Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Photography Workshop & Seminars!  (Read 13732 times)
Spryseks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« on: January 08, 2011, 07:04:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey Everyone!

This is the seminar i went to and liked it a lot. If anyone has gone to similar seminars please share.



http://shootthecenterfold.com/




« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 04:36:35 PM by Spryseks » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2011, 08:23:42 PM »
ReplyReply

So what's everyone's take on this?

Reasonably priced but short seminar far far away by two of my favorite contemporary glamour photographers tainted by astroturfing.
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2011, 08:30:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Astroturfing, I've learnt something new today.

Certainly looks green and flat to me.

I look forward to your next post.

Cheers,
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2011, 08:33:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Certainly looks green and flat to me.

Given the subject matter of the seminar, I doubt there's much flatness going on..
Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2011, 08:20:00 PM »
ReplyReply

"Astroturfing" very cool, that is a new one for me too.

Don't you love it when someone drops in on their very first post and thinks that no one will figure out what they are doing. So ends the credibility of the legitimacy of what is about, in my opinion.

I had seen ads for this program elsewhere. Personally after many years of Playboy, I find their usual photography boring. The lighting, scenes and such no matter how many lights or "rapport" with the models results in just a formula "look".

As far as fixing things "in camera" and not in Photoshop, well it is my understanding from when of their more creative shooters of the past, that is just not the case. Once upon a time when Playboy had the money, getting it right meant a re-shoot when necessary. Re-touching was forbidden for the centerfold. Now you can easily detect the Photoshop skin softening and retouching.

Anyway for the amateur "glamour" shooter, of which there are plenty, maybe this would be cool. But I shoot great female bodies all the time, and I would not pay to go. And we sure have some shooters here who shoot beautiful naked women much better than anything I have ever seen in a centerfold.
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2011, 10:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the real problem with the Centrefold has always been the same thing: camera format.

I remember during all those years when I subscribed to the magazine that the foldout was always the single sad moment. The same shooters did beautiful 'general' stuff of the same girls in the normal parts of the issues, but the big format turned everything into still life, and that doesn't work with people. I wouldn't blame the photographers for that.

It's somethimg I always disliked about some fashion photography too: overlit, losing the whole point of the exercise, which is about look and emotional kick. But I believe it was a Hef thing. As he pays the bills... But then, some people also buy inflatable dolls, so perhaps plastic (rubber?) skin has its appeal and following.

Rob C
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2011, 03:01:14 PM »
ReplyReply

It's somethimg I always disliked about some fashion photography too: overlit, losing the whole point of the exercise, which is about look and emotional kick. But I believe it was a Hef thing. As he pays the bills... But then, some people also buy inflatable dolls, so perhaps plastic (rubber?) skin has its appeal and following.

Talking of Mr Hefner, he just took Playboy private for a cool $210 million, and got engaged with a 24-year-old.

With the same math, the parents of my third wife haven't even been born, yet Tongue
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2011, 03:45:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Talking of Mr Hefner, he just took Playboy private for a cool $210 million, and got engaged with a 24-year-old.

With the same math, the parents of my third wife haven't even been born, yet Tongue




Wasn't there once a comedy song "I'm me own granpaw'?

That's about as far as my maths takes me, I'm afraid.


Rob C
Logged

PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2011, 07:11:22 PM »
ReplyReply

About the seminar: those guys sure have better jackets than our hosts at LL. A bit on the used car salesmen side though. Could that be a bad sign?

I remember during all those years when I subscribed to the magazine that the foldout was always the single sad moment. The same shooters did beautiful 'general' stuff of the same girls in the normal parts of the issues, but the big format turned everything into still life, and that doesn't work with people. I wouldn't blame the photographers for that.

Rob, it is scary how often you nail those things. I really like your photographic insights because you seem to find the right words for what I vaguely feel but can't always express. Keep them coming!
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2011, 09:23:06 PM »
ReplyReply

About the seminar: those guys sure have better jackets than our hosts at LL.

Just to be perfectly clear, I do own several really nice jackets (I buy good clothing ya know) but my uniform for videos is Hawaiian shirts (can't remember how that happened).

Michael, on the other hand, has a bunch of old 1980's suits (which is why he doesn't wear a jacket on videos).

Just saying....

BTW, notice the moire on Arney Fretag's jacket? I mean, really...he should know better!!! Jarmo's and David's jackets don't moire–what's up with THAT?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 09:26:32 PM by Schewe » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2011, 03:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I have but one suit, black, that has seen two funerals. I hope never to wear it again in my life and certainly not afterwards - for that, I'd prefer to be myself in jeans and T-shirt, possibly wearing the 'Celluloids'. They should burn well and add a distinct bouquet of their own.

;-(

Rob C
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2011, 05:53:08 AM »
ReplyReply


As far as fixing things "in camera" and not in Photoshop, well it is my understanding from when of their more creative shooters of the past, that is just not the case. Once upon a time when Playboy had the money, getting it right meant a re-shoot when necessary. Re-touching was forbidden for the centerfold. Now you can easily detect the Photoshop skin softening and retouching.



Photoshop didn't invent retouching, it just introduced it to the masses.

Playboy was way ahead of the curve of the massively retouched image.

Even before electronic retouching, working on dye transfers, if you saw a acetate overly on a playboy centerfold work print, there was so many china maker corrections you couldn't see the model underneath the acetate.

Also the centerfold and cover were printed in Gravure.

At the time Penthouse took nudes to a more realistic look, a little older, less retouched, a little more real, though they used a David Hamilton Fog filter which I believe cut down on some of the retouching costs.

For brief moments, OUI was the the nude art magazine, but eventually came out in many styles, now I believe it's a wedding magazine.

The branding of playboy was the girl next door.

Penthouse, the lonely rich housewife.

Oui was the European encounter.

At least that's what I've been told.


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

Posts: 12215


« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2011, 12:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Cooter

Funny how different folks have different takes.

a. Branding of Playboy, circa 60s to mid-70s wasn't quite girl-next-door, thought they did chat about the mythical creature; what it was about was the Playboy Philosophy which was 'If you don't swing, don't ring' also writ large above the Chicago Mansion in Latin, something like: Si non oscillas nolli tintinare, which is my version of the code and far from any version the Romans would have dug, but then, even Italian would have thrown them.

b. Penthouse was, to me, the dirty side of the raincoat, best avoided at all costs. Why Playboy felt compelled, eventually, to seek out rainwear too defeats me. Should have stuck to its guns and original, solid, fan base. I'd probably still be buying. You could actually spend happy hours reading the thing and learning. A dictionary was always a useful aid to that end. Maybe they now use bubbles.

c. Oui was wonderful, the European touch of sophistication mixed with a discrete decadence that many couldn't quite understand, or if they did, not in numbers sufficient to float a battleship. I mean, Francis Giacobetti who did so much to put Pirelli on the world map was one of their own... From its cast of founding fathers came French Photo folllowed by the American Photo version which also seems to have found insufficient support Stateside to survive in its original form or identity. Sad world. I blame Guccione and the highly glossed lowest common denominator.

Note: this is all only personal opinion based on nothing more nor less.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 09:13:19 AM by Rob C » Logged

TimDB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2011, 12:03:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Sad but true, regarding the literary decline with Playboy. (I know that was the old joke...' I read Playboy for the interviews')... but at one time, they really were the icon for the publishing of Science Fiction (The Playboy Press). I even know of a Catholic Seminary that bought their Science Fiction book offers and short story offerings. John Updike and others were publicized by Playboy.

I subscribed for years, but alas, fell away as it declined.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2011, 11:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

You were told right. (imho)
The internet changed all this. It was not because of lack of interest from the magazine operators.
Who needs HQ pics to watch when there are millions of free pics in the cloud. Life is too short. Especially after 50  Cheesy
Eduardo


Photoshop didn't invent retouching, it just introduced it to the masses.

Playboy was way ahead of the curve of the massively retouched image.

Even before electronic retouching, working on dye transfers, if you saw a acetate overly on a playboy centerfold work print, there was so many china maker corrections you couldn't see the model underneath the acetate.

Also the centerfold and cover were printed in Gravure.

At the time Penthouse took nudes to a more realistic look, a little older, less retouched, a little more real, though they used a David Hamilton Fog filter which I believe cut down on some of the retouching costs.

For brief moments, OUI was the the nude art magazine, but eventually came out in many styles, now I believe it's a wedding magazine.

The branding of playboy was the girl next door.

Penthouse, the lonely rich housewife.

Oui was the European encounter.

At least that's what I've been told.


BC

Logged
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2011, 11:13:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I only read the articles.
Logged

Spryseks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2011, 12:41:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I consider Jarmo Pohjaniemi as one of the best in the industry. He has created his own style which few do, especially
being mentioned along with Steve McCurry, Marc Chagall, Guido Argentini etc..

Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2011, 12:58:43 AM »
ReplyReply

So, what exactly is your monetary connection to this seminar?  Your posts reek of being "shameless plugs".  If you have some type of business connection with this seminar, please be honest and tell us.  If you do not have a business interest in promoting this seminar, please accept my apology.
Logged

davidewers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2011, 06:31:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Considering all of his posts here have been about this subject, makes you wonder.
Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2011, 05:27:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I consider Jarmo Pohjaniemi as one of the best in the industry. He has created his own style which few do, especially
being mentioned along with Steve McCurry, Marc Chagall, Guido Argentini etc..

If shooting for Playboy and Hawaiian Tropics type companies is what you aspire to,
then terrific you've found your hero.

Exactly what is his style? 
Where can I see his photos other than at the model wannabe sites?
Logged

Guillermo
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad