I wouldn't say her face is badly lit Andrew its darker then what would normally be seen on a face, but to me (because I have reference) It says exactly how we both felt by that time of the day.
The scarf was the prop in the next set up for the client. As you can see its kicking a boat load of light back which is why she is wearing it so we can get a ration down. (Phosphate either in the Dye or when it was washed GRRR bad stylist.)
Its all those imperfections that I like. Its also pretty perfect exposure wise though. Proper dmax and dmin with just enough light coming off the egg shell to be white but not flare out. I guess its that dichotomy.
Most of my personal work is very unclean. Have you looked at the bamboo in the X gallery? Its sort of combo super clean but with the imperfections all left in. Maybe its a bit of the movies I work on influencing what I like now as well. In most cases we are going for real lighting not pretty lighting. Still photographers used to do every thing possible to not get lens flare. We where scolded in college for not have the compendium on the cameras. I have had to go out of my way on movies to get lens flare. For the longest time I was just like, "this makes NO SENSE." But the imperfections are what help sell the suspension of disbelief.
You aren't expected to like it. You review helps remind me that you don't have the backstory and why would I expect any other type of comment from you.
Andrew you obviously can expose a shot. I would just say that in my view of how I shoot for me. The technical is to support what I want not to confine me to what is technically correct. (OMG I DO HAVE A DEGREE IN ART.) (I would just call BS on myself but I really think that way)
Its all those imperfections that I like. Its also pretty perfect exposure wise though. Proper dmax and dmin with just enough light coming off the egg shell to be white but not flare out. I guess its that dichotomy.
Most of my personal work is very unclean. Have you looked at the bamboo in the X gallery? Its sort of combo super clean but with the imperfections all left in. Maybe its a bit of the movies I work on influencing what I like now as well. In most cases we are going for real lighting not pretty lighting. Still photographers used to do every thing possible to not get lens flare. We where scolded in college for not have the compendium on the cameras. I have had to go out of my way on movies to get lens flare. For the longest time I was just like, "this makes NO SENSE." But the imperfections are what help sell the suspension of disbelief.
You aren't expected to like it. You review helps remind me that you don't have the backstory and why would I expect any other type of comment from you.
Andrew you obviously can expose a shot. I would just say that in my view of how I shoot for me. The technical is to support what I want not to confine me to what is technically correct. (OMG I DO HAVE A DEGREE IN ART.) (I would just call BS on myself but I really think that way)
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:42 PM, YGelmanPhoto <ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm very much in agreement with all of Andrew's comments about this week's photographs, so I'll just say something about mine. Yes, it is in fact more of a study than anything else (although when I set it up, and did all the chemistry, and exposed it, I was really hoping for a wowser!) but it was merely a student's attempt to just DO the thing for the first time. So as a study, with nice(!) tonalities, we'll leave it at that. (You forgot to mention the flowers -- like, you forgot Poland. Remember?)
As for the title, the 1960's phrase Stan Freeburg Because, as a take off on some lady product advertisement, kept ringing in my head. Seeing that whiskey bottle just standing there may have triggered it. You had to be there, I guess.
-yoram
___
On Jun 22, 2013, at 9:59 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sat, June 22, 2013 4:42 am, Andrew Davidhazy wrote:
>> The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated June 22, 2013.
>> Authors with work now on display at:
>> http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html include:
>
> Ok, color me confused. Our two most outspoken members, who are in no
> uncertain terms here to educate us, provide us with two photographs with
> which I find very little to commend. More fool me, I suppose. More down
> below:
>
>>
>> John Palcewski - Ali & Fan
>
> A very nice portrait. I find it a bit odd that they are looking in
> different directions, but perhaps the girl is fascinated with the lights,
> and Ali is looking at her parents. But really, I'm nitpicking; the
> photograph is fascinating. I'm sure there is a great backstory, but the
> photograph carries its own with out it. Absolutely my favorite photo this
> week.
>
>> Yoram Gelman - Jim Beam because. . .
>
> Well, I still don't know why. Nice tonalities, and it certainly looks like
> this media brings back the simple wonderment of a picture appearing on an
> emulsion. But the reason why the whisky, rum and unnamed bottle are there,
> except for providing different shapes in the bottle study, eludes me.
>
>> Bob McCulloch - Three Dorys
>
> An idyllic scene, to be sure, but the three boats compete with the three
> houses for attention. It might be stronger without the mansions.
>
>
>> Art Faul -
>
> Well, except for the somewhat interesting structure with insulting
> graffiti, I find this photograph uninteresting, very poorly composed, with
> too much negative space, nothing in the negative space, and a distracting
> tilt.
>
>> Randy Little - Kelly
>
> Hmm. Her face is badly lit and the hands are awkward. And with nothing
> better to look at, the subject is her scarf. Was that your intent?
>
>
> Really, I know that Randy and Jan/Art have *gobs* more experience than I
> do (and probably more than I will ever have, considering that I am already
> close to Jan's age), and I respect them for that, but I guess I wished the
> photographs that they provided were more demonstrative of that experience
> and talent.
>
> Andrew
> --
> http://andrewsharpe.com
>
ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx
www.ygelmanphoto.com
