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!