Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Figure Work  (Read 73486 times)
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2008, 03:52:49 PM »
ReplyReply

My sentiments exactly jjj.  

Now... is it still art if you use a Canon and process it on a PC???  
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2008, 06:20:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My sentiments exactly jjj. 

Now... is it still art if you use a Canon and process it on a PC???   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you do it on a Mac it is art.  
Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5582



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2008, 11:48:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dangin said: "The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the Dove 'real women' ad.

"I only worked on the Dove ProAge campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do colour correction -- both the integrity of the photographs and the women's natural beauty were maintained."

Thanks for letting me know!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2008, 01:54:23 PM »
ReplyReply

jjj

Yes, they were interesting times, but Iīm afraid that the images will have to remain off your screen; copyright in those days didnīt give the author shit; it belonged to the commissioning client and, to surprise you even further, it wasnīt all that prevalent (perhaps London was different) to get model releases either. The model agency would bill you and that was all you got. Model paid, bill receipted, end of story. In fact, it wasnīt until I signed up with Tony Stone in the late seventies/early eighties that I can remember releases being an issue. So, those I have since then are jealously guarded. Unreleased model shots stay silent!

Whilst I am fairly sure that using the images in a fine art context might be a risk worth taking on a local, Spanish level, putting those images on air in this litigious era to me is not. Further, in the context of this site (or at least the majority on this thread), I could give you the blessed VM and you would still find fault because she looks too pretty, too beautiful, holy or just too damn unordinary; in other words, as Iīm not an amateur in the business of seeking peer approval, I couldnīt care less if you think there are no trousers to the mouth. A mouth which, in my opinion, has not boasted about anything at all but simply told you the truth as it sees it.

However, as that will not satisfy your curiosity, try to research the Hewden/Stuart Group plc, which was and is the biggest plant-hire, plant-sales group in the UK (though since bought over by an even bigger Canadian group) and if you can locate their calendars from ī74 to ī85 you might see that I shot, designed and produced the lot (must have done something right)  Tennentīs Lager calendars from '79 to `85 ditto. In between I did calendars for Teachers Whisky and Glayva Liqueur not to mention the many unknow (to me) ones through the good offices of Stone. (By the way, I refer to plantīs meaning as in civil engineering and not horticulture.)

So no, donīt hold your breath for any  images from me on this site.

Rob C
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2008, 02:32:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I can find Tennents Lager Lovelies beer can images from that time frame.  Did you do any of those?  I've found one advert for a calendar around 65.  (Better looking images than the beer cans.  But I could be holding the hair styles against them.)

(Is it any worse if you beat your wife after getting drunk on a beer product featuring a picture of some strumpet?)

Hmmm....  there is a book called "Lager Lovelies - The story behind the glamour" by C. Schoefield and A. Kamm.

That Hewden whatever company is in a google desert.  In the future if it isn't in google it never existed.

This would be a lot easier if every goddamn page on the internet didn't refer to a calendar of events.  If you are collecting cans featuring images of some bimbo you don't need a calendar of events.  Seriously.  You can reuse the same post-it note with "Things to do today!  1. Get drunk.  2. Do something inappropriate to mention on this forum with the "Ann" can from '65." written on it.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 02:57:53 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2008, 03:09:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can find Tennents Lager Lovelies beer can images from that time frame.  Did you do any of those?  I've found one advert for a calendar around 65.  (Better looking images than the beer cans.  But I could be holding the hair styles against them.)

(Is it any worse if you beat your wife after getting drunk on a beer product featuring a picture of some strumpet?)

Hmmm....  there is a book called "Lager Lovelies - The story behind the glamour" by C. Schoefield and A. Kamm.

That Hewden whatever company is in a google desert.  In the future if it isn't in google it never existed.

This would be a lot easier if every goddamn page on the internet didn't refer to a calendar of events.  If you are collecting cans featuring images of some bimbo you don't need a calendar of events.  Seriously.  You can reuse the same post-it note with "Things to do today!  1. Get drunk.  2. Do something inappropriate to mention on this forum with the "Ann" can from '65." written on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Mr P

No, the lager can girls were another departmentīs responsibility - the PR lot. I did stuff directly for the Marketing Director. The main difference was that the can girls were Scottish ones and used for local promotions - personal appearances etc. at boozer events - whereas the calendar ones marked a break from the parochial mindset because I kicked off the whole thing by exposing the company to Londonīs best.

If I remember correctly, we use the following girls: Georgie Steer (also featured on a Lichfield calendar for Unipart) in Mallorca; Denise Perry in Rhodes (another Lichfield girl); Denise Denny in Florida (a Barry Lategan girl from his Mintex shoot in Sardinia); Denise Perry again in the South if France; Jackie Jones in Costa Smeralda, Sardinia (Lichfield too); another girl called Suzie G in Singapore (Lichfield again, in Sicily) and some further people including some Scottish ones in Kenya, Bahamas, Ireland and other places best forgotten for the very last one I did, the Centenary one, which was handed over by the Marketing Director to his underling, the PR Manager. I suppose, in the PR guyīs mind, using Scottish girls was the equivalent of flying a kilt or one of those horrid, eponymous little dogs that have come to symbolise the country.

In any event, I had long left the place by then so I suppose it was inevitable that Iīd lose the business, but it seems that even the can girls fell victim to the politically correct movement, that tide of irrational fear that caused more business distress to the pretty girls in the modelling industry than their uglier sisters might have imagined; such is envy.

(Oh for jjj: if you really have a burning desire to see one of my shots, then dig out the Top Models Directory for `80 -`81 and look for the Denise Denny entry. On the right of a spread is a Lategan shot from Sardinia and on the left, one of mine from Paradise Island, Bahamas. As she was a very successful girl of her day, it was nice to have one of my shots chosen.)

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 12:43:33 PM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2008, 03:23:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Mr P

http://www.hewden.co.uk

I canīt find anything there about the calendars either, but they were the best I ever did, money no problem, the best client mindset ever. But then perhaps thatīs because I was dealing with Ron Stuart, one of the founders of the Company, and it is always those people who understand the greater picture, have no fear of being kicked in the ass by a superior, who can make things happen. It also helped that he was a regular on the Pirelli Calendar gift list...!

Oh, by the way, my computer opens the internet via Yahoo, so perhaps they search better than Google - like Avis, trying harder?

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 04:06:26 AM by Rob C » Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #67 on: May 25, 2008, 09:56:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
From 'The Online Photographer':
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...m-excellen.html
"Sanders McNew explores the tension between the concepts of "portraits" and "nudes" in flattering but unretouched photographs of real women.

Mostly nude portraits (not workplace/school friendly)

A very short article about the work"




I looked at every single one of those photographs, and I thought Sanders' effort was absolutely wonderful

To me he did what he set out to do, which was to capture a full panorama of women, of all body types, ethnicities, and emotions in a neutral and natural setting. Yes, some of the women were hideous, I mean so hideous in fact that I personally might have been tempted to get my gun, not a camera (LOL). But hey, that was part of the story being told.

In reading some of the comments posted, it seems as if there is a certain shallowness or denseness that biases some people toward physical beauty alone, as if the only things in this world that are "beautiful" are those which possess perfect physical form. But is "physical form" all there is to beauty? I mean, how many of us have met physically perfect women ... who have gotten uglier by the second every time they talk, because they either have no personality or a negative one? Conversely, how many of us have met women who may not be perfect physically, but the more we talk with them, interact with them, and see the light and mischief in their eyes, the more and more attractive they become to us?

In fine, the human spirit can be beautiful too, more beautiful in fact than mere human form

And this is what I personally found was so compelling about Sanders' work: there was a broad spectrum of natural human emotions to be seen, for those who are subtle enough to see them. From women who were clearly a little shy and withdrawn, to those who were basically unimaginative and boring in their poses, to those women whom you could see were transformed by the moment into really feeling beautiful ... all of these emotional ranges were captured on film ... and all of these kinds of emotions and levels of comfort are part of being human.

When an ordinary woman gets to be photographed nude for the first time, and just beams in front of the camera because she is delighted to have this kind of attention lavished on her, is this not a form of beauty? It doesn't matter that her physical form isn't perfect, what matters is that something positive and needing to be expressed in her has come to life, and that was captured on film.

It kinda reminds me of what happened last weekend, while I was leaving my girlfriend's house. We had just spent the day horseback riding, then we ate an early dinner out by her pool, and then of course the evening progressed from there

Sadly, I had to split though, as it was just about night time and I had to get back, so she walked me to my car. As we said our goodbyes, I sat in my car and looked up at her ... and she had her arms folded and just had this smile on her face that captured "everything feminine" ... she was at once girly, womanly, satisfied, happy, sad I was leaving, basically every emotion she was feeling was all wrapped up in that one beautiful moment.

I had my camera handy on my front seat, and I just reached for it and snapped that special moment right then and there. The autoflash was off and the photo came out very dark, with the ISO too high, and the shot was too grainy. So I re-adjusted the camera, and set-up everything up manually, and I asked her to "stay still" so I could take another shot, but better-prepared this time. As I compared the two photos, the interesting thing I immediately noticed was that the second shot was technically the better shot. The color was right, the lighting was right, the clarity was better, everything was superior in that second photo ... except one tiny detail. The special moment was lost. Her smile had changed to slightly unnatural and the surreal, natural mood of the darkness was blinded by the flash. It just wasn't the same.

At the end of the day, the first photo (though technically inferior) was ultimately the better preservation of her beauty, because it captured everything I wanted to capture, including the moody darkness, but most importantly it captured "the magic" of what made me want to take the photo to begin with: her radiance. What I most wanted to see and remember was something beyond mere physical form, or flawless photographic execution, it was a mood and a feeling, a satisfied woman beaming at me. I don't know how else to explain it.

Anyway, I have digressed a bit, but my point is that sometimes seeing flawless photos of made-up models does get old after awhile. That isn't what we see in real life. I found Sanders' effort to be very refreshing, and indeed very interesting, precisely because I was able to see a whole gamut of not just physical bodies, but more importantly all kinds of levels of confidence, happiness, imagination in poses, etc. Yes, there were some truly insipid poses shown, and some truly ugly women too ... that I would probably be very happy if I never saw again. But you know what? That's part of life too.

But there were also some women captured whom I wouldn't have really given a second look under other circumstances, but yet whom I could see were beaming in front of that camera, literally glowing. And to me there is nothing sexier or more beautiful than that, which is the human spirit glowing, especially in a woman.

Jack
« Last Edit: May 25, 2008, 10:07:19 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5582



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 25, 2008, 02:19:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Well said, Jack.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5582



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 25, 2008, 02:24:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Lifted from 'The Online Photographer' site:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...blog_index.html

"Last night I got a long comment from a woman named Jessalyn, the "Accountant, Kansas" in Sanders McNew's multi-frame portrait I featured as a "Random Excellence" last week. I've added her thoughts to the original post as a "Featured Comment."


"Featured Comment by The Accountant from Kansas: "Millions of people every day alter their body in some way: plastic surgery, shaving their beard (or legs, and so on), cutting/coloring their hair, doing their nails, getting tattoos/piercings, putting in their color contact lenses, going on a diet, covering themselves in makeup, building muscle, and so on. There is no 'real-ness' about a person except for how they exist at any given second in time. That's what Sanders captures. These people are 'real' because there didn't exist any preconceived notion of how they should look: someone else's 'real'...before I modeled for Sanders I asked him 'how should I show up? Should I have my hair and makeup done?' and his response was 'This is a portrait. Come how you want to.' He was capturing my real, not his real, or anyone else's real. No art director's real, no makeup artist's real, no photographer's real. My real. The fact that the images are not retouched? I think that ties in to being 'my real.' By retouching an image, the photographer is inflicting their own sense of real on 'my real.' They thought the light should have hit me differently, they though that freckle shouldn't have been there, they thought that scar was distracting. By leaving the image unretouched, Sanders is in fact showing 'my real' and not 'his real.' It's a portrait, it's about the subject.

"A few of the comments mentioned the presentation of Sanders' images. One even mentioned 'a box of images' with no rhyme or reason. In my opinion, if Sanders ordered these into galleries or made them anything but a 'box of images,' it would be inflicting his own sense of 'real' onto them. By categorizing the images into groups, this tends to say that somehow these images are related by something. By not categorizing the images, this shows us how individual each shoot is. Nothing ties them together other than what they all contain (naked, portrait, B&W). Each shoot is unrelated to the next because each person contains a different 'real' at any given time than the next person. A box of images is exactly what these portraits are.

"Why naked? Well I'm sure Sanders has his reasons, but for me I see it as a way to get something honest out of your subject. I know that if I were wearing clothes I would find something to distract myself. To 'do something' in the image. By being naked, there are no pockets for me to put my hands in, no collar of my shirt to fiddle with, there is nowhere for me to look other than the camera. I am forced to show the camera a real emotion. When you're naked, what else do you have to do other than talk to the photographer about world politics or how funny last nights episode of 'Scrubs' was? By eliminating the clothing it forces the subject to use what they have left: their facial expression, which I feel is the most important part of a portrait.

"As for some of these girls being 'professional models,' I don't feel that this really makes any difference. They are all 'real' people being captured in a moment of time. Their high level of comfort in front of a camera is their 'own real' just like a non-model's level of comfort in front of a camera is their 'own real.' Most of these girls are not people you would see on the street and think 'Wow, she must be a model." Even if some of these girls model for a living, they are still daughters, sisters, mothers, neighbors, addicts, religious, fearful, loved, travelers, students, artists, excited, nervous, or any other noun or adjective that I can use to describe a person with eyes that have seen the world and have a story to tell.

"Obviously I have some bias about Sanders work since I have shot with him but I wouldn't have posed in front of his camera if I didn't feel that his work is brilliant."
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2008, 06:11:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I looked at the photos when they first came up on The Online Photographer (which IMHO is the best photo blog on the 'net.) Two things:

My attitude toward the photos shifted somewhat when I learned that a number of the models were professionals, a fact not mentioned by the photographer in the original post. My attitude shifted because, while (as the accountant says) the models are still women, they are people who are paid to project what the photographer wants, not what they are. I felt somewhat, mmm, tricked.

My attitude shifted *only* somewhat because I basically thought the photos were not very interesting, either in concept or in detail. Forget about the whole beauty thing -- there are hundreds of thousands of nudes on the net of every age, race, and body style/appearance, and both sexes. These simply do not distinguish themselves. Get a role of seamless and a couple of lights and almost any camera, and any of us could shoot these, with the camera set to auto/autofocus.

I no longer look at PhotoSig, but that site (last I saw it) had, at any one time, about 100 pages of 30 images each of nude/sexual photos; 3000 images at any one time. More were added every day, as the older ones fell off the end. Look through a hundred pages of those things, then come back and look at these photos and decide if there's anything special about them...I just don't think there is.

In fact, I'm not sure there can be anything new/unusual/interesting about nude photographs; most of them, I think, say more about the photographer's psyche than about anything else...

JC
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #71 on: May 27, 2008, 03:29:55 PM »
ReplyReply

John, just when Iīd given up on any more breaths of fresh air, you wafted in with a dose of realism.

How now, oh so sweet dreamers? How beautiful the non-professional; how unreal the non-professional; how professional the `real` woman! Such character!

Readerīs Wives comes to mind....

Bought a set of new tyres for the poor old Ford yesterday - just for the front; the quid might rise against the bloody euro again and allow a swap of car... eventually.

However, Iīm told that Spaniards are buying British boats like never before, 16% cheaper (to them) than some months ago. Funny how the Mini, German as it is, made in Britain, is still highly priced in Spain. Do you ever get the feeling we are all being shafted?

Rob C
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 27, 2008, 06:31:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Further, in the context of this site (or at least the majority on this thread), I could give you the blessed VM and you would still find fault because she looks too pretty, too beautiful, holy or just too damn unordinary; in other words, as Iīm not an amateur in the business of seeking peer approval, I couldnīt care less if you think there are no trousers to the mouth. A mouth which, in my opinion, has not boasted about anything at all but simply told you the truth as it sees it.
 Why people give opinions, weight is usually given to thiose who've demostrated some expertise in the field. Here amongst photographers, the ability to produce good images counts for a lot when talking about photography.
Also, why assume if your photos contain pictures of beautiful women, that they will not be liked. A daft presumption, just because some people liked images which were not traditionally glamourous.  In my case I like, for example blurry images, but that doesn't preclude my liking ultrasharp images, does it? My specific preference is for good pictures, I don't are what genre, what subject, what medium or what camera.


Quote
So no, donīt hold your breath for any  images from me on this site.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's nothing stopping you showing images you've taken bar yourself. For example model releases are not relevant here, as model releases are only needed if images are used to sell/endorse products. And a website showing ones's professional work is not normally a problem with regard to copyright either.
Besides don't they they sell cameras in Spain?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 06:32:27 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 27, 2008, 06:40:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
if you really have a burning desire to see one of my shots, then dig out the Top Models Directory for `80 -`81 and look for the Denise Denny entry. On the right of a spread is a Lategan shot from Sardinia and on the left, one of mine from Paradise Island, Bahamas. As she was a very successful girl of her day, it was nice to have one of my shots chosen.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well the first entry in a google search for those criteria picks up your post that I've quoted, quick work Google!   Nothing else in search seemed relevant. Why not simply post link if you know where some of your work is?
Unless of course you mean an old fashioned printed copy!    
Like I'd have one of them lying around!  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #74 on: May 27, 2008, 09:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

There are hundreds of thousands of photos of everything online: cars, landscapes, seascapes, achitecture, children, the elderly, pets, flowers, the desert, sheets of ice, zebras, eagles, lions, doorways, staircases, blah-blah-blah ... and yes nude women too.

Everybody thinks they're "unique" in the way they see things and what they do ... but rarely is anything truly unique, just a different spin on the same old shit.

So I suppose the difference is that some people keep a positive outlook and try to see and appreciate the uniqueness of each person's perspective in their work ... while others will roll their eyes and act elitist.

Funny thing is, neither stance taken is unique either.




.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #75 on: May 28, 2008, 03:57:49 AM »
ReplyReply

jjj

I only wish you were right about model releases,  but as I understand it, there is no holy exemption that allows photographers to "publish" without a release, and thatīs what putting stuff up on the web is if you have no release. If you look at the releases required by quality stock agencies or, for that matter, at any contemporary versions that are other than amateur-lawyer originated (as have appeared on this website recently), youīll find electronic publishing very much considered a part of publishing.

The other important thing about releases is the "holding up to ridicule, or, defamation" aspect. Sexy pics of girls, now probably mothers, isnīt going to sit well in a lot of homes I can think of. It was one thing doing that sort of photography as a beautiful young woman, for a good brand, but quite another for internet distribution on your sonīs computer. The difference in ambience is huge and that is what governs so much in the visual life of an image. Sell in Hamiltonīs Gallery or in the local flea market... you dig the difference in perception that creates?

Nobody regrets the problem more than I do. Itīs one of the facts of life which has prevented me from putting up a website for myself. It might not be something which bothers you, jjj, but I DO have a lot to lose and Iīm not going to throw it away on an ego trip, particularly just to impress you.

Yes, of course the Model Directory was hard copy - thatīs one of the primary reasons that mine is still around. Neither can I find any links to my pics for the aforementioned  clients - life can suck, canīt it? However, I think I might well have a clue to the reason: the very same reason much of it ended, and that is the influence of political correctness. I donīt have much idea how old you are, but you had to work through the seventies (at least) to understand how serious the problem became. Today, even my own daughter thinks it was ever the norm. Guess thatīs what university life did for her and the rest of her generation, now the work-spinners of the world.

As for your problem with understanding why I wouldnīt put up pics of women here, the legal implications aside, you have but to re-read this thread.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #76 on: May 28, 2008, 03:59:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are hundreds of thousands of photos of everything online: cars, landscapes, seascapes, achitecture, children, the elderly, pets, flowers, the desert, sheets of ice, zebras, eagles, lions, doorways, staircases, blah-blah-blah ... and yes nude women too.

Everybody thinks they're "unique" in the way they see things and what they do ... but rarely is anything truly unique, just a different spin on the same old shit.

So I suppose the difference is that some people keep a positive outlook and try to see and appreciate the uniqueness of each person's perspective in their work ... while others will roll their eyes and act elitist.

Funny thing is, neither stance taken is unique either.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


John, why is it elitist to dislike something you see as very poor?

Rob C
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #77 on: May 28, 2008, 07:29:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John, why is it elitist to dislike something you see as very poor?
Rob C





Good morning Rob.

Well, most of you have the advantage over me here as I am not a professional photographer. Therefore, I see many of the works that are posted here from a different perspective: one of fascination for the work and ideas of other people. Rather than looking at the posted works here with a critical eye, I tend to try to understand and appreciate the efforts and perspectives of these photographers as almost a cyber-mentorship to give me ideas to try myself perhaps (or perhaps not).

You are clearly coming from the perspective of a professional photographer, who’s been there and done that, and who (according to you) has done that better. Where I tend to look up at the work of most photographers here as something to try to learn from (or just to enjoy), you are clearly looking down at this work from the perspective that it is something beneath your own tastes, talents, and capabilities.

Which brings us to the definition of elitism: “Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight.”

This is why I used the word “elitist” in this context. In order to look down on something and label it “poor,” one must view one’s own position and qualifications as elevated by comparison, which is the default perspective of the elitist.

Jack




.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 28, 2008, 09:22:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
jjj I only wish you were right about model releases,  but as I understand it, there is no holy exemption that allows photographers to "publish" without a release, and thatīs what putting stuff up on the web is if you have no release. If you look at the releases required by quality stock agencies or, for that matter, at any contemporary versions that are other than amateur-lawyer originated (as have appeared on this website recently), youīll find electronic publishing very much considered a part of publishing.
Rob, you do not need a model release to publish your images unless it's for commercial gain, i.e. advertising and that's why agencies like to ask for them, as they make more money from commercial usage.  On Alamy for example you can post released and unreleased images, the difference being is that you have fewer openings without one, not none.
It's only in paranoid America they insist on it for magazines/editorial, just in case they get sued. It's not actually needed and if you want proof  if is not needed, then the vast amount of gossip magazines full of paparazzi shots would not be able to exist if model releases were needed.  


Quote
The other important thing about releases is the "holding up to ridicule, or, defamation" aspect.
Publishing an image of someone and saying for example this is a shoplifter [when the person isn't] is not something you need a release for either as that is a completely different area, slander/libel territory, then you do need a lawyer. Showing a picture of a model posing for a calendar shot in context as part of her job, will not come into that territory.

Quote
Sexy pics of girls, now probably mothers, isnīt going to sit well in a lot of homes I can think of. It was one thing doing that sort of photography as a beautiful young woman, for a good brand, but quite another for internet distribution on your sonīs computer. The difference in ambience is huge and that is what governs so much in the visual life of an image. Sell in Hamiltonīs Gallery or in the local flea market... you dig the difference in perception that creates?

Nobody regrets the problem more than I do. Itīs one of the facts of life which has prevented me from putting up a website for myself. It might not be something which bothers you, jjj, but I DO have a lot to lose and Iīm not going to throw it away on an ego trip, particularly just to impress you.
It's not too impress me, but  to put you in context that's all and I would genuinely like to see some of your pics.
As for the reason that models you photographed are now Mums and would be mortified if someone posted an image of them looking beautiful when they were younger is one of the daftest excuses I've ever come across for not showing one's pictures. Unless you did undercounter porn, which would be a bit more embarassing!
Using images taken for clients in one's portfolio has never been an issue and as a website is simply an online portfolio, there wouldn't be any problems there either, trying to sell the images if you do not possess copyright for some reason, is however another matter.


Quote
Yes, of course the Model Directory was hard copy - thatīs one of the primary reasons that mine is still around. Neither can I find any links to my pics for the aforementioned  clients - life can suck, canīt it? However, I think I might well have a clue to the reason: the very same reason much of it ended, and that is the influence of political correctness. I donīt have much idea how old you are, but you had to work through the seventies (at least) to understand how serious the problem became. Today, even my own daughter thinks it was ever the norm. Guess thatīs what university life did for her and the rest of her generation, now the work-spinners of the world.
Blaming Political correctnees for your work not being online is a pathetic excuse. The real reason is it's been 'forgotten' about as it existed many years before the the web arose and was simply never put on. And long term, the t'internet may well be a more permanent repository, than the odd copy of a disposable magazine/book, which is what annual directories were.

Quote
As for your problem with understanding why I wouldnīt put up pics of women here, the legal implications aside, you have but to re-read this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why as some people liked the shots referenced in OP and some didn't? Besides you seemed the most damning, so maybe if you don't comment then there won't be an issue!    You are happy to slag off other women, but you do not want others slagging off ones you photographed, is that what you are saying? Do I smell the bitter stench of hypocrisy or is there another reason?

As John points out, you come across as elitist, yet are very unwilling to show that you were/are in fact 'worthy' of being elistist, by your talent. Denigrating others take little to no talent and anyone can do it.
Lots of photographers took pictures when you did. Are they all too scared to show the photographs from then, in case they upset an ex-model's kids? I doubt it somehow. Besides if the models didn't want to be embarassed, then they shouldn't have done the work in the first place or are you now admitting to exploiting youthful naivity?  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #79 on: May 28, 2008, 09:56:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why as some people liked the shots referenced in OP and some didn't? Besides you seemed the most damning, so maybe if you don't comment then there won't be an issue!    You are happy to slag off other women, but you do not want others slagging off ones you photographed, is that what you are saying? Do I smell the bitter stench of hypocrisy or is there another reason?

That's funny.  I'd say Rob not posting such pictures is pretty well aligned with his stated position.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 09:57:25 AM by DarkPenguin » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad