samstevens

+1 Thanks for thawing things out.

It can also be a timeless machine.

Opps is right. My black and white memories of Superman are about as good as my memories of what I did last weekend. Leap. Of course. Thank you. I bet I have better memories of his costume, though ...

Finally, I've become immortal. Now if PN could just help me scale buildings in a single bound ...

Will

I'd agree that more people are taking pictures. (More people are driving cars, cycling, getting tattoos, getting piercings, ...) I'd also agree that more people are photographers. And I'm not sure I'd say that all or even most of those taking pictures are photographers and, I think, neither would they.

Officer: "What's film?"

Here's June Lockhart at 40, in 1965, from the first episode of Lost in Space. Right, the actress in the ad is not June Lockhart. And, speaking of "isn't it wild", we would watch Lost in Space on our black and white tv with either my brother or me standing at the tv adjusting the rabbit ears or holding them steadily so we'd get a decent signal. Meanwhile Mom, our very own version of June Lockhart, lol, would be standing in the kitchen, talking on the phone that hung on the wall, trying not to get herself wrapped up in the long coil cord attached to it. She probably had some TV dinners in the oven for us, our mouths watering for the cherry gelatinous dessert to follow the turkey and stuffing!

Then again, as the article relays, "At their first meeting, Crawford reportedly found Hurrell’s directions overbearing. 'You can’t talk to her like that,' the actress’s publicity assistant warned Hurrell. 'She knows how to pose.' Two days later, Hurrell was having lunch when a woman ran up to him and kissed his hand, 'Please forgive me, Mr. Hurrell,' said a remorseful Crawford. 'Ive just seen the proofs. They are so very, very lovely.'" Of course, Bette and Joan couldn't agree on much, so who knows whose word to take. 😊

Glad you got something out of it. A photographer friend/mentor recommended I look at Hurrell's work when I first started doing portraits and people photos. I actually had taken one photo that seemed to lend itself to a Hurrell "treatment", and spent time studying details and trying to pay homage to a Hurrell-like approach. It taught me a lot. I generally don't do traditional studio work, preferring mostly natural lighting and shooting people in their home or other comfortable environments. Something significant I take away from Hurrell is the expressive use of a sculptural approach. There's an interesting plasticity to Hollywood glamour work and I've long felt that plasticity can also be used toward conveying very real expressions, via appreciation of persona and the emotional power that a created look, if genuinely approached, can accomplish. There's a lot of territory in the contours of a face, which hold rich potential in a visual art such as photography. Perhaps counterintuitively but also challengingly and rewardingly, artifice can actually be an inroad into expressive depth and authenticity.

Yes, for some reason the color versions are coming through with an over saturated look. Nevertheless, I think the color versions (less saturated) potentially have a more naturalistic feel. To some extent, whether I’d use color or black and white would depend on the context and whether these were part of a bigger series. In general, I’d say the conversion to black and white reads as an imposition and, while such impositions can affect emotional responses and be expressive maneuvers, they can also draw more attention to the medium itself than might be desired in certain documentary work (if you’re thinking of this as documentary work). I understand this, but my response would be to ask why one would want to isolate form in a case such as this. I see these photos as a situation where natural color adds a sense of life and energy and, perhaps most importantly, realism. There are certainly times when a reduction to or emphasis on form would be appropriate. But here, I’m feeling more in tune with, and the purpose of the photos seems more aligned with, narrative and situation than with form.

The element I really like in the second photo is the artwork and crafts on the wall in the background. Adds a lot of texture. Since I'm not too concerned with the title but more with what each photo conveys visually, and I see them as documentary shots, they each have something to offer. I think they'd add nicely to a series about the social center. I do like the first photo for its interesting gestures and sense of spontaneity. It's a little more abstract. The central figure of the woman in the second photo doesn't bother me (again, without concern for the title). As a matter of fact, she provides a nice hook and her smile is warm and inviting. There seems to be a nice connection between her and the man opposite her, which is sweet. The two photos pair nicely because they convey different nuances of the same event. I'd like to see them in color. As I'm imagining them, I don't expect they will have benefitted by the loss of color and suspect they might have lost some potential without it. It seems like it may have been literally and figuratively a colorful moment.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-magic-man-of-hollywood-captured-golden-ages-biggest-stars-180984011/

I think you may have to settle for what you got! When's the last time you saw a user-requested software change on PN?

.

🤣🤣🤣

LOL. https://wapo.st/3v7hO52

A photo looks the way it does because of how it was made. Whether that’s of interest depends on the individual.

What if, on the other hand, people are interested in discussing ideas behind the use of different cameras and their effects on photographers and photos? Yes, many of the philosophy threads, going back decades on this site, have stayed active for months. It seems to be their nature. Given the lack of current activity on PN, I would think a thread remaining active would be welcome (certainly easily ignored if one isn’t interested). No one needs to participate. The simple solution to not appreciating the continuation of a thread that interests and invites participation from others is to change the channel.

I recommend a bit of American TV watching before coming to such ridiculous conclusions. I won’t defend, however, the gun sickness we continue to indulge in. I’m not sure PN is the best place, in any case, to indulge in societal or cultural stereotypes, as every culture represented here probably has many things going for it and a few glass houses on its landscape susceptible to stones being thrown.

An open enough description that seems to recognize that many people would see this work as soft-core serial photos and no more, even while some may authentically see more. I look at Mapplethorpe's work and see significance, but completely understand others seeing smut. Actually, that's part of my enjoyment of Mapplethorpe's work, to be honest. I'm drawn to much of Arbus's work but part of me is forced to deal with some of the challenges it poses and some of the very genuine disgusted reactions it receives. Rather than rejecting such reactions, I think they can be embraced as part of the life of the work. The photos are rich enough that they really don't need defending against those who are genuinely turned off by them. They only need to be recognized as doing so.

Not saying this is the case here, but more generally I'm wondering about the possibility that a photo could suggest a good sense of handling the camera, a good eye for composition, a good instinct for the moment, all guided by a juvenile/shallow/prurient/exploitive [any or all of these] purpose and sensibility.

Yes, that middle ground is likely where the majority of photographers are. Many are just doing their thing, not trying to be one of the greats, even when inspired by them. Looking around the Internet and reading some of what people say about their photography, some do seem to have visions of grandeur, and some seem contentedly self aware. Hopefully, all are getting something out of doing photography, regardless of their own self judgments. In this middle ground, discernment again comes in. I find it pretty easy to spot authenticity. Some authentic work is better than others and some I like more than others, but it’s nice to see people trying to develop a personal vision. It’s most often easy to spot the gimmicky vs. the substantive, work that’s simple vs. work that has ease, work that challenges vs. work that relies on tried and true tropes, work that exploits with a greater purpose and work that stays right in it. None of these are binary. It’s all a matter of degree and sometimes blurry edges. I’m not sure which specific photographer you’re referring to but, yes, there are cases that can initially fool me and that I have missed until I saw more there. That’s even happened with my own work, which is why I often look back at my archives, discovering photos I originally dismissed too quickly. Finally, another thought on subjectivity. One reason I like the critique forum is for the sharing and learning that can be at play. Others’ eyes and opinions can be a gift, even while maintaining one’s own core and objectives. For me, it’s not so much about giving or getting answers as much as it is about creating dialogue. Dialogue with others, with others’ work, with history, with culture, and with other mediums (such as painting, music, theater, sculpture) has a bit more objective character than strict monologue or soliloquy.. Of course, our inner dialogues are also crucial.

Should read “doesn’t suggest to me that many/most instances of softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art can’t be distinguished. [In other words, for the most part, this stuff is distinguishable.]