Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A favorite  (Read 8797 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2010, 02:18:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Beautiful post, Slobodan, you have proved that clever editing can change meaning so easily! ;-) Glad I'm not a politician.
But, you do have a devilish sense of humour, nonetheless, can't deny you that!

Fred, have you not got the possibility of shooting pics with some of the models you meet on the job? Even the agencies must have enough interest in getting fresh blood into the system. I can think of no other way into the business other than getting yourself a good 'book' and then working it to death every day. Of course, if you came to Palma to do that, you would end up putting bullets into peoples' heads in frustration, assuming, of course, there was anyone to show the book to in the first place.

Have you considered Barcelona? Big scene there, as far as I know, and definitely closer to that Jurançon...

Admitting one's 'averageness' is certainly not a step anyone should take: everybody starts off more or less like that, but you have to believe you are better than all those guys at the top. If you don't believe in you, why should anybody else?

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2010, 03:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

Yes, I suppose that's always going to be a problem - those star girls are probably only in it for the money now... should have met them before they became famous, but surely using the others that have got as far as being accepted by a big agency won't do you harm and will raise your own game that much higher each time (as well as getting you better known to the agents). If they are anything like young starters anywhere ese I know about, then they won't expect money, just experience and pictures for their books.

http://www.ericjlyman.com/adageglobal.html

The above tells the story of a 'forgotten'? giant - pair of giants.

Remember him well, and also the images.

Rob C
Logged

armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1012



« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2010, 03:40:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just take the example of this thread: one (crappy) picture inspired you to respond with profound musing on life and art, from rediscovering nihil novi sub sole, to reexamining the purpose of life (in general) and your career (in particular). I guess that would make Armand a true artist, no? 
You just can't let go, can you? Maybe it will help if you say what's eating you exactly, instead of quoting. Don't worry, I don't consider myself an artist either, I don't have time for that. But it's interesting how people can extrapolate from such small pieces (such as the initial picture) and make such peremptory judgements about things much more complex.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2010, 03:48:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hINdvTmbRpM

It should give you a feeling for a whole load of music that will make the 'empty studio blues' so much sweeter ;-)

Works for me every night...

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2010, 04:09:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hINdvTmbRpM

It should give you a feeling for a whole load of music that will make the 'empty studio blues' so much sweeter ;-)

Works for me every night...

Rob C
Rob,
It worked! Much sweeter. What music can do to you.
Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2010, 07:29:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Criticism is one thing, ad hominem attacks are something else.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2010, 11:09:18 PM »
ReplyReply

You just can't let go, can you? Maybe it will help if you say what's eating you exactly, instead of quoting. Don't worry, I don't consider myself an artist either, I don't have time for that. But it's interesting how people can extrapolate from such small pieces (such as the initial picture) and make such peremptory judgements about things much more complex.

Chillax man!  Smiley

I was just trying to insert a bit of (devilish?) humor into the forum, and tease everybody a little. I firmly believe we all need to take most things less seriously (are you listening, popnfresh?  Wink). And I hope you did notice not one, but three smilies at the end of the post.

Definitely nothing personal...whatever jabs I trade on these forums, it is for rhetorical purposes only. If anything, I admire your willingness to ask for criticism and take it graciously even when harsh (as, I admit, mine is). And I can not help it but have respect for someone using words that make me reach for a dictionary (peremptory, really!?) Smiley

Also, not everything I say applies directly to you... I tend to make general statements along the way, digressions, hyperboles, etc.

Having all those disclaimers above, and since you asked repeatedly for it, here is what is "eating me" regarding your initial image (and images like that - too many of which are appearing on the forum as of recently):

To start: a lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era (myself included). It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).

There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.

So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).

Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences.

Next, let me tell you what I think about your initially posted image in more detail.

Lets start with your stated intentions (emphases mine):

Quote
The purpose of not including the head was to try to make a little more abstract, and maybe wander how the head really is after all. I thought that the diagonal branches could emphasize the back of the iguana (as they are almost parallel), that's why I didn't crop more and left them, out of focus and blown out, I actually overexposed them a little in postprocessing so it doesn't detract from the lizard. When I shot it (btw, it's uncroped), my intention was to have the spines from the back as a culmination of the textures from the back. As it seems I didn't succeed. Also like the colors.

Intentions and chosen methods of delivering them should be aligned, not clashing.

If, by eliminating the head, you wanted it more abstract, then other reality clues, (legs, branches, a green blade of grass), should have been eliminated too (which you did in your re-posted image).

"...maybe [let the viewer] wander how the head really is after all..." Creating a bit of a mystery in an art work is a legitimate tool that engages the viewer and allows him to interact with the art by inserting his ideas, views and feelings. But there is no mystery in how an iguana head "really is". Anyone who recognized the creature as an iguana already knows.

Emphasizing the back of the iguana by including (almost parallel) branches: the key word here is "almost". For emphasis to work, branches should be quite parallel, as only then they would create a visual repetitive pattern (rhythm). In reality, only the closest branch (the most out-of-focus one) is almost parallel. Ultimately, being so out-of-focus and non-parallel, branches definitely more distract than emphasize.

Deliberately overexposing, "so it doesn't detract from the lizard": it is a standard assumption of any perception theory that the lightest part of an image are the first to attract attention, thus actually detracting from the lizard. Once again, the chosen method clashes with your intentions. For a good reading on perception theories, check Prof. Zakia's textbook "Perception and Imaging".

And finally, a comment about your re-posted image: parts of the skin texture (scales) appear overexposed too. That is a result of the harsh light in which you originally took the picture (see, even the sun is harsh to you  Smiley). Three ways to deal with it: a polarizer, or a diffusing screen placed between the sun and the lizard, or recovering highlights in post-processing.

I hope this helps.. and no hard feelings.

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2010, 02:56:47 AM »
ReplyReply


Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences.
Bingo.
And this is generalized, as I pointed also in the MF section and the pro works. John mentionned a very true dilema when you see an image that you'd like to criticize and suddenly realise that it came from a super star. But there's a difference in the sense that we know their books, what they capable of, so even if they post an image that is not interesting at least there is very little to say about the execution.

About this section, I find myself between a rock and a hard place or a double-edged sword (I got it now! Thanks Slobodan). It's a good section but it could be better. I also posted in Lu-La from time to time some pretty good peices of garbage, like the "urban dogs" recently, completly shaked but I know it and then my goal is always humoristic or provocative within a context.

Now, I really think that a big part of the imagery that's uploaded in this section shouldn't either, following the Slobodan's statement above. If people (we) could be a little harder with them(our)selves, and think twice and if also critics could send a little less approvals on images that are really what Rob would qualify a waiste of time and where the comments are: great, nice or to-crop-or-not-to-crop-that-is-the-question, this section could be much more interesting IMO.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 04:03:01 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2010, 03:19:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Criticism is one thing, ad hominem attacks are something else.




With a hat like that, I'd be careful about the bars I enter.

More ad hominems would be pretty certain to follow - really real ones!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6512



WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2010, 09:59:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, Bravo! Keep on telling the truth. There's not enough of that on here. "I like it" doesn't tell anyone anything worth knowing. "Doesn't do anything for me" tells even less. "The steeple's not straight" is redundant if the picture's visible.Yet this is the kind of "criticism" that makes up at least 90% of the responses to the stuff that appears in User Critiques. Sometimes "I like it" is justified. Pictures do get posted here about which all you really can say is "ahhh," but very rarely.

Which is not to suggest people not post the sort of thing that's bringing on meaningless responses. I'm sure most people who post that kind of picture do so in good faith, believing there's some merit in what they posted. What they need is exactly the kind of education you associated with the film era. But I question whether or not most artists who read and post on LuLa have the kind of free time it takes to be unpaid art teachers. Seems to me there are two reasonable responses to the usual tourist picture: (1) "What did plan to do with that picture once you shot it?" and (2) "Go to the bookstore and pick up a book by Cartier-Bresson, one by Ansel Adams, one by Walker Evans, and one by Robert Frank. Spend some time with the pictures in those books. Then look at your picture again and tell yourself honestly what you think of it."
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2010, 10:54:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, Bravo! Keep on telling the truth. There's not enough of that on here. "I like it" doesn't tell anyone anything worth knowing. "Doesn't do anything for me" tells even less. "The steeple's not straight" is redundant if the picture's visible.Yet this is the kind of "criticism" that makes up at least 90% of the responses to the stuff that appears in User Critiques. Sometimes "I like it" is justified. Pictures do get posted here about which all you really can say is "ahhh," but very rarely.

Which is not to suggest people not post the sort of thing that's bringing on meaningless responses. I'm sure most people who post that kind of picture do so in good faith, believing there's some merit in what they posted. What they need is exactly the kind of education you associated with the film era. But I question whether or not most artists who read and post on LuLa have the kind of free time it takes to be unpaid art teachers. Seems to me there are two reasonable responses to the usual tourist picture: (1) "What did plan to do with that picture once you shot it?" and (2) "Go to the bookstore and pick up a book by Cartier-Bresson, one by Ansel Adams, one by Walker Evans, and one by Robert Frank. Spend some time with the pictures in those books. Then look at your picture again and tell yourself honestly what you think of it."
Russ, I think this section could really be much more elaborate in terms of critic content. But you might be right, it takes time, much more than posting gear stuff here or there. In fact, Slobodan is right when reffered to the photo clubs. I started in a photo club when I was 14, and that was the essence, oldest where following the younguest, made extremely constructive criticisms etc...those clubs don't exist any more.
There was a really friendship and helpfull spirit, everybody was in the same boat: photography for passion, for art.
Well, this section could be those photo club, it would be very very interesting if we could make this section a sort of reliable sphere where we would all agree to not saying a bravo or an harsh critism without explaining the reasons. That could be a pedagogic reference.
Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2010, 11:05:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Chillax man!  Smiley

I was just trying to insert a bit of (devilish?) humor into the forum, and tease everybody a little. I firmly believe we all need to take most things less seriously (are you listening, popnfreshWink). And I hope you did notice not one, but three smilies at the end of the post.
Slobo, I apologize for not being a mind reader. I can only go by what I see on the page. You may have had the best intentions, but when you accuse someone of being a troll and assume that they pulled their photo randomly out of the trash just to see peoples' reactions and you mock them as artists and punctuate it with three derisively laughing smilies and all because you hate one photo of theirs, then yes, without being able to climb into your brain to decipher what you really meant, it very much looks like you're making it personal. But in the future I will assume that you're just making a joke at their expense.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2010, 12:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

... But in the future I will assume that you're just making a joke at their expense.

You will also remember that I make jokes at my own expense just as easily, for example, in this thread, titled "My New Self-Portrait...":

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43695.msg366350#msg366350

Oh, wait... isn't it the very same thread in which you implied that the ape must had been sexually attracted to me? Tongue
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 12:57:21 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2010, 03:06:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you prove that he wasn't?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1012



« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2010, 09:04:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And finally, a comment about your re-posted image: parts of the skin texture (scales) appear overexposed too. That is a result of the harsh light in which you originally took the picture (see, even the sun is harsh to you  ). Three ways to deal with it: a polarizer, or a diffusing screen placed between the sun and the lizard, or recovering highlights in post-processing.

I hope this helps.. and no hard feelings.
It's way better.  I post to forums for a while so I don't take personally (unless it's way too much).

It's true that the light wasn't that good, but it's not that overexposed as it seems. It looks like it but when I looked at the histogram I realized it's more how the color of some of the scales is, gray, than overexposure. Anyway, point taken.

I'm trying to be selective with what I ask, but with the digital era I will probably never have the selectivity you mentioned in your post. However I ask only with pictures where I actually know what I was trying to do, so a good advise will eliminate other "crappy" picture for the future  Grin
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad