k_townsend

Excellent tones and composition.

Birmingham, UK unless I'm mistaken?

I like the interesting composition here. It reminds me a lot of an Imogen Cunningham photo I appreciate (a very similar tree with a persons back visible in the 'V' shape between the brances). It's an interesting photo because it almost has two 'layers' to it. You only see the second one after a second or two of looking.

I expected to see Jock Sturges beneath this photo. The composition/style is almost identical. (I'm not sure if this is intentional?) I like to tones and composition a lot.

>Thank you for your comment. Yes, you are right, the light is just a>tungsten bulb, there were 2 of them. I consider myself as an amateur but I>dwould like to improve myself and comments like yours are always a good>lessons. I looked at your pictures, they are so clean, I mean technically>perfect. Is it a matter of the light, the optics of your camera or>something else? Thank you for your time once again.

 

I think lighting is probably one of the most important aspects of photography -- even when you're using 'natural' lighting. Unfortunately, it's something that you only really learn with lots of trial and error. (At least 'I' only learn with lots of trial and error.) I recognize lots of your photos, and how you did them, simply because I tried all the same things and more myself trying to figure out how 'professionals' did this, that or the other thing. A mistake is to think it's all equipment. I own a lot of 'equipment'. a 4x5 camera, a Mamiya RB67, a Canon D60, several studio strobes, soft-boxes, umbrellas, filters, etc. After using it all, just last week I went out and bought a $30 tungsten light head for the studio because sometimes you can get better pictures from a $5 lightbulb than a $750 studio strobe.

 

The difficult part is just learning how to use it properly, and know what setups have what effect on the captured image, etc. Most people start with tungsten because (like with me in the past) it's all they can afford. It's not always the easiest thing to work with, because the light is dim (max. 1/30s at ISO 100?), and the colour balance (3200K) makes your picture yellow, but it's not such a bad thing, either, because it makes you learn what colour balance/temperature IS (why you're picture are yellow), and makes you a better judge of how much light will give you what exposure. Mostly because of working with light bulbs (by necessity), I can usually guess within one or two stops what to set my shutter-speed at in low-light situations, or I know when I need to turn the flash on, etc.

 

If my pictures are 'clean', or whatever else, I think it has far more to do with lighting than camera equipment or optics. I usually buy good lenses, but it's not so much a difference as you might thing compared to the difference better attention to lighting might make. It's not necessarily an overly complicated thing to learn, but nor is it really simple either. You just have to learn it by doing it.

 

My advice would be to start with only one light, since it makes things less complicated to understand when something screws up or something goes right. Having a digital camera with full manual controls makes an ENORMOUS difference learning about lighting, since you can see instant results for your photos. (I.e., if it's screwed up, you can see it right away, and learn or remember 'why' it probably didn't work. With film, you tend to forget the exact setup for that botched photo, since it's with 36 others that were probably all taken in different ways, etc. It limits how much you can learn from your mistakes. I wish I had a manual didital camera when I was learning lighting trial-and-error. It would have saved me at least a year or two or effort, and hundreds of rolls of film and development costs.)

 

For B&W a decent film to try with tungsten bulbs is Kodak T400CN, since it's higher speed (+2 shutter-stops over ISO 100, meaning a shot at 1/15s can now be shot at a sharper 1/60s), and the colour temperature doesn't matter with B&W film. It's also economical to develop, since any one hour lab can do it. It's important to learn how colour film works as well with different light-setups (3200K Tungsten, 5600K daylight, etc.), but one thing at a time as well.

 

Anyway. Hope this helps. I'll post this to your photo, just so other people can read it if they want as well.

 

Kevin.

 

PS: I see now you have a 300D ... solves a lot of problems right there with the learning curve. Try to learn how the 'white balance' works and affect different photos. (Shooting RAW mode and change the white balance in the supplied software after lets you see this with your own eyes).

 

http://www.ktownsend.com

The framing in OK, but the quality of the lighting detracts from the photo. I assume it's a single tungsten bulb to the side and slightly behind the model's left? Most starting or hobbyist photographers are oblidged to use tungsten bulbs as well (I had to for years, and still use them for the right effect sometimes), but you might have more luck with B&W with pictures like this. Alternatively, perhaps you might want to take the time to work on the 'levels' a but in a program like Photoshop, to bring out the midtones/highlights, and distinguish them from the shadows. I can see that the 'tones' in some of your other photographs seem a bit better in this area, so I'm sure you know how to improve on it yourself. (I think you have a good eye for composition, judging by some of the other photos in your portfolio.)

Excellent conceptual work, and good execution as well, in that you can't tell by the first 1-2 frames what the end-result will be (of even what the block-object necessarily is)

I really like the aesthetics here, as well as the very sharp (hard?) constrast between the reds and the blacks, and the near monotone nature of the photograph.

http://www.ktownsend.com/medusa.htm

It really seems pretty phenomenally distasteful to compare this to Gericault's Medusa, no? It seems almost an antithesis of the sentiments of the painting, I would think, in that while Gericault was expressing his (and the publics) incredible outrage at the absurdity of so many deaths, etc. ... this seems to be much more an expression of life, and certainly outrage isn't a word that comes to mind?

Perhaps I just don't understand the comparison -- always quite possible -- but I guess I don't follow on the connection? (I do appreciate the painting a lot, though, so I'm curious to hear your explanation. Obviously it was phenomenally important not just in French art circles, but in public and politic circles as well.)

Confused, but curious: Kevin. ;o)

Emil:

 

I took a look at almost all of the photos in your portfolio a week or two back, and was really happy to see you there on the front page of photo.net under POW. (And not a single irate fundamentalist offering some tirade about nudity and the like -- It's enough to make me shed a tear in shocked surprise ).

 

I'm grateful for you taking the time to post some of your photos. (I've actually seen quite a few good Danish photographers this pasy year or so. It must be something in the water? Perhaps when I get some vacation time later this summer, I'll try to wander on over to your corner of the world. [i'm currently living in the Netherlands, anyway.])

 

I'm curious if you have an easier time doing long, manually painted exposures on 4x5 or smaller formats instead? (You seem to own both medium and large format equipment.) I'm always short on time and space these days, but I have a 4x5 myself, and guessed it might be a little easier with the larger film? Any luck trying this with Type 55 (since it isn't at all designed for longish exposures, etc. -- oh, but I see just now you made this on Type 665, same thing. Surprises abound! ;o)?

 

again ... I really appreciate that you posted so many of your photos. (Even if I think pregnancy is physically a wholly and entirely unflattering thing with 99.95% of the women in this world ).

 

kind regards,

Kevin.

The photo doesn't seem particularly exceptional to me, but it's rooted in my instinctive cynicism from life in Paris, France. What I'm really quite troubled (though by no means surprised) by is (the ever-so-dependable) comments of Vuk, Tris, etc., when everything is relative to the likes of composition. The same (haughty, arrogant?) reasoning would insist that only the most gifted orator, poet, or scholar should dare venture to speak, regardless of the merit of the 'ideas' they express. The shape of the words, and not the heart of the matter seems (quite regrettably) to be all that truly counts? Week after week an overwhelming 'elitism' seems to surface, to the extent that people never seem to delve beneath the surface of the pond, so to speak. Too busy distracted by the 'unsightly' ripples I guess?

 

I wonder if it doesn't get cold up there in the top of that Ivory Tower? (Or how the dynamics work WRT to the co-habitation of such liked minded personalities amongst one another in those ethereal, much-vaunted heights?) It's a grievous thing to see such an elitist inability to percieve value in anything even faintly 'tainted' by some common, surface-level blemish, with little regard to what lay beneath. (It seems akin to measuring people by lineage, where no concern is paid, and no address made to the fundamental values of an individual 'personhood' beyond simply chromosomes, skin-colour, and genetic background. Oh, it has an ounce of Asian blood, rendering it all simply inacceptable. Sorry. Reject ... to the trash ... no no no, it just won't work!, etc., etc., ad nauseum.)

 

Just a few thoughts that seem to bubble to the surface selection-after-selection in the debacle that is victim-of-the-week.

 

Kind Regard,

Kevin.

You really have a handful of really beautiful images in here. I'm grateful to have a chance to see them ... it always brings me a warm sense of 'thankfulness' to see a portfolio that manages to capture such simple, beautiful moments so well. (And I suspect, knowing what Latvian wages are like, you've had to learn to make do with less than exotic equipment.) My heartfelt appreciation on these photos ... Kevin.

Mmm. Great shot. I like the feel with a slightly top down perspective. Great job.

It's a good idea. I don't think I'd have bought that dress, but I guess that's not part of the photo critique now is it. It's a rather original idea, though. Good concept. I like the tight cropping, but it still feels somehow too static or empty to me. I'm not sure what to suggest that could have made it more dynamic, though? I think it might be the rocks that ruin the background. Something warm, darkish blue might have been a little bed, especially with the red, or another more solid feeling hue, rather than the rocks? Even a nice piece of grass, with a vibrant green, might have made it work a little better? Just some thoughts. Again, though, nice idea.

It's an excellent composition, and great use of color. The tiny bubbles are a might distracting, but I suspect they're also nearly uncontrollable. Excellent job.

Good exposure.

It's a very interesting picture, but I find the colours a little too distracting. The very reflective nature of the turtle/tortoises neck make for an image that competes for your eye through the entire frame, rather than being drawn to the tortoises head/beak. I do really like the idea, though. The eyes on it are really quite beautiful. If it's a hosuehold pet, it might make a really wonderful closeup from something closer to a 45 degree angle? Again, Good idea though.

Excellent colour ... It seems like a strobe, but the highlight looks more like a flourescent tube? Interesting work either way. Now to start taking aesthetics and adding ideas. ;o)

The shadow, particularly in the top right corner, is a little too distracting to my sensibilities, but the contrast is really wonderful ... It's a beautiful blue, made all the more poignant by the very contrasty orange hues. It doesn't seem to have any content, but for simple aesthetics (due to colours) it's a nice combination. Maybe try a little harder on more 'feeling' in the subject matter or items used?

I find the hands a little bit distracting, I think. It seems a little bit too contrived. The contrast is nice, though, particularly on her lips.

I really enjoyed the subdued colors (hue?) of the photo. I hope you have the time to keep working away at your evident skill/gift with nude photography. Thanks for making it available to the larger community, since it's often difficult to find well done nudes, and I always appreciate seeing how other people strive with the same medium.

 

warm regards, Kevin.

Sorry to see you're subject to the usual inanities on photo.net with the ratings. I noticed the same thing with a playful self-portrait I posted ... I really loved the image, and still laugh and smile to see it, but, the same 1/1, 2/2 rating by one or two people as a pedantic reaction. I find the foot distracting, or too unnatural, but the gaze and torso are intriguing ... good texture once more.

Amy: It's a great shot. Faintly sensual, but still leaving room for 'personalization', so to speak. (There's enough of a question mark in it to both appropriate the image to being personally meaningful to the viewer, and enough sensuality not to forget the life of the person within it.)

 

Good job.