. The styling is very natural and so well executed that it evokes a painting without having any sort of digital filtering to intensional imply such an intent. If and when I take nudes, this is is something to aspire to, and I cannot think of much of a better compliment for a photo. (I think that at this point in my career/experience I would be to timid to suggest the idea to models.)

I said that the photo was "timely" not to suggest that it looks old, but rather because yesterday I went to the Peter O'Toole film "Venus," at the Avon Cinema in Providence, RI.

Just thought I say that I apreciate this image for its technical look, form, and design qualities. Extra points if that is rock climbing rope that was used.....

I've never understood the draw to the genre, though I'd say that this is a good example of what it is all about. Again, no offense to your abilities as a photographer, but personally I get frustrated trying to fill the middle genre between a studio or posed natural light photo and a photojournalistic photo; as a photographer I'd personally never want to be seen in one at an event or wedding or something, though I've taken them at weddings and events. Quite possibly you have better looking people as subjects than the average event photo, fine, I just find it hard to find aspects of the genre that can be critiqued. I have only one photo that I've ever taken in this genre that I've liked of my own images as well, so it's nothing specifically against this image.

This was an experimental shot, done with a single exposure. It has

not been edited other than turning the original color file to B&W. I

figured out that I could do this by accident while screwing around

with my first manual control camera (digital) on a vacation a few

years ago. Once I accidentally discovered the technique, I speant

about 45 minutes in the middle of the night modifying and trying new

things until I ended up with this.....

 

Opinions, questions, critique welcome, keeping in mind that this was

an experimental image, I have since shot variations on the idea of

duality of a single subject in a single-exposure self-portrait, but

I still like this one.

Certainly the idea and variations of it have been done before, sometimes created intensionally, and sometimes found naturally. That said, assuming that it has not been heavily digitally modified, it is one of the best examples of the technique/idea that I have seen, in my few years of experience.....makes me want to get into the studio and start fooling around with water drops on a sheet of glass. I'd be curious to know if the student coated the glass with anything first, such as Rain-X to help the drops maintain their "dimensionality."

Interesting and decent in most aspects, however, some things to consider:

What I most like is the apparent irony of having a grumpy or at least somber photo of someone in what looks like a chearleading outfit.

I'm too picky, but if I were to modify things I would....Definatley light the background seperately and probably use black seamless instead of black cloth, as black on black is hard enough to separate when the textures are different. Also, I would most likely crop the photo differently and get her body out of the center of the photo, I might also consider intensionally rotating the crop and coming in closer. All the cropping changes speak to the fact that I personally prefer that the subject not have even amount's of space around it unless it is a straiforward portrait.

 

This advice on cropping has to be taken with the consideration of whom you are trying to please: i.e. I actually cropped a client portrait once in what was to my experience a very strong artistic/commercial way and speant a long time going back and forth with options, I dropped it of to them and got a call saying that they wanted me to redo the print because I had rushed through it and not even bothered to get the head in the middle. The client was a friend of my mother's and they told her before coming to me. Even she explained that the cropping was done intentionally, but I ended up redoing the print to make them happy. The same happened with another shoot, and I redid it; on a related note, I am now in the process of transitioning to the commercial/advertising end of the market.....

Alright, so this isn't realy a portrait, but I've yet to find

catagories which are geared more toward commercial photography and

or modeling/fashion photos.....

 

This is one to which my father resonded "that looks like a

professional photo" to which I shot back that I am a professional

photographer.....didn't have the effect that I later guessed he

intended.

 

No professional or even associate amature models in this one; this

is my little sister and her friend on their seamingly yearly

invasion of my studio for a day.