View Full Version : good photographer or good subject?
Here is a saying that I often think of with regards to photography:
It is the photographer's skill that makes an extra-ordinary photograph of an ordinary subject. With an exra-ordinary subject, the photographer simply needs to be competent to make an extra-ordinary photograph.
With that in mind, look at this photograph (nudity warning) and tell me what you think: is it an extra-ordinary photograph? If it is, is it because of the subject, or the photographer's skill (beyond competency)? Would the photograph still be as compelling if the model were more ordinary?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6285636
(You're welcome, in advance.)
I'm not comfortable with this photograph. It almost looks as if the model is a composite, that is, she does not appear to be in proportion - not just the breasts, but also the leg. I think it is interesting more than extraordinary and it is certainly well executed. However, without that model I don't think it would be as striking. Also, I think there is too much space around the subject - a tighter crop would work better for me.
I don't know if you can simply separtate the subject from the image. Certainly a photograph of a beautiful flower is not necessarily beautiful, but a photograph of a rose bud is not the same as a whithered daisy. So you cannot dismiss the model nor the choice of that model by the photographer - if the photographer skill is in composition, then surely the choice of props, lighting, and models is equally important.
Then there is the "taste" paradox; everyone was good taste. It comes from beauty is in the eye of the beholder theme. How much of taste is to do with nature vs. nuture. Is there a "high" view of objects - a Playboy center fold is somehow less valuable than Michealangelo's "David" because it is playing on our "base" nature. Is the current social trend of super-thin forms better than the fuller forms of the past? How we relate to a image has as much to do with the viewers as the photographer.
Personally, I don't see anything stunning or extra-ordinary about the image. The photographer seems competent. I don't get a lot from the image. It seems very cold and superficial, but that is also a matter of preference and that "style" has been around off and on for sometime - it just does not blow my hair back. And that may have been the photographer's intent or what blows his/her hair back.
Robert Price
08-09-2007, 08:24
I really dont think the photo is artistically good. Technicaly it is nice but as far as being a thought provoking emotiomal photo.... well I don't "feel" anything from looking at it.
It is just there, no emotion at all, a chair a woman, and a backdrop. The lighting is a little too harsh, and does not lend well to the subjects being photographed. Also the back drop is to close to the subjects, thus the shadow being cast is some what distracting to me.
What would I have done differently....
I would have shot the subjects in a much different way with much darker background, and with maybe just a dim spot to illuminate them both (the chair and the model).
Of course in a more emotional pose too. Maybe sitting with arms folded across the chest and with a softer focus all around.
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 08:26
After looking at the image (downloaded), I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about it. Yes, the model is great, but I agree that the leg does not appear to belong to the torso. When I studied the composition, I tried various crops and determined that the image looked off balance and mechanical when cropped using rectangular formats. The photographer HAD to use a square crop. But what really bothered me was the face. The low point of view and the lack of eye contact just does not appeal to me. IMHO, the model is wonderful, the composition is good, the pose awful, the photographer did not distinguish himself by making this work better. Considering the comments left for the photographer, my tastes must be out in left field.
Tuolumne
08-09-2007, 08:34
Frank,
I'll ask my wife to pose that way tonight and let you know. :-)
/T
Usually if I don't have anything good to say, I keep it to myself, but in this instance, I had to respond in the comments, much the same as Robert's first 2 paragraphs.
Hi Frank, sorry I don’t find the image particularly attractive in an aesthetic sense, apart from ample charms of the model it just looks competent to me, I like a bit of gratuitous nudity as well as the next chap but that’s all it is for me.
On the same lines take a look at this shot by Lewis Morley LINK (http://www.lyfe.freeserve.co.uk/photomorley.htm) the same sort of thing but better posed and crafted so it oozes sexuality but you could show it to your Gran
Tuolumne
08-09-2007, 08:36
The leg thing is impossible. There are clearly two models in this photo!
/T
Tuolumne
08-09-2007, 08:41
Hi Frank, sorry I don’t find the image particularly attractive in an aesthetic sense, apart from ample charms of the model it just looks competent to me, I like a bit of gratuitous nudity as well as the next chap but that’s all it is for me.
On the same lines take a look at this shot by Lewis Morley LINK (http://www.lyfe.freeserve.co.uk/photomorley.htm) the same sort of thing but better posed and crafted so it oozes sexuality but you could show it to your Gran
Thank you thank you thank you for the photo of Christine Keeler! Now, if I only had one of Mandy Rice-Davies my day would be complete. I remember gazing at those photos in the newspapers (the one of Christine Keeler was considered chaste enough to run in all the newspapers of the day) as a young boy and they deeply affected and shaped my view of femininity and glamour.
/T
Don't feel sorry, Stewart. I'm with you on this.
Thank you thank you thank you for the photo of Christine Keeler! Now, if I only had one of Mandy Rice-Davies my day would be complete. I remember gazing at those photos in the newspapers (the one of Christine Keeler was considered chaste enough to run in all the newspapers of the day) as a young boy and they deeply affected and shaped my view of femininity and glamour.
/T
It was that photo that attracted me to photography……………among other things
:D
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 08:47
I agree, the image of Christine Keeler shot by Lewis Morley is a fantastic example of glamour and and a tasteful, sensual nude. The eyes caught my attention and really brings me into the scene. This is an example of a model and photographer working as one!
I am not impressed by this photograph. I think that a picture of a person succeeds when it expresses something of that individual or the photographers' view of the same. Here we have a sterile arrangement of texture and form which uses a deliberately coy nudity to provoke a response and so compensate for its essential emptiness. To me it demonstrates that a technically proficient but imaginatively mediocre photographer produces technically proficient but imaginatively mediocre photographs. Compare it to Lewis Morley's not wildly dissimilar picture of Christine Keeler and you realise how meaningless it is.
Edit - Sparrow, we had the same idea - I was posting when you responded :)
Cheers, Ian
Don't feel sorry, Stewart. I'm with you on this.
I’m English; we have to start every tenth sentence with an apology!!
:rolleyes:
Funny, I am not impressed with the Chistine Keeler photograph either.
Frank - I always get good shots with Emma, her poses are natural and relaxed, her facial expressions are perfect, I'm blessed with being able to do this with most of my family (I'm the ugly unphotogenic one)
The key to being great with portraiture is often times in the selection of the models / subjects -- makes the work easier --
I agree, the image of Christine Keeler shot by Lewis Morley is a fantastic example of glamour and and a tasteful, sensual nude. The eyes caught my attention and really brings me into the scene. This is an example of a model and photographer working as one!
Actually it’s an example of a photographer using up the last two frames on the roll at the end of the shoot
IMO if she had a sweater on it would be a fairly static and boring photo.
I mean, it would be much more interesting if the photographer had her pose with a wicker chair or something...
thomasw_
08-09-2007, 08:59
Sterile is how I would describe it. The focal length used needs to be cropped for one. This would at least give the viewer more of an intimacy; too much useless space leaves the subject lost surrounded by the backdrop. Second, the background/backdrop is like a stock 70s blotchy background to take shots of kids at schools...even worse; it adds to the Blah-ness. Third, the photographer captured no expression from the model; no hint of a smile, no pensiveness, no joy, no sadness; very bland. Lastly the septia tone adds to the emotional blahs, making the scene look more and more contrived the more I look at it; I mean doesn't the background give off that "studio" look enough?!
my 2 cents.
But she looks rather well endowed.
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:05
Sparrow - Er, did you ever notice that sometimes your best shots always seem to come at the end of the roll?
Actually, I was pointing out that in the image linked to by Frank that the model and photographer don't appear to be working together. I think that this photog was seeing the model's assets, not actually saying anything with this image. This image does not "involve" me in it.
Sorry, I am a poor typist, I don't express myself well at the keyboard.
Sterile is how I would describe it. The focal length used needs to be cropped for one. This would at least give the viewer more of an intimacy; too much useless space leaves the subject lost surrounded by the backdrop. Second, the background/backdrop is like a stock 70s blotchy background to take shots of kids at schools...even worse; it adds to the Blah-ness. Third, the photographer captured no expression from the model; no hint of a smile, no pensiveness, no joy, no sadness; very bland. Lastly the septia tone adds to the emotional blahs, making the scene look more and more contrived the more I look at it; I mean doesn't the background give off that "studio" look enough?!
my 2 cents.
But she looks rather well endowed.
Yes but which did you spot first? The endowments or the poor photography?
:)
thomasw_
08-09-2007, 09:13
honestly?
the endowments....just zooming on out to say, "Hello there, Tom!"
uhmmm, err, my dear lovely wife walks by....yes, those endowments, I noticed them after thinking about the photographic composition, of course:)
Sparrow - Er, did you ever notice that sometimes your best shots always seem to come at the end of the roll?
Actually, I was pointing out that in the image linked to by Frank that the model and photographer don't appear to be working together. I think that this photog was seeing the model's assets, not actually saying anything with this image. This image does not "involve" me in it.
Sorry, I am a poor typist, I don't express myself well at the keyboard.
I wasn’t criticising, I watched a documentary about the photo and it was almost accidental how it came about, like my stuff……….accidental that is
:)
honestly?
the endowments....just zooming on out to say, "Hello there, Tom!"
uhmmm, err, my dear lovely wife walks by....yes, those endowments, I noticed them after thinking about the photographic composition, of course:)
ditto
:)
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:20
I don't wish to hijack FrankS's thread, but....
Rather than my continuing to bash this image, I want to learn how to make it better. I did put the image into photoshop, where I removed the sepia tone. Then I tried to crop out the dead space. This is where I found that a square crop was the only way to keep the image in balance. Actually, a 2 to 3 vertical crop makes the image dynamic and draws your eyes to the disembodied leg. If I crop out the leg, her right hand gets cropped off awkwardly. Just a crop of the torso is too bland (flat and lifeless).
To make a better image, I would bring the model out farther from the background, turn her a bit to the right, and get her to either turn her face and eyes away or look into the camera with some feeling.
The background and sepia toning would have to be scrapped.
Lighting looks too flat to me.
Thanks for your positive outlook Windwalker. (what is your name?) I was thinking the same things (for improving the image).
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:29
( I wasn’t criticising, I watched a documentary about the photo and it was almost accidental how it came about, like my stuff……….accidental that is ) Sparrow
Saw this photo for the first time today. Happy accident, then!
( uhmmm, err, my dear lovely wife walks by....yes, those endowments, I noticed them after thinking about the photographic composition, of course ) Thomasw-
Good test for the quality of the image, did you notice the the composition or just the model's assets. I will remember this as a guideline.
Now, if I could only master quoting ...
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:33
FrankS - My name is Dave. You're welcome! Sometimes I find that thinking inside the box is too confining. So, I look at things in a different perspective for relief.
I came to this forum to share some of my photo knowledge, but I turned out to be the student.
Welcome Dave. We are all students, still learning.
There are no absolutes in photography. This is a subjective problem and so "better" is just imposing your taste on this. Franks does not like the photograph which means Frank does not like the photograph. That is all. The critiques here are simply trying to justify a personal point of view that is not any "better" than the one presented in the image.
What other photographers do has no relation to myself. I do not justify my photography, by critisizing someone elses. I judge my work by what I do, not by the standards or skills of others. Nor do I need to tear someone else's work apart - I can appreciate it for what it is. If you can't judge your own images (which I find a strange idea), then post it and ask for feedback. I don't think "gossiping" about someones else's work is productive.
Tuolumne
08-09-2007, 09:36
I wasn’t criticising, I watched a documentary about the photo and it was almost accidental how it came about, like my stuff……….accidental that is
:)
As Ansel Adams said, I just seem to always be somewhere when God wants a picture taken.
/T
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:43
I took a look at HATAIIIA HATA!!!A gallery, and I found that the photog had created some better looking images. Now, I am wondering just what was it that he had to say with that first image? I missed something? Was the lighting and composition on purpose?
There are no absolutes in photography. This is a subjective problem and so "better" is just imposing your taste on this. Franks does not like the photograph which means Frank does not like the photograph. That is all. The critiques here are simply trying to justify a personal point of view that is not any "better" than the one presented in the image.
What other photographers do has no relation to myself. I do not justify my photography, by criticizing someone else's. I judge my work by what I do, not by the standards or skills of others. Nor do I need to tear someone else's work apart - I can appreciate it for what it is. If you can't judge your own images (which I find a strange idea), then post it and ask for feedback. I don't think "gossiping" about someones else's work is productive.
Finder, I can understand the direction you're coming from, but can't we learn by discussing a photograph? And my original point was the relative importance of photographer's skill versus the inherent interest of the subject. Reading the comments that this photo got, (everyone loves it) I had to ask myself why, because it left me cold. I wondered if this was just me. I do not wish to criticise the photographer, but the photograph. I am not doing this to justify my own work, but rather to improve it. Would you rather we just talk some more about gear and camera bags?
I missed something? Was the lighting and composition on purpose?
Why would you assume otherwise?
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:48
NUDITY WARNING:
This photographer is capable of some classic looking nudes. Check this link http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6152140
So, just why was the image in the original post created this way?
Time Freeze
08-09-2007, 09:51
With that in mind, look at this photograph (nudity warning) and tell me what you think:
I
Isn't it amazing that we are the only species on earth that have to be warned before viewing another of our own species nude; I guess that's what sets us apart from the "lower" animals.
I like the picture; it has a very peaceful quality.
John
As Ansel Adams said, I just seem to always be somewhere when God wants a picture taken.
/T
Yep, pretentious wasn’t it?
Finder, I can understand the direction you're coming from, but can't we learn by discussing a photograph? And my original point was the relative importance of photographer's skill versus the inherent interest of the subject. Reading the comments that this photo got, (everyone loves it) I had to ask myself why, because it left me cold. I wondered if this was just me. I do not wish to criticise the photographer, but the photograph. I am not doing this to justify my own work, but rather to improve it. Would you rather we just talk some more about gear and camera bags?
But I do not find that that is the direction the conversation is going. As far as I see it, I have been the only one to address the subject/photographer question. Most have simply been critisizing the photograph as bad for one reason or another. But no one has even brought up if the photograph does reflect the photographer's intent nor what that intent may have been. Perhaps he/she was looking at the objectification of the body or women? Trying to give an artificial appearance to the form. Perhaps he/she was trying to make a retro 60s look of a clean tech type fashion/nude shot. But I see no attempt to try to understand this image, just to simply say it does not fit into the aesthetic sense of the critic.
thomasw_
08-09-2007, 09:56
There are no absolutes in photography.
I reject theories which are self-contradictory, as I will show this one to be. If there are "no absolutes in photography," then there is one statement which is absolute about photography; namely, that "there are no absolutes in photography." This is self contradictory, and a reasoning being must reject the theory at least as presented in the statement. Note that I am not presenting a positive theory about aesthetic absolutes in its place, for I am unclear about what would be. That said, I am unsatisified with merely saying personal 'liking' is the determiner to what makes an art object 'good'; a case in point being Picasso's painting "Guernica", which gives me no pleasure and I do not 'like' it, but I find it more beautiful and sublime than I could write in words. I agree that aesthetic responses are personal in part, but I think there is something more going on as well; as such I find the subjective aesthetic theories rather shallow and incomplete.
respectfully, thomas
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 09:58
Time Freeze - Thanks for reminding me of my poor net etiquette.
Are you linking to another image or refering to the the first?
I am too slow on this keybord
I reject theories which are self-contradictory, as I will show this one to be. If there are "no absolutes in photography," then there is one statement which is absolute about photography; namely, that "there are no absolutes in photography." This is self contradictory, and a reasoning being must reject the theory at least as presented in the statement. Note that I am not presenting a positive theory about aesthetic absolutes in its place, for I am unclear about what would be. That said, I am unsatisified with merely saying personal 'liking' is the determiner to what makes an art object 'good'; a case in point being Picasso's painting "Guernica", which gives me no pleasure and I do not 'like' it, but I find more beautiful and sublime than I could write in words. I aesthetic responses are personal in part, but I think there is something more going on as well; as such I find the subjective aesthetic theories rather shallow and incomplete.
respectfully, thomas
All generalizations are false!
Obviously, I did not intend for my post to be a declaration of my aesthetic theory. I was feeling the "aesthetic judgements" being made seemed to suggest there were absolute "rules" to which a photograph must conform. (Is flat lighting really bad?) (Naturally, an absolute declaration of nothing being absolute is a syntactical paradox.) But "good art is just what I like" is equally absolute and so would not be a view I would agree with. And we agree about "subjective aesthetic theories."
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 10:19
An idea occurred to me:
Artistic Test
1. Does the image register any emotion with you?
2. Did the artist/photog achieve their goal in creating the image
3. Is this image memorable?
4. Is this image original in nature, thought, or execution?
5. What meaning is being given by the artist/photographer and has it been effectively communicated?
Not in the test:
Do you like the image?
Does the image follow the rules of composition, etc.
Is the image technically well done?
Do you like the model, subject, time of day, etc.
Pardon me, but when I look at someone else's art work, I try to see what the artist was trying to convey. I also as an artist, try to learn something from it. I know I can be too analytical, but I to come back from the experience with something.
Dave
you need both, and they're not always what you think they are.
An idea occurred to me:
Artistic Test
1. Does the image register any emotion with you?
2. Did the artist/photog achieve their goal in creating the image
3. Is this image memorable?
4. Is this image original in nature, thought, or execution?
5. What meaning is being given by the artist/photographer and has it been effectively communicated?
Not in the test:
Do you like the image?
Does the image follow the rules of composition, etc.
Is the image technically well done?
Do you like the model, subject, time of day, etc.
Pardon me, but when I look at someone else's art work, I try to see what the artist was trying to convey. I also as an artist, try to learn something from it. I know I can be too analytical, but I to come back from the experience with something.
Dave
That does not work, but lets look at some of these:
1. Frank did not like it and so there was an emotional response.
2. Can you provide a link showing the artist's goal? Would work created in the decisive moment which would not have a particular goal still be valid artwork?
3. Frank remembers it.
4. I have never seen that before. Are traditional arts based on imitation of form no longer art?
5. Here again, provide a link to the meaning the artist intended and then I can answer. Does a work have to have meaning?
Not in the test:
Frank did not like, but that does contradict rule number one above.
Images that follow rules of composition cannot be good? See traditional art above.
Artist cannot be technically competent. Can a writer be a writer if he can't write?
Frank liked the model (sorry Frank if I misinterpreted that), but he still hated the picture.
Dave, it is a good thought, but the subject is more complex than that. The trouble is there are so many uses for a work of art it cannot be brought under simple concepts.
The other problems are the assumptions that form your criteria are unproven. Does art have meaning? You assumed so, but why? I see no meaning in Van Gogh's sunflowers. Does art have to have an emotional response and how do you define emotion? You could argue you get more of an emotional response from a Playboy centerfold than Venus de Milo. Does that make Miss July a better piece of work? Why does art have to be original? Immitation and following rules has been a backbone of art for centuries.
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 11:06
Finder-
Thanks for views on my "tests". I will admit to having some technical skill in photography, but those people that criticize my work say that my images have no meaning, and therefore no artistic value. I do not have formal art or art history training, so this is my attempt to learn on my own.
So, the image in the original post is a failure in my opinion. I can not grasp what the photographer is trying to portray with his image. I can take the components of the image apart and I can see how it was created, but I can't see more than what it first appears - flat and lifeless. If I had come across the image on my own, I would hardly have given it more than one glance. But for Franks thread, I would have not given it a thought.
Can anyone tell me what the photographer was trying to do with this image, even if it was only to show off the models endowment?
Dave
Mr_Flibble
08-09-2007, 11:19
Sorry for the small interuption in your philosophic wonderings;
If I have identified the model in the first photo correctly then I know that this particular lady is tall and slender. With that in mind, I can state that the photo is not doctored, as some people have suggested a page back, in areas concerning her leg.
carry on ;)
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 11:27
Thought she might be a known model. In photoshop I determined that the leg does belong to the model. Her lower torso has just enough twist to suggest that her leg was being twisted to the extreme like the one in the image.
I don't think it was doctored either.
The model is extra-ordinary, IMO.
The question was, do you like this photo? If so, is it because of the photographer's skill, or due to the attractiveness of the subject. If not, why not. This is not about whether it meets any absolute criteria for a piece of art, which I agree do not exist, or at least are difficult and contentious to define.
I think it is valid to discuss a photograph on this level.
Why the wet blanket, finder? (If that indeed is your real name.) ;)
Finder-
Thanks for views on my "tests". I will admit to having some technical skill in photography, but those people that criticize my work say that my images have no meaning, and therefore no artistic value. I do not have formal art or art history training, so this is my attempt to learn on my own.
So, the image in the original post is a failure in my opinion. I can not grasp what the photographer is trying to portray with his image. I can take the components of the image apart and I can see how it was created, but I can't see more than what it first appears - flat and lifeless. If I had come across the image on my own, I would hardly have given it more than one glance. But for Franks thread, I would have not given it a thought.
Can anyone tell me what the photographer was trying to do with this image, even if it was only to show off the models endowment?
Dave
Unless the photographer comes here and gives a statement for that image, we will not know what his/her intent was. But does that matter? I have viewed many works of art without having knowledge of artistic intent.
But did you ever consider the photographer was trying to give a lifeless feel to the image. To make the woman more of an object than a person to a point where the woman is almost a plastic mannequin. The selection of the model could have been very important to give a slightly unreal feel yet extrude a very sexual presence. The image is unsettling in a very subtle way and that may have been intended.
Not all images have to be warm and beautiful. If you don't like it (and I am not a fan for a variety of reasons), that is fine. But can you fault the photograph and call it bad? You may find your "reasons" for not liking it are just that - you don't like it. And that does not have anything to do with the image. Certainly, discussing whether the image can be made "better" is a pointless exercise as the image may be perfect in its own context. You would simply be remaking it to suit your preferences.
The question was, do you like this photo? If so, is it because of the photographer's skill, or due to the attractiveness of the subject. If not, why not.
Can the two be separated? Is part of the skill of the photographer selecting the model? Or even using the model to the best advantage?
drewbarb
08-09-2007, 11:45
This shot is yet another example of dreary male gaze photography. There is nothing significantly artful about it at all. The light is flat and utterly boring; the pose is mundane, the expression vacant and uninteresting; even the framing is boring. The photographer got the exposure well enough, which might be enough to call him or her competent, but I don't think anything more is expressed by this photo- other than perhaps "oohh, big boobies!".
I agree with Frank's initial thesis that an extraordinary photographer can make an extraordinary photograph of a mundane subject, and that any competent photographer can make an incredible photo of an extraordinary subject. But I find nothing remarkable about this image at all, and I don't think this image does much to stimulate real discussion of the topic. Sure, it's a remarkable rack, but this image is nothing more than trying to polish the turd of sexual objectification photography into "art". There is far too much of this sort of poor image-making going on out there. I have no problem with nude photography, or even pornography, so long as everyone involved (subjects, photographers, and viewers) are clear and up-front about what they are doing. I have seen excellent artful nudes- sometimes even erotic ones; this isn't one. Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I understand that there is of course some subjectivity involved in defining what is art and what isn't. I won't say this isn't art- and I'm not saying it's pornographic; but I will say it's lame, whatever it is.
Saganich
08-09-2007, 11:47
If you ask me, the photographer may have been intimidated by her natural atributes and used the chair to deflect attention away. This only causes confusion I don't know what to look at the natural elements or the unnatural ones. They don't work together. To test this theory I cropped out the most natural element, her face, and the image seemed to work better. Also I think the backdrop is too distractive and the lighting is garish. Nothing seems to work together in this image, yet I still need to look...
Chris
Originally Posted by FrankS
The question was, do you like this photo? If so, is it because of the photographer's skill, or due to the attractiveness of the subject. If not, why not.
Finder: Can the two be separated? Is part of the skill of the photographer selecting the model? Or even using the model to the best advantage?
Let's talk about sunset photos. I think sunset photos presented as anything more redeeming (ie. art) than documentation of nature's beauty/grandeur, is silly. (Using a sunset as an effective background for a fore or mid-ground subject is a different story.) It's like taking a straight photo of a painting and calling the photo art. In a sunset photo, the beauty comes from the subject, not the photographer's talent. So, yes, I think one can separate the two.
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 11:54
An artist should not have to tell me what their intent was, the work must be able to stand on its own. I did give a lot of thought to the idea that the whole point was to make the model a sexual object rather than a person. I came away with the thought that the only message is awkwardness and that it was not intentional.
What I like:
The coldness in the model's eyes, her figure, the use of contrasting textures.
What I didn't like:
The square format used to give balance to an awkward pose and composition. The lack of three dimensional depth to the image. The feeling that the image is made of parts stacked together (it wasn't). The fact that I don't see it as one thought, image, or composition. Substitute any other person, and the image has no value.
So, Finder, tell us just what merits does this image have? What do YOU see in it?
As FrankS asked, "is it an extra-ordinary photograph? If it is, is it because of the subject, or the photographer's skill (beyond competency)? Would the photograph still be as compelling if the model were more ordinary?" I have given my opinion in hopes that someone else would also give theirs by which I might grow as a photographer.
That's a tricky question Frank!
Now, everyone, block her boobs with finger and look at the photo again. Did it become better or worse?
I can't answer that myself decidedly. Without boobs photo becomes more geometric, but, well.. :cool:
Let's talk about sunset photos. I think sunset photos presented as anything more pretentious than documentation of nature's beauty/grandeur, is silly. (Using a sunset as an effective background for a fore or mid-ground subject is a different story.) It's like taking a straight photo of a painting and calling the photo art. In a sunset photo, the beauty comes from the subject, not the photographer's talent. So, yes, I think one can separate the two.
So as a photographer, if I decide to photograph a sunset and not have a foreground and background interest because I think the sunset is enough and then I frame that sunset and select an exposure to increase saturation and contrast, then the photograph is not a result of my "talent." It is just the sunset? I am not buying that. I am still making a selection. I am still determining what goes into the picture. I am still deciding the sunset is worth photographing as well as the point during the sunset. With Adam's "Moonrise Over Hernandez," do you think it is the photographer or the subject?
Lets talk about the photo you linked to. Do you think part of the photographer's skill is in chosing the model and using her to the best effect?
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 12:04
Second test, block out her face. This is what most males will see first. Then try blocking out other parts, like her leg, or the chair. This is how I decided that the image looked like a pile of parts, not anything cohesive.
You are not going to impress me with sunset photos.
Finder, it wouldn't take a genius, or any extra-ordinary talent of a photographer, to select this particular model and to decide that shooting her nude, would be the best way to use her attribues to greatest effect - now would it?
IMO, the model is extra-ordinary and the photographer, with this image, was merely competent. But look at the comments he received - everyone loves it. Why? Because of the model, IMO.
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 12:20
Substitute anyone off the street, with or without clothing, and the image would not get the comments it did. So, the photographer used a model that would almost guarantee viewing. Why? For more positive comments? We all need a pat on the back, but some people seem to live for it.
Even someone with my artistic talent could produce this image, if I had such a model.
Now, everyone, block her boobs with finger and look at the photo again. Did it become better or worse?
Definitely worse, but my finger got very warm :-)
Seriously, I think the posed female nude genre has been pretty much done to death. You have to be pretty clever to do any more with it than give male viewers a quick thrill. Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far.
As for the intention of the photographer, I don't think intent should matter. An image should stand alone.
Ian
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 12:28
Early on, onw of the old pros that were attempting to teach me the art of photography suggested that I start looking for the beauty in the ugly. He and I photographed at scrap yards, railroad yards (with permission) and the dump. It took a while, but I began to see interesting things where ever I went. I call it "found photography".
"Anyone can see the beautiful as beautiful. To see the beauty in the ugly is art." -Tony Mammola
"Learn To SEE. Use your eyes, yes, but learn to use all of your being to really SEE."
-Karl F Lang
Windwalker57, I joined to give Frank an answer to his question. I do not think you can separate the subject from the talent of the photographer. The subject and photograph are one in the same - unless there is a nude model randomizer in the world that plunks one down in a lit studio just before the shutter is released.
I do not like this type of photography personally. But in the context of what I see, I cannot fault the photograph. It seems well crafted. I assume the photographer selected the model and the lighting, and made a strong image - how can the model be separate from the creative process? BTW, I don't like Helmut Newton either and this style reminds me of him.
Had the question been, "do you like this photography?" Then it would be a simple "no" because I have no interest in this style. But it appeared Frank was asking a deeper question about whether the parts could be separated from the whole. I don't think so. Would the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel be the same if Michealangelo used Danny DiVito and Jim Carry? Isn't the skill of the photographer, like a director, in chosing who to photograph?
You are correct Finder, in the interpretation of my question, at least. ;)
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 12:38
The photographer has indeed chosen a wonderful model. No, I don't like the execution of this image.
I agree that the parts of this image cannot be separated, but to me, there is no whole. Also, to me, the skill of the photographer is in choosing what to photograph and how to achieve the vision he/she has. The use of a handsome model is not the photographer's skill, but a better tool for the job.
You are not going to impress me with sunset photos.
Finder, it wouldn't take a genius, or any extra-ordinary talent of a photographer, to select this particular model and to decide that shooting her nude, would be the best way to use her attribues to greatest effect - now would it?
Frank, I think you are missing my point (you are certainly not answering my questions). Does the photographer have to be a genius? Selecting the model IS part of the talent of the photographer. Just as selecting props and locations. Ever seen a great movie where the director selected the wrong cast?
I am getting a feeling that you do not like the image and are somehow resentful that it was praised. I have seen a lot worse photography that was praised on internet forums - including here. Why is this one bugging you so much?
Frank, I think you are missing my point (you are certainly not answering my questions). Does the photographer have to be a genius? Selecting the model IS part of the talent of the photographer. Just as selecting props and locations. Ever seen a great movie where the director selected the wrong cast?
I am getting a feeling that you do not like the image and are somehow resentful that it was praised. I have seen a lot worse photography that was praised on internet forums - including here. Why is this one bugging you so much?
Not at all resentful, Finder! Just thought it would be interesting to discuss the issue as stated in my first post. I felt that this was a perfect image to illustrate that point.
BTW, thank you very much for this discussion! Sincerely.
Not at all resentful, Finder! Just thought it would be interesting to discuss the issue as stated in my first post. I felt that this was a perfect image to illustrate that point.
BTW, thank you very much for this discussion! Sincerely.
It is an interesting topic, and I have enjoyed it. Thanks Frank.
Windwalker57
08-09-2007, 12:54
In a way, this discussion is not fair to the photographer. The image in question is on another site and being discussed here without his knowledge. The subject matter is not something that I can find in the Critique Forum here on RFF. It is not what the general photo public would be creating.
Frank, your thread has been thought provoking, and I may just have learned something here. I would like to hear more from you about the image.
Finder, I may delight in trying to think outside the box, but you have at least shown me that I have just moved to a new box, albeit larger. Thanks for your comments.
Dave
Tuolumne
08-09-2007, 12:59
"This shot is yet another example of dreary male gaze photography. There is nothing significantly artful about it at all. The light is flat and utterly boring; the pose is mundane, the expression vacant and uninteresting; even the framing is boring. The photographer got the exposure well enough, which might be enough to call him or her competent, but I don't think anything more is expressed by this photo- other than perhaps "oohh, big boobies!". "
Sounds like the Perfect Woman to me! :D
/T
I have just returned to this post after seeing it when there were two responses. My first thought then was along the lines of "defeat snatched from the jaws of victory" - but I didn't type that as I felt everyone else would say it is a wonderful image, even though it looks like a crappy 1980's camera-club "glamour" shoot in someones cramped garage.
We find from the posts here that the model is apparently well known and, therefore, likely expensive so what on earth was going on ? Presumably the awkwardness is deliberate - maybe it was originally a what-not-to-do sort of instructional picture ? Even the other linked picture by the same photog is poorly lit. Very odd.
I suppose that this means that I think the photographer, not the subject, makes the (studio) photograph.
Here is a saying that I often think of with regards to photography:
It is the photographer's skill that makes an extra-ordinary photograph of an ordinary subject. With an exra-ordinary subject, the photographer simply needs to be competent to make an extra-ordinary photograph.
With that in mind, look at this photograph (nudity warning) and tell me what you think: is it an extra-ordinary photograph? If it is, is it because of the subject, or the photographer's skill (beyond competency)? Would the photograph still be as compelling if the model were more ordinary?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6285636
(You're welcome, in advance.)
Yes indeed, as my opinion goes, you are right in that It is the photographer's skill that makes an extra-ordinary photograph of an ordinary subject
But with that in mind, and since the pic didn't appeal to me too much, I went to see the full portfolios of the photographer at photo.net, and to my surprise ACCORDING TO MY TASTE, you have selected one of the few less appealing images of him.
This photographer has a high control of aesthetics, composition, lighting, imagination etc. In his several portfolios he addresses The Woman Nude in different styles, showing great originality. No doubt all his images are his absolute creation.
But this is also his aquilles talon. Beyond the formalistic aesthetics, the models are not present at the images, but for their bodies. And if you go this path you have to be a real genious of the height of Andre Kertecz for example, in order to have an image at your salon and look at it endlessly.
Yes the images of this guy go as far as he goes. And there they end.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
"Ordinary model" ? hmm this guy has not thought about it yet. Perhaps a good idea for him to try.
Mr_Flibble
08-09-2007, 13:17
Sorry if I created that impression of her being well-known with my post, MartinP.
Yes, I have seen her before in other photos (if she indeed is who I think she is). But I doubt she has done widely published work.
Thanks, Frank, for bringing forth this discussion. The photo is obviously interesting enough to make the discussion interesting and educational. My own reaction is that the model is grotesque in being extraordinary. Perhaps this is part of the photographer's message.
But I'm not at all sure it's worthwhile to attempt analysis of the photographer's intent. Rather more useful to study our own reactions to the image OMHO.
Thank you for the clarification Mr.Flibble. Actually, I now read my post again and wonder why I assumed that a (probably) amateur photographer apparently having the spare cash to pay for an expensive model, should also mean that s/he is a photographic wizard and able to make the picture show what he wanted. after all, the financial ability to do so would come from his main employment, not his photography.
With a deep sigh, I admit that it is much easier "to criticise" than "to do". I would have no clue how to light a person. When working professionally I only ever used a 5x4 copy-camera making pictures of various flat things, mostly I was kept chained to the b+w enlarger in the darkroom.
I seem to be having an uncertain sort of evening where I am thinking even less sharply than usual...
monochromejrnl
08-09-2007, 13:58
personally, i don't think one can draw conclusions about the skill of a photographer (ie whether s/he is good or bad) based on viewing one image alone... nor do i think there's value in doing so... an image should be evaluated on its' own using whatever combination of criteria the viewer chooses to... lighting, the choice of subject, choice of colour vs black and white, etc...
i don't think you can separate the subject from the discussion any more than you can the choice of lighting etc... none of the elements taken on their own or in combination in a single photo can/should be used to drawn conclusions about the abilities of the photographer...
i'm inclined to believe that there are no 'good' or 'bad' photographers... only good or bad photos (high if not completely subjective)... i've produced a handful of images that i'm proud of and like very much... whether or not other like them is quite irrelevant to me... what they think of my photographic abilities and even less of a concern ...
I've always felt as far as street photography goes, where you live has a lot to do with the quality of your images. As a GENERAL rule, a photographer living in Europe, or NYC can capture much more interesting (and most likely better) images than a photographer spending all of his time in suburbia america.
Ywenz, it is certainly like that. Hard to imagine a street photographer flourish in Namibian desert. That said living in NYC alone doesn't warrant that you'll be any good at it...
You have to be also a tall, preferrably Jewish fellow, judging by all the videos at 2point8 blog :)
Todd.Hanz
08-09-2007, 14:15
I'm not comfortable with this photograph. It almost looks as if the model is a composite, that is, she does not appear to be in proportion - not just the breasts, but also the leg. I think it is interesting more than extraordinary and it is certainly well executed. However, without that model I don't think it would be as striking. Also, I think there is too much space around the subject - a tighter crop would work better for me.
I only read these comments but I have to agree about the proportion of the model...odd.
andrealed
08-09-2007, 14:52
some water, a girl, and a white dress....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AWeeki_Wachee_spring_10079u.jpg
I mean, sometimes photography is not about the "decisive moment", but rather about "pre-visualizing". Posed pictures. Toni Frissell just knew how to do it well.
So, to the main question, do you call it:
extra-ordinary SUBJECT? (a swimming woman...)
extra-ordinary photographer...of an ordinary subject?
I'll go for the second one.
Please post examples of the other way.
some water, a girl, and a white dress....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AWeeki_Wachee_spring_10079u.jpg
I mean, sometimes photography is not about the "decisive moment", but rather about "pre-visualizing". Posed pictures. Toni Frissell just knew how to do it well.
So, to the main question, do you call it:
extra-ordinary SUBJECT? (a swimming woman...)
extra-ordinary photographer...of an ordinary subject?
I'll go for the second one.
Please post examples of the other way.
Great post, perspective is everything
respect
For me, the attraction is in the model's obvious finer points. :) But that's really it. There's nothing else that lures in. Competently done, but boring.
madsolitaire
08-10-2007, 02:30
personally, i don't think one can draw conclusions about the skill of a photographer (ie whether s/he is good or bad) based on viewing one image alone... nor do i think there's value in doing so... an image should be evaluated on its' own using whatever combination of criteria the viewer chooses to... lighting, the choice of subject, choice of colour vs black and white, etc...
i don't think you can separate the subject from the discussion any more than you can the choice of lighting etc... none of the elements taken on their own or in combination in a single photo can/should be used to drawn conclusions about the abilities of the photographer...
i'm inclined to believe that there are no 'good' or 'bad' photographers... only good or bad photos (high if not completely subjective)... i've produced a handful of images that i'm proud of and like very much... whether or not other like them is quite irrelevant to me... what they think of my photographic abilities and even less of a concern ...
Well said indeed. What makes for 'good' photography and what makes for 'bad' photography?
Every photograph speaks differently to different people. Sometimes, how other people view one's photographs is not a big concern to the photographer (although it is interesting to know how others view one's work). I often see photography as a part of myself, or if you like, as an extension of myself. It is as much about people getting to know me as it is about getting to know myself..... at least that is what i have been experiencing lately......
After a talk with my companion, and further thinking, I think I should reddress my former post.
First, art is a very wide spectrum with form on one extreme and contents, or significance, on the other. Much of art is void of contents but pure form, leaving us astonished by the armony or pace or originality, etc. In photography for example there is a celebrated pic by Kertecz of his model with a disarticulated pose over a sofa, which long time ago I dissected from a book and framed. Are there any contents ? I don't think so, but the armony and originality in that disarticulation, plus some gadgets, made this picture a masterpiece for me, bringing me pleasure to look at, over and over. This is a fact, there is art void of contents.
Taking this into consideration, it seems me ruthless to me my previous assertion that you must be a genious to try your skills in form art.
The other point my companion elucidated for me, refers to the nudity of the human body as seen by the ancient Greek sculptors, who believed the human body is the most perfect creation of Nature. Not a bad point at all, and several portfolios of our controversial photographer seem indeed to emulate such viewpoint with original new forms.
Hmmm, refreshing and interesting thread.
Cheers,
Ruben
Nog Bluteau
08-10-2007, 08:31
What I'm curious about is just how in tarnation did the OP find this masterpiece.???!
Was it a Google search, just initiated to "pass the time 'o day"?
"HUGE BREASTS"?
"NUDE GIRLS"?
“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice
What I'm curious about is just how in tarnation did the OP find this masterpiece.???!
Was it a Google search, just initiated to "pass the time 'o day"?
"HUGE BREASTS"?
"NUDE GIRLS"?
“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice
Just in PNet galleries.
Silva Lining
08-16-2007, 09:42
All I know is, whilst you lot are here debating on how to rate a photograph, HATAIIIA HATA!!!A (for it is he or she) is somewhere else, taking pictures of beautiful curvy women with fantastic breasts......
Despite the debate, only one person has the right answer :D
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.