Re: 6 new photographs in PF members exhibit on 21 DEC 2013

[Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gregory:

As you might imagine (imagination is a component of every photograph whether good or bad) since this image is noted as having been shot on Polaroid 8x10 via a grant from the Polaroid Corporation (which has been out of business for at least a few years), and across the bottom the copyright and title further emblazon the image with the dates 1984-2013. Do  you suppose that 1984 was when I was born? 

Today’s standards? Who give s a flying feck about ’today’s standards'? A photograph which gets its chance to last for all time by being included in public collections or purchased by corporations and collectors is guaranteed to not be made to today’s plastic ‘everything has to be perfect’ digital be “standards”. Since you may not know this, here is the news: Museums are loathe to include digital images in their permanent collections. Do you have any idea why?

Jan

On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:11 AM, Gregory wrote:

My interpretations:

 

Art Faul:

 

Sonderhavn: Why can we not see the image brand on the motorcycle? In today’s terms, focus is critical. Does Art think his expressions are without the necessity of the rendering of certain subject matter? It’s Art you know. Also, Is the topic about the motorcycle or the beautifully rendered aged building siding? The bike is in an isolated location, does this express the author’s true _expression_? Imagine a defocused rider, crawling onto this bike, would that have been a greater photograph and less boring?

 

Dan Mitchell:

 

Salvation: A spontaneous image of a common subject. Holidays bring us these not-so-ordinary events, otherwise seen as musicians on the street during the holidays but rarely anytime else. This image is boring, a simple “grab” shot. Or, have I missed something?

 

John Palcewski:

 

Selfie: Great shot. Two problems. First, it seems this would mirror a climatic moment, but there is unfortunately a “posed (stand right there!)” feel to this shot. Secondly, the right eye is gone. If there is a patch, then more fill flash would have been required. If the patch is in place (and this is only assuming the darkness of that eye area is based on something otherwise, not obviously expressed) a small fill light to highlight an edge of the patch would have finished this otherwise great image. If in fact, there is no patch, then as some may assume, there is a bad area in the shadows.

 

Bob McCulloch:

 

Looking At Liberty: Would this image have been stronger if in fact, the center of the Statue would have been linked to the center spike of the officers hat?

 

Yorum Gelman:

 

Café Artist: Wonderful image. Although it appears there is a juxtaposing of an affect plus the image, it works. The author has rendered an otherwise typical scene into something that is dreamscape. Creating an image with “historical” qualities using “todays” technology but mirroring greats such as Man Ray (Aperture Masters of Photography, No. 8 page 31 and 55) by bringing two images together that do not relate.

 

Randy S. Little:

 

Silly image. What’s up with the completely washed out background?

 

As always, it’s just my opinion.

 

Gregory

Gig Harbor, WA.

 

 

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.