| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2006 07:13:03 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Oh this is so much fun! I love you guys! Even you, Routerguy who hates my picture :)
It really is such a fascinating discussion!! Part of what made me love this picture so much is that I had been shooting so many animals, babies, landscapes. . .soft things. . .She seemed so daring and out-of-the-box for me. I was needing that, and I hope I can do more of it.
I think she would get such a kick out of how much discussion her photo generated :) |
Sandy, I just want to let you know I like the shot on its technical merrits, while the softness there bothers some as a fault it isnt so bad it takes form the shot(the fault(s) I was mentioning earlier) and it is not that she is unattracitve, but that I don't dont see it as being emotive something that sweeps me away but it seems to me others do see it that way. Over You and Bearmusic should be happy it did place well if not first still well.
I also agree that to alot of people smoking is such a turnoff that the neg stigmata may have played aginst the shot for judging. I am personally in the thought that it dosent matter to much what the rest of DPC thinks it is more of whoat you think and how your work affects you. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 08:21:09 PM · #127 |
I remember a teacher of mine back in 9th grade... she told us that when people describe something, they tell us much more about THEMSELVES than they do about the thing which they describe.
For example, say I happen to like a book. I tell everyone it is a very good book. My wife, on the other hand, reads the same book and comes away thinking it's a piece of crap, not worth the time to read. Who's right? Who's wrong?
We're both right in our evaluation. Because neither of us has truly described the book. What we have managed to describe is ourselves and our REACTION to the book.
The same is true here. This image apparently moves some people and fails to move others. And neither party will ever convince the other to agree with their point of view because each person brings their own tastes and life's experiences to the table.
Anyway, that's what my teacher said. And it seemed profound back then. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 08:53:51 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Didn't find it appealing or unappealing. The image offers nothing visually that I can't see a hundred times a day - a woman having a cigarette. |
I belive this was the same criticism that kept the Impressionist out of the Paris salons in the 1880s. The keepers of taste felt that only certain subjects were worth painting, and the radical thinkers of impressionism felt that the everyday seen in a new light made better art than yet another Greek God or mythological figure.
When photgraphy rolled around, it took about one hundred years before photgraphers claimed to be artists, after all the only recorded things, and therefore could not create. The merely photographed the things you see everyday.
Basic question. Is a peice of art a representation of the subject, and hence limited in beauty to the beauty of the subject? Or is it a thing in and of itself, and by the recodation of that event or subject able to be judged as a thing in and of itself apart from the subject.
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 20:55:08. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 09:34:57 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Basic question. Is a peice of art a representation of the subject, and hence limited in beauty to the beauty of the subject? Or is it a thing in and of itself, and by the recodation of that event or subject able to be judged as a thing in and of itself apart from the subject. |
I think it's just the wrong question for this site. If you are entering a photo in a contest and you enter a shot of something people see every day, you have a very good chance of forfeiting 'interest'. If you are overwhelming 'interest' with beauty or balance or some other ephemeral quality then you will probably score well. Some people apparently found something in the photo that far outweighed the mundane subject matter. A lot of people, and again I will say -no suprise-, didn't. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:59:02 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Basic question. Is a peice of art a representation of the subject, and hence limited in beauty to the beauty of the subject? Or is it a thing in and of itself, and by the recodation of that event or subject able to be judged as a thing in and of itself apart from the subject. |
You seem to know the answer already. It is of course something not limited by its subject. Despite what some have said, there's usually meaning that goes beyond the mere representation of the subject. For many people, a good photograph is a picture of something, while being a metaphor for something else. Because this is such a subjective experience, I think this is what happens when one person "gets" a photograph, and another goes "meh". Edit to add "ive" after "subject".
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 23:16:26. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 11:13:07 PM · #131 |
The earlier comment about "blow it up to an 8X10" HUH?? This should have been voted on its merit as it stood in this particular challenge. We are not to surmise what it would look like if seen in another format.
Just my opinion, but I think the word "travesty" is properly used, and that's not because Sandy is my friend either. It's because the image moved the viewer to study it and it wasn't just another pretty face. It took my breath away. It was raw and gutsy and sent me back to another era. It rivals some of the best I've ever seen in any published portrait book or magazine. But like someone else said earlier, that's not what wins on DPC.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 11:35:45 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Oh this is so much fun! I love you guys! Even you, Routerguy who hates my picture :)
It really is such a fascinating discussion!! Part of what made me love this picture so much is that I had been shooting so many animals, babies, landscapes. . .soft things. . .She seemed so daring and out-of-the-box for me. I was needing that, and I hope I can do more of it.
I think she would get such a kick out of how much discussion her photo generated :) |
Did you get a model release? Loved it. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 02:56:17 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
The earlier comment about "blow it up to an 8X10" HUH?? This should have been voted on its merit as it stood in this particular challenge. We are not to surmise what it would look like if seen in another format. |
Alright, alright. I think I am the one who said that, and I only said it because you could tell the quality was not worth higher than a 7 because of the hair line and the obvious editing to the background. I was stating that the quality was not a 10, and that for example if it were to be printed 8 x 10 it would be more obvious. I don't vote based on what will look good as an 8 x 10. I guess it is because I have been doing so many print orders lately that it was on my mind. No offense should be taken by anyone :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:12:15 PM · #134 |
| Guess this may be part of the overall problem. I can't see what Annependleton is talking about and I've seen a few others comment about the background. It's always understood that different monitors show differently. Thing is, I see a pure black background, great tones, no halo and beautiful sharpness. The processing that does exist is deliberate and beautifully pulled off. In the write up, Sandy talks about adding a little Draganizer which is slightly evident and to me brings out the great textures in the neck and hair. Is it possible that people are seeing very extreme examples of this image? Probably. Especially when dealing with black and white with a solid black background. Enter at you own risk is the name of the game I think when submitting this type of image. It was a pure 10 from me based on all of that plus the unique and courageous POV. How many would have the nuts to look at this image and enter it anyway knowing that the first reaction would be based on the size of a nose... which in my opinion, helps make this image what it is and in a way makes this person attractive in an almost obscene way. Helmut Newton is a master at capturing this type of image. Cigarettes are prominent in alot of his work and the close up gritty approach has done him very well to say the least. Have a look at some of his stuff... particularily a portrait of Debra Winger and tell me if you don't see this included in vast portfolio. Great job Sandy. I'd dump half my images in the can just to get something that looked like this. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:32:06 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Guess this may be part of the overall problem. I can't see what Annependleton is talking about and I've seen a few others comment about the background. It's always understood that different monitors show differently. Thing is, I see a pure black background, great tones, no halo and beautiful sharpness. The processing that does exist is deliberate and beautifully pulled off. In the write up, Sandy talks about adding a little Draganizer which is slightly evident and to me brings out the great textures in the neck and hair. Is it possible that people are seeing very extreme examples of this image? Probably. Especially when dealing with black and white with a solid black background. Enter at you own risk is the name of the game I think when submitting this type of image. It was a pure 10 from me based on all of that plus the unique and courageous POV. How many would have the nuts to look at this image and enter it anyway knowing that the first reaction would be based on the size of a nose... which in my opinion, helps make this image what it is and in a way makes this person attractive in an almost obscene way. Helmut Newton is a master at capturing this type of image. Cigarettes are prominent in alot of his work and the close up gritty approach has done him very well to say the least. Have a look at some of his stuff... particularily a portrait of Debra Winger and tell me if you don't see this included in vast portfolio. Great job Sandy. I'd dump half my images in the can just to get something that looked like this. |
Is this the Debra Winger shot you're referring to, Qart?
Hmm, I wonder what people say about Newton's post-processing.
Message edited by author 2006-12-09 15:33:31. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:34:21 PM · #136 |
| yeah... to me they're very similar to feel and style. Of course... it might just be me but not a bad comparison. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:38:55 PM · #137 |
An interesting comparison. Helmut Newton is one of my minor heroes, photographically. If you put the two images up side-by-side for voting, in my book the SandyP beats the newton hands-down :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 03:40:04 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Qart:
yeah... to me they're very similar to feel and style. Of course... it might just be me but not a bad comparison. |
I think it's a very solid comparison, and gives a good representative image of the type of classic look Sandy was trying to achieve. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 05:55:54 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
An interesting comparison. Helmut Newton is one of my minor heroes, photographically. If you put the two images up side-by-side for voting, in my book the SandyP beats the newton hands-down :-)
R. |
I agree wholeheartedly Robert... of course, I may just be gushing and gushing. ;) |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 05:57:20 PM · #140 |
Here's an amazing, even eerie, coincidence; I just got my latest American Photo magazine, the "Images of the Year 2007" issue, and the winner in the wedding/portrait category is a series of straight, studio profile shots of people with big noses. Here's an online teaser for the piece:
//www.popphoto.com/americanphotofeatures/3509/images-of-the-year-2007-weddingportrait.html
It's a hell of an interesting issue, in general. A lot of VERY good work, and very little of it would likely do well in DPC. That's a big world out there :-)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-12-09 17:57:43.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:03:45 PM · #141 |
well as far as i'm concerned SandyP outdid all of those teaser photos.
i don't see IT i guess...
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:32:43 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by annependleton:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
The earlier comment about "blow it up to an 8X10" HUH?? This should have been voted on its merit as it stood in this particular challenge. We are not to surmise what it would look like if seen in another format. |
Alright, alright. I think I am the one who said that, and I only said it because you could tell the quality was not worth higher than a 7 because of the hair line and the obvious editing to the background. I was stating that the quality was not a 10, and that for example if it were to be printed 8 x 10 it would be more obvious. I don't vote based on what will look good as an 8 x 10. I guess it is because I have been doing so many print orders lately that it was on my mind. No offense should be taken by anyone :) |
I'm curious - do your prints turn out often quite a bit darker than you expect ? If I take the original picture and really crank up the brightness on it in photoshop (pull the white point down about 50%, I can see the sort of editing in the background you are talking about.
That would be visible on a really bright monitor, only. Do you see all the white transition levels on the grey point calibration scales for images ?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 06:39:20 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by annependleton:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
The earlier comment about "blow it up to an 8X10" HUH?? This should have been voted on its merit as it stood in this particular challenge. We are not to surmise what it would look like if seen in another format. |
Alright, alright. I think I am the one who said that, and I only said it because you could tell the quality was not worth higher than a 7 because of the hair line and the obvious editing to the background. I was stating that the quality was not a 10, and that for example if it were to be printed 8 x 10 it would be more obvious. I don't vote based on what will look good as an 8 x 10. I guess it is because I have been doing so many print orders lately that it was on my mind. No offense should be taken by anyone :) |
I'm curious - do your prints turn out often quite a bit darker than you expect ? If I take the original picture and really crank up the brightness on it in photoshop (pull the white point down about 50%, I can see the sort of editing in the background you are talking about.
That would be visible on a really bright monitor, only. Do you see all the white transition levels on the grey point calibration scales for images ? |
I see all of the white transitions perfectly and I too see the background editing annependleton mentioned. The background simply isn't all black. The back of her neck where there is a gap clearly shows what the background probably was originally (i.e. not black). Even if the background looked all black on my end the editing would still look obvious to me as the hair looks like it was masked from being darkened. It's just not clean and it looks like it was edited in photoshop but doing lots of editing work myself for nearly 10 years now I notice those things even before I notice the nose. :P
Message edited by author 2006-12-09 18:43:07. |
|
|
|
12/09/2006 08:16:30 PM · #144 |
'The back of her neck where there is a gap clearly shows what the background probably was originally (i.e. not black).'
I think we've discovered a big part of the problem... :)
What I see is hair filling the whole gap between the back of her neck and the sleeve. Perhaps I'm not looking at the right place but the hair on my monitor is brushed straight back and completely fills the 'gap'.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2006 09:44:47 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Qart:
'The back of her neck where there is a gap clearly shows what the background probably was originally (i.e. not black).'
I think we've discovered a big part of the problem... :)
What I see is hair filling the whole gap between the back of her neck and the sleeve. Perhaps I'm not looking at the right place but the hair on my monitor is brushed straight back and completely fills the 'gap'. |
That's the thing. The hair doesn't fill the whole gap. I see very clearly where it ends and where the background shows through. The hairline is obvious. There's nothing wrong with any of that except it tells me that the background was darkened overall except for that missed spot.
Message edited by author 2006-12-09 21:45:34. |
|
|
|
12/11/2006 01:17:27 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by annependleton:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
The earlier comment about "blow it up to an 8X10" HUH?? This should have been voted on its merit as it stood in this particular challenge. We are not to surmise what it would look like if seen in another format. |
Alright, alright. I think I am the one who said that, and I only said it because you could tell the quality was not worth higher than a 7 because of the hair line and the obvious editing to the background. I was stating that the quality was not a 10, and that for example if it were to be printed 8 x 10 it would be more obvious. I don't vote based on what will look good as an 8 x 10. I guess it is because I have been doing so many print orders lately that it was on my mind. No offense should be taken by anyone :) |
I'm curious - do your prints turn out often quite a bit darker than you expect ? If I take the original picture and really crank up the brightness on it in photoshop (pull the white point down about 50%, I can see the sort of editing in the background you are talking about.
That would be visible on a really bright monitor, only. Do you see all the white transition levels on the grey point calibration scales for images ? |
Eh, nope...not at all. I also use my printers proof setup, so the prints come dead on from what I see on my screen. I can also see all white transition levels on a grey point calibration.
I think the reason I spot it so easily is because I'm 19 and when I was in high school and doing photography for yearbook with crappy cameras that allowed little to no DOF and I would want to create DOF I would mask a part of the image and use lens blur or gaussion blur. I became a master at it, I probably couldn't it anymore, but I can easily spot discrepencies in blurring or darkening. Any sort of background trick. I am also on a laptop, so I can tilt my monitor and see things differently. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:17:22 PM EDT.
