Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Painted Ladies  (Read 5529 times)
alangubbay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« on: March 16, 2010, 11:17:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting contrast?
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2010, 12:36:41 PM »
ReplyReply

To be honest, I think I've seen this view dozens of times on television (ads and the opening of a very bad comedy series) and in print. It's a cool juxtaposition, but it's been done to death. Sorry.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 12:37:29 PM by ckimmerle » Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2010, 02:02:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Full House rules!  lol
Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2010, 09:58:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kaelaria
Full House rules!  lol

Yep, that's the one.
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1047


« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2010, 04:34:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
To be honest, I think I've seen this view dozens of times on television (ads and the opening of a very bad comedy series) and in print. It's a cool juxtaposition, but it's been done to death. Sorry.
It may be old hat to you, but it looks pretty good to me. I do like the contrast, but feel it would be stronger if a person were walking by. That said, IMO, the image is very good on its own.

JMR
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2010, 05:49:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I like it, contrasty but not harsh light give it a fresh feel.

It might have been done before, but not by you and in the end that's all that counts.
I think these days the claim "I've seen that before" can be made for probably > 99% of the images posted on the web.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2010, 05:56:38 PM »
ReplyReply

In this case though, you can find so many pretty much exact duplicates on google that I bet the people living there see a constant stream of photographers in that same spot

Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2010, 10:07:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong the OP's photo. It is well done, however there's no denying that it's one of hundreds or thousands of near identical images from that very same spot. That is a fair and useful critique.
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2010, 05:17:42 AM »
ReplyReply

The question everybody is missing is this: why do these shots in the first place?

I'm not trying to be unpleasant, mocking, superior, elitist or any of those usual suspects; I'm just trying to figure out why folks want to shoot something that they have had absolutely no part in either creating, building or helping cajole into existence. I face the same quandry with landscape in the sense of pretty sunsets etc. That isn't to say that I never did such stuff: I certainly did when I was trying to stay in stock. But, and a big one, without an imagined commercial payback, I wouldn't have bothered doing any of that per se where the only reward would be an 'I was there' without any actual contribution to anything. I don't think much of the theory of silent witness.

I am often reminded of the Terence Donovan quotation which I paraphrase: the greatest problem for an amateur is finding a reason to make a photograph.

Rob C
Logged

pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2010, 07:21:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kaelaria
In this case though, you can find so many pretty much exact duplicates on google that I bet the people living there see a constant stream of photographers in that same spot

So what? I even liked his version better than the one you posted

Quote from: ckimmerle
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong the OP's photo. It is well done, however there's no denying that it's one of hundreds or thousands of near identical images from that very same spot. That is a fair and useful critique.

Fair point, but I kinda missed the starting point of your second post the first time around.  

Quote from: Rob C
I'm not trying to be unpleasant, mocking, superior, elitist or any of those usual suspects;

You're failing  
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person. After that posting it here and getting input in how you could have done different or better is enough justification to take it. For some people this is a hobby they enjoy  That's the reason to take a photograph and why should you have that spoiled by Terence Donovan or anybody else.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 07:28:58 AM by pegelli » Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2010, 09:31:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person.

That's exactly it, at least in my mind.  If I was going to not take pictures of things that had already been photographed, I might as well not have a camera.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2010, 09:40:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Remember an interview of Pablo Picasso saying that he kept on painting mainly because he wanted to have these paintings on his walls and, or they did not existed, or he could not afford them. (at that time he said that...)

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

Posts: 12213


« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2010, 11:41:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
You're failing  
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person. After that posting it here and getting input in how you could have done different or better is enough justification to take it. For some people this is a hobby they enjoy  That's the reason to take a photograph and why should you have that spoiled by Terence Donovan or anybody else.




Yes, I can understand what you are saying, but that is a different thing to understanding the why of it. As I said about my own efforts in that sort of work, it was fine as long as there was a financial motivation but it failed utterly to engage me without that.

It's as if there is a sort of need to take photographs and it has to met with something, but therein lies the problem: what is that something when commerce is removed from it or, alternatively, some other valid reason - a social service to the community, perhaps - does not exist? I can't believe that any photographer who has advanced enough to be able to shoot and get whatever he wants still feels the need that you outline in your explanation. Surely there has to be more to it than just shooting something because it's there and you can?

Regarding Donovan, far from spoiling anything for me he simply articulated something I have felt for many many years.

Many professionals go on and on about 'personal' work, but I have seldom met any of them who actually do anything that can be classified as such; for most of them, personal means nothing more than their modus operandi, their style or specialisation which is a place they got to because it represented the sort of work that they liked to do. In other words, somebody into fashion might spend non-assignment time shooting yet more model pics, which could be described as personal work but is in effect nothing more than an unpaid version of the day-job, a way of getting something slightly different for the book. I am not saying that some fashionistas might not be crazy about photographing sunsets, I just haven't met any of them like that.

For the amateur, on the other hand, it is all personal work unless he is a shamateur on the side.

However, I am fully prepared to accept that it is probably myself who doesn't 'get it' rather than the legions who obviously must.

;- (

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2010, 12:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Remember an interview of Pablo Picasso saying that he kept on painting mainly because he wanted to have these paintings on his walls and, or they did not existed, or he could not afford them. (at that time he said that...)

Fred.




Fred, you have unintentionally made my point for me. Without the input of Pablo P. there would be nothing to see; with the input of most photographers, all you see (usually at best!) is what already existed.

Regarding the photograph of the buildings that starts this thread, there is nothing wrong with the photograph at all, it's damn good, but that wasn't ever the point of my comments, which was about motivation for making the shot in the first place.

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2010, 01:08:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Fred, you have unintentionally made my point for me. Without the input of Pablo P. there would be nothing to see; with the input of most photographers, all you see (usually at best!) is what already existed.

Regarding the photograph of the buildings that starts this thread, there is nothing wrong with the photograph at all, it's damn good, but that wasn't ever the point of my comments, which was about motivation for making the shot in the first place.

Rob C
Hi Rob,

It's another remake from the remake, yes.
Actually, I can see a reason why this particularly location has been used many times: Contrast in between worlds. The green: primitive nature - the old dusty and romantic: the houses - and the background: the cold, industrial, gigantesque, modern...
So it's like a journey from 3 worlds that seem opposed or somethink like that. There is also 3 scales and 3 spaces.
Now, did the photographer consciously looked to tell a story like this? it is not sure. But on an unconscious base this is probably what motivated the success of this spot. It's like all these pictures from the same location over and over again: the death valley for example.
But in the end,  
Dali pointed one day: If Velasquez do paint this scene, it will result a Velasquez. If an idiot paint the same scene it will result an idiocy.
Clever Dali  

Cheers,

Fred.
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2010, 01:22:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
With the input of most photographers, all you see (usually at best!) is what already existed.

Your first question : Why? Isn't just enjoying it enough reason. For me it is.

But I think the core of your problem lies in the post above, a photograph is merely a 2 dimensional abstraction of a 3 dimensional scene which based on light, standpoint and angle of view is never exactly the same. You might like it or not like it, it might be more or less similar with other photographs but it's never the same and the enjoyment of having created your own is the answer to "why" the photograph gets taken.

And for Donovan, he killed himself when he was 60, I don't know how long before he ended his life this quote was produced but I don't agree with it.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6303


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2010, 02:16:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
... it's been done to death. Sorry.
O.k., here is another "dead" one. Sorry ;-)

[attachment=20931:710437_lg.jpg]

Yes, it means "Look Mom... I was there", but I was also there trembling for about an hour in the cold and humid wind, waiting for the right light to contrast not only architecture, but shadow/sunlight, warm/cold, old/new. Obviously, the image has more meaning for me than most of viewers, but I hope some might enjoy it nevertheless.

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2010, 03:33:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
And for Donovan, he killed himself when he was 60, I don't know how long before he ended his life this quote was produced but I don't agree with it.





Yes, it was a terrible thing to do - but have you noticed how many professional photographers of note have taken that route?

I have no bright answer for that nor even personal insight that I can drum up to suit myself or even simply to make a point here. I sometimes think that it has to do with stress, with the running ever faster in order to stand still, however much money and fame one might have gathered in the career - or even because of that - or whether it comes to a question of self-evaluation of all that has been done in your name. I think that fame, unlike money, must be very difficult to handle sensibly and perhaps the most difficult part of it might be when that fame starts (even if only to yourself) to drift away...

Photographers can't operate in a vacuum: everything that you do is seen, talked about by your peers, your failures even more so. Lose a regular client and the glee is palpable. After a while, I think that high doses of that must become very destructive even to the strongest characters. Maybe it is the public nature of the work that causes such stress, that business defeats would remain just that were it not for the satisfaction of your competitors.

But in the end, I just don't know. I suppose the best thing to do is nothing: just keep on truckin' and don't look inside yourself for any answers because you may not like what you might find. (I don't mean YOU personally at all, I mean in a general sense of the condition.)

Rob C
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4123



« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2010, 04:00:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
I think the point you're missing is that a picture you take yourself is (at least for me) infinitely more valuable than the same scene taken by another person. After that posting it here and getting input in how you could have done different or better is enough justification to take it. For some people this is a hobby they enjoy  That's the reason to take a photograph and why should you have that spoiled by Terence Donovan or anybody else.
Absolutely right. I've seen loads of shots of Antelope Canyon. Most are far better than I can reasonably hope to achieve (see Schewe's efforts, a link to which he posted recently). That doesn't mean that I'm not desperate to go there, see it for myself and have MY shots hanging on my wall. The same is true of everywhere else that's cliched and photographed to death.

Jeremy
Logged
alangubbay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2010, 12:49:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
O.k., here is another "dead" one. Sorry ;-)

[attachment=20931:710437_lg.jpg]

Yes, it means "Look Mom... I was there", but I was also there trembling for about an hour in the cold and humid wind, waiting for the right light to contrast not only architecture, but shadow/sunlight, warm/cold, old/new. Obviously, the image has more meaning for me than most of viewers, but I hope some might enjoy it nevertheless.

A beautiful portrayal, well worth the pain
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 04:21:54 AM by alangubbay » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad