Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 211 212 [213] 214 215 ... 220 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Recent Professional Works  (Read 1116123 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4240 on: January 22, 2013, 08:31:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice; it's that background effect at work again, but stronger. I think I've figured out that she's sitting hard up against a large window?

Since the background effect is stronger in the close-up, I am thinking it isn't grain at all, but the glass doing its thing. If it was not a close-up but just an enlargement from a similar sized image as the first, then yes, it could be a film grain effect enlarged due to, well, enlargement of the image.

Like I said, makes you think.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

georgem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


WWW
« Reply #4241 on: January 22, 2013, 10:31:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought I'd post some of my architectural photography here.
It's a bit different from what you might be used to; I try to shoot what is the architect's choices and also what I like in architecture.

This was commissioned, in a sense. I contacted the architect while still building, he had no collaborating photographer, was happy with my portfolio, I gave a quote, got the job.

Canon 24mm TSE II
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4242 on: January 22, 2013, 04:12:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, from another calendar on Kodachrome 64 pro, this time left in peace in colour.

Shows how important other people can be: never would have got to this island without external help by the guy who owned a strip of it.

Some things and some people you never forget in this lfe.

Rob C
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 07:33:47 AM by Rob C » Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 918



WWW
« Reply #4243 on: January 22, 2013, 04:17:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice Grin
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6183


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #4244 on: January 22, 2013, 04:58:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, one word keeps coming to my mind looking at your photographs: organic. That is to say, all natural, sea, sand, sky and a girl. No "pesticides" in the form of a production crew and plastic post-processing. And no silicone (I presume). Nature at its best.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #4245 on: January 22, 2013, 06:31:05 PM »
ReplyReply

from the latest short film we just wrapped yesterday...



Several more here...

The story is, uh... interesting.

Smiley

CB
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551


WWW
« Reply #4246 on: January 22, 2013, 06:45:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a bit different from what you might be used to; I try to shoot what is the architect's choices and also what I like in architecture.

Isn't it always that way? Always has been for me.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4247 on: January 23, 2013, 04:11:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, one word keeps coming to my mind looking at your photographs: organic. That is to say, all natural, sea, sand, sky and a girl. No "pesticides" in the form of a production crew and plastic post-processing. And no silicone (I presume). Nature at its best.



Mr Smith, Slobodan.

Thanks, yes, all natural and fake-free! There's something about plastic tits that I find to be a total turn-off. I neither have the slightest wish to see them nor do they raise a glimmer of interest in my psyche - nor anywhere else, though that might be partly due to beta-blockers or age - not sure. But I am sure that they make me sad. Sad for the person who thought she needed the process, and if she did, then perhaps a poor career-choice was made?

That cosmetic surgery is a huge benefit to those who have suffered natural or medical disaster is something totally different, and I applaud the efforts of those involved in rebuilding some form of mormal life for such victims. Power to them.

The natural look of models was always there, for everyone, up until some few years ago, really. Of course makeup was used and often overused in the past, and badly applied straight lines of terribly contrasting blusher looked damned stupid even then; but despite all the makeup, girls still managed to look human, and thatís a vanishing blessing. But, itís probably not even makeup thatís the main difference today, and it needs others still working to explain the truth, but my take is that itís all down to overenthusiastic embracing of whatís digitally possible: the process has taken over from the intended, subtle improvement some skins need in some areas.

If you dig back into the ancient chronicles of fashion (okay, old fashion mags, but chronicles gives it some added class, no?), look at Jean Shrimpton, Twiggy, Penelope Tree, Marie Helvin et al. and thereís all the makeup you need, plus, of course, the essential humanity that still gives it all credibility. And for me thatís key: maximum impact but believable. Itís why those girls became icons: it was about them and not what was done to their pictures. (Yes, I know Vogue also retouched back thenÖ a certain Mr Boxall did splendid work. But he knew where to stop!)

And Playboy was no different: the editorials were beautiful  but the centrefolds the weakest links in the chain: all over-production, over-lighting, over-retouching and obviously so. And in those days, when I still subscribed, pre-PS!

Riaan posted a response to a website Iíd linked for the benefit of anyone who enjoys photography, where he remarks that he understands what Iíve been saying for ages, which is exactly what a friend of his also declares: without the human element, landscape doesnít do it for everyone (meaning, in my case, myself).

http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com

Thereís a dramatioc shot of a brooding sky, sea, log, and a girl. Subtract the girl and what do you got, as they say on tv? I find it impossible to escape that trap. Ever.

So maybe thatís where the Ďorganicí concept comes from, but I have to thank you for the definition as applied to what I did: Iíd never thought of it like that, but now that youíve mentioned it, itís become all so clear to me, and why I always looked for non-studio solutions to photographic challenges/ assignment whenever I could. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #4248 on: January 23, 2013, 04:21:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, yet another lovely shot.

I do worry that you're posting images without imbedded metadata - potential orphan works. Drop me a line if you need help with the metadata.
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 918



WWW
« Reply #4249 on: January 23, 2013, 05:01:58 AM »
ReplyReply

This forum needs an orphan works thread. I think people need to be made aware of what the (U.K.) government has planned for intellectual property/photography.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2226121/proposed-uk-copyright-changes-spark-worldwide-protests

http://stop43.org/

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #4250 on: January 23, 2013, 05:21:37 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74193.0
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 918



WWW
« Reply #4251 on: January 23, 2013, 05:33:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, that missed my radar.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #4252 on: January 23, 2013, 06:34:41 AM »
ReplyReply

from the latest short film we just wrapped yesterday...



Several more here...

Chris, really good to see some humanity here on RPW.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4253 on: January 23, 2013, 08:27:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, yet another lovely shot.

I do worry that you're posting images without imbedded metadata - potential orphan works. Drop me a line if you need help with the metadata.

PM sent!

Rob C

P.S. I've tried to attach Metadata to this jpeg: has it come through with it? Outwith Nikon's NX2 I have no idea how to check, beyond right-clicking on the image...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 07:34:08 AM by Rob C » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #4254 on: January 23, 2013, 11:32:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, yes, title, author and copyright metadata all embedded.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4255 on: January 23, 2013, 01:17:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, yes, title, author and copyright metadata all embedded.


Thanks for that, but from seeimg this on LuLa, as here and now, how can you tell? If I right-click and go to properties I just get size and date. Does the image have to be in Photoshop for the Metadata to be seen?

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #4256 on: January 23, 2013, 01:50:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Does the image have to be in Photoshop for the Metadata to be seen?

Rob, yes, as I said in my PM, you need to open the image in Photoshop and then go to File and then File Info.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4257 on: January 23, 2013, 05:26:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, yes, as I said in my PM, you need to open the image in Photoshop and then go to File and then File Info.

Oh - right, thanks, Keith.

Rob C
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #4258 on: January 24, 2013, 03:55:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Chris,

Nice screen grabs.  Looks like Wes Andersons, Moonrise Kingdom.

________________________





BC
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 10:00:27 AM by bcooter » Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 918



WWW
« Reply #4259 on: January 24, 2013, 04:35:21 AM »
ReplyReply

He's not a cyclist. Too much upper body and an overdeveloped six-pack   Roll Eyes
Hairy legs too.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 211 212 [213] 214 215 ... 220 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad