| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2002 01:13:34 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There is a new link a couple of messages down...
So after a bit of web searching I find out that it is by
Robert Mapplethorpe, in 1984. So I'm very wrong about it looking
'old style' :)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:18:57 PM · #27 |
Doh.... 5am syndrom..
Great form and use of lighting to emphesize it..
as for the corner.. after a quick crop with some white card against the monitor I can tell you why they don't like it coming out the corner.. also why I don't like it coming out the corner..
Because it emphisizes the sharpnes of the corner, pulls your attention away from the main subject to the corner and to the lower stalk...
I did learn sommit at design school after all... Hurray :)
It's a good effect for say, a road, if you want the viewer to follow it out of the frame.. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:19:15 PM · #28 |
| I like the fact that it "comes out of" the corner. It makes for a stable composition because the stem is so nicely centered in the corner. The only thing I'd do is pump up the contrast a slight bit ... the whites don't look white enough and the black isn't deep enough ... maybe because I see it on a black background and it's darker than the photo's background. |
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:19:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]
There is a new link a couple of messages down...
So after a bit of web searching I find out that it is by
Robert Mapplethorpe, in 1984. So I'm very wrong about it looking
'old style' :)
[/i]
But you were dead on about it being from a different period than Weston :)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 01:40:45 PM · #30 |
John,
I'm coming in late on this discussion, but will throw my two cents in FWIW. My first impression is that it should be matted, framed, and hung on a prominent wall. I really like the composition and don't have a problem at all with exiting from the corner. It would be an interesting exercise to rotate it some CCW for an exit at the lower left, but I can't visualize it as looking significantly better or worse, just different.
-Gene
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 1:40:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 09:10:07 PM · #31 |
I am crazy about this one! So pure and sweet...the curves are sensuous, the black and white work well because of the wonderful shadings. Because of the perspective, it enlightens the viewer to an aspect that they might ordinarily miss. To me that is one of the greatest things about photography...to show people another perspective.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2002 11:47:07 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]
There is a new link a couple of messages down...
So after a bit of web searching I find out that it is by
Robert Mapplethorpe, in 1984. So I'm very wrong about it looking
'old style' :)
[/i]
Hehe, I thought it was a Mapplethorpe straight away, but I have a couple of books of his photos, and I've seen one exhibition of his work (at the MCA in Sydney) and some other photos at the Guggenheim recently.
It *does* look like an older style of photo, because Mapplethorpe had a big interest in classicism and reworking older styles of photography and painting. So you're not wrong. However, his photos of flowers all have an erotic twist to them. Flowers are the genitals of plants, technically speaking, and many of his flower photos are worked in order to imitate phallus/vulva imagery :) This one doesn't scream out at you that way, but in my book there's another Calla Lily photo that, when paired with this, makes this one look erect and the other flaccid. He really liked lilies a lot... they're a bit like the "shiva linga" symbol from Indian art (although that's my opinion, I've never read that he thought that).
None of this is just interpretation, Mapplethorpe talked about his flowers a lot as being erotic, and like body parts :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/13/2002 11:47:10 PM. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 12:11:10 AM · #33 |
Well said lisae...everything I had hidden in my shy o'keefish remark and more. :P You've got guts girl!
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 01:08:39 AM · #34 |
John,
I like it because it is a pretty picture.
Bob
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 03:11:51 AM · #35 |
Well, what distracts me from the actual photo of the flower, is that there seems to be the shape of an eagle head in the petals facing into the top left corner of the photo. The strange line in the top left of the petals being a beak and the highest dark ovalish shadow being the eye. The crest of the eagle continues down around the curve of the top petal to the right. I can't even see the flower anymore, all I see is that stupid eagle. I hope I didn't ruin this one for anyone else, I am truely sorry if I did, I didn't mean to, and it's not the photographer's fault, it's just the coincidental way the shadow lays. It's just so predominant to me it really really stands out. It is such a beautiful picture too, I TRY to see past that darn eagle, but to tell you the truth, I'm not drawn to the eagle and have lost the photo completely, I am truely sorry...
I feel like such a butt hole.
~Heather~ |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 03:13:30 AM · #36 |
That's a beautiful image. Only thing I don't like about it is that it is framed by this black page background.
Is it okay to show other people's work on the Net without their permission (in this case the Mapplethorpe estate or the present owner of the image)???? Methinks not. Since in this case it is shown as a link, DPC might not get into trouble but Pbase might and you, John, certainly could as you know that Pbase would automatically attach your name to any images you are showing there.
Edit: just after I posted, noticed that the image was no longer a link but shown at DPC.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/14/2002 3:14:37 AM. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 03:26:34 AM · #37 |
The image becomes visible after you visit the link because your browser caches it. I'm not sure what the process is exactly, but I think that's what happens.
I don't think there's a problem posting other people's work here at all, because copyright laws in all countries have "fair use" clauses specifically for this kind of purpose. You're allowed to quote or reproduce certain amounts of material without authorisation for the purposes of education, political speech, etc. Copyright goes both ways - it protects the copyright holder's interests so they have a monopoly on reproduction, but it also protects the public's interests by recognising there are some very good reasons why you would want to reproduce works without authorisation. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 04:26:09 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by lisae:
I don't think there's a problem posting other people's work here at all, because copyright laws in all countries have "fair use" clauses specifically for this kind of purpose.
Are you sure about that? Could you state in which section of Fair Use Copyright Laws this is covered? I don't believe you can post just like that other people's work on a website and call it Fair Use for Educational Purposes. And, surely, you can't post other people's work with ©yourname attached to it, even though that may be entirely unintentional. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 04:50:16 AM · #39 |
| Here is a good explanation of how Fair Use works. What we're doing here fits into virtually every sphere of fair use - it's for the purpose of education, on a non-profit website, and the reproduction of the photo is a small image of much lower quality than, say, a full sized print. The fact that it's automatically credited to jmsetzler shouldn't be difficult to fight in court if it came down to that :) |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 06:04:20 AM · #40 |
Im very late to this discussion but here are my thoughts:
1. It's technically superb.
2. It's beautiful.
3. It's a technically superb, beautiful picture of a flower.
It works really well for about 2 minutes. After that, you've seen it. There is nothing more to see or to learn.
This picture would work so much better as part of an exhibition. Because you'd start to see themes and ideas building in the artist's work. Those ideas about flowers being genitals and erotic - you really need to see more of these pictures before you start to get that I think.
It's a lovely picture. I love the lighting and the angle. But as a single free-standing picture of a flower I like this more.
John |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 06:42:02 AM · #41 |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 07:56:13 AM · #42 |
I removed it because of the complaints of it being a copyright violation. That was not, as previoulsly stated, my own photo. I posted it to my Pbase gallery, which puts a copyright with my name on it. Someone complained and I removed it before someone complained to Pbase about it.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 11:37:31 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I removed it because of the complaints of it being a copyright violation. That was not, as previoulsly stated, my own photo. I posted it to my Pbase gallery, which puts a copyright with my name on it. Someone complained and I removed it before someone complained to Pbase about it.
For the record, yes I was wondering whether that was allowed or not (and I still think it wasn't and wouldn't like to see web sites shut down, etc.) Certainly had NO intention whatsoever to complain to Pbase or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 11:48:14 AM · #44 |
I am sure that it was not the right thing to do. Pbase doesn't give me the option of NOT adding the copyright tag to whatever I upload over there. I normally post the photos in my own webspace, but I posted that one from my office and I can't get to my own server space from there.
Most of the images that I post for critique will NOT be my own work. I always tell who the photographer was after the critique. I will be slipping in some of my own photos occasionally, but not very often. My own photos are not worthy of sitting beside many of these...
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 11:57:12 AM · #45 |
It's perfectly acceptable to use images for educational purposes. We would go through this time and again at Virginia Tech when we had presentations put together regarding time period discussions, technique, etc, etc...
I wouldn't worry about the legal issues. Just the a$$hole factor of someone wanting to stir the pot at pbase or whatever. |
|
|
|
08/14/2002 12:02:37 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by hokie:
It's perfectly acceptable to use images for educational purposes. We would go through this time and again at Virginia Tech when we had presentations put together regarding time period discussions, technique, etc, etc...
I wouldn't worry about the legal issues. Just the a$$hole factor of someone wanting to stir the pot at pbase or whatever.
Well, Pbase does automatically attach © 2002 John Setzler below the image... I noticed and wasn't going to do anything about it until it was mentioned..
|
|
|
|
08/14/2002 01:49:41 PM · #47 |
Good info, lisae!
Have you ever seen the movie "Dirty Pictures"? If not you should see it since you seem to be interested in Mapplethorpe's images. The movie is more about his "contravertial" images than the flower images but I liked it a lot because it makes you wonder how various people interpret his pictures so differently. It's available in pretty much every video store (I think) ... must be 18 or older :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/06/2025 11:34:31 AM EDT.
