friscoron wrote:
You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo.
And yet again, a completely false statement. Just because a photographer uses available ambient light does not equate their work to being just the same as a photo taken on an iphone. Honestly, I'm done with this place. Comparing natural light photographers to iPhone photographers and saying that anyone could have taken this photo simply because of the lighting conditions is completely ridiculous and completely false.
DanielScott wrote:
And yet again, a completely false statement. Just because a photographer uses available ambient light does not equate their work to being just the same as a photo taken on an iphone. Honestly, I'm done with this place. Comparing natural light photographers to iPhone photographers and saying that anyone could have taken this photo simply because of the lighting conditions is completely ridiculous and false.
Honestly...the way you continue to insult those that are truly on your side and have invested hours and hours helping other photographers out here for many years... Your self-inflated value... Prima-donna attitude...
You can't leave fast enough for me. Your histrionics have really grown wearisome.
Mongrel wrote:
Honestly...the way you continue to insult those that are truly on your side and have invested hours and hours helping other photographers out here for many years... Your self-inflated value... Prima-donna attitude...
You can't leave fast enough for me. Your histrionics have really grown wearisome.
May you find better light elsewhere.
I have insulted nobody. But seriously, you can kiss my ass.
DanielScott wrote:
Just because a photographer uses available ambient light does not equate their work to being just the same as a photo taken on an iphone.
And nobody said that the work was necessarily equitable ... rather, that the light would be equitable.
For all the "completely false" assertions you are making of others' statements, you are failing to consider that there is any modicum of truth in the statements (or that they might be less than ideally worded). Your "completely false" assertions mostly are serving to reveal the depth of consideration you are giving to others ... which, at this juncture would seem to be "completely none" ... for those which you innately disagree.
If something doesn't make sense to you, you can always ask for clarification, rather than assert complete falseness or villainous intent. Cyber-comms can be a tough gig sometimes.
I understand that you don't agree with others, but in order for your continued assertion of others to be "completely false", there must be no truth in what others have said ... at all. Saying it more, louder, stronger, bolder that others are "completely false" ... well that doesn't automatically, make it so.
And, as to your donkey ... not exactly good FM decorum. Might wanna check that, going forward.
friscoron wrote:
what Rusty is saying is that when you have natural lighting like this, there is actually nothing that the photographer is adding or subtracting from the light. You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo. Now, naturally, you saw the very good ambient light and you utilized it well.
I think the point you're missing is that Rusty is simply saying he was surprised that you did a shot like this where you did not manipulate the light, as he considers you masterful at that. I know you're not taking it that way, but he's actually trying to give you a very nice compliment,
Look, you've clearly insulted me, just so you know, and all I was trying to do was to help you see the light. Claiming that my opinion about ambient light is the same for anyone taking that picture is a completely false statement -- how is it false when it's my opinion, and frankly, easily provable. I never said the picture would be the same as one taken on an iPhone, tho, to be honest, iPhone pics are pretty damned good these days. Try putting an iPhone 12 in Portrait Mode in good ambient light, and see what happens.
Maybe you should take a look at the photogs on this forum, and recognize you can learn a little something from them. Like humility, to begin with.
DanielScott wrote:
And yet again, a completely false statement. Just because a photographer uses available ambient light does not equate their work to being just the same as a photo taken on an iphone. Honestly, I'm done with this place. Comparing natural light photographers to iPhone photographers and saying that anyone could have taken this photo simply because of the lighting conditions is completely ridiculous and completely false.
airfrogusmc wrote:
...the key is to understand it whether you like it or not.
See, and that's where we differ. I believe that you take "objective critique" and art critique in general far too serious. It has no immediate impact on the artist and his work, and it doesn't add any value. It doesn't help me to understand either, because art critique is simply some regurgitated theoretical knowledge that is repeated ad nauseam. It restricts people to understand the artist because it's a severely limited tool.
Art Critic: "According to my theoretical knowledge drawn from a gazillion books and according to my art professor, your art is no good (gives a bunch of reasons)."
Marketing Director: "Look at that art! Let's promote it and make the artist really popular so that we can make a ton of money with him".
Art Critic: "This artist has seen an immense boost in popularity. His artwork is incredible. It's a revelation!"
Happened to Monet and Cezanne, as I mentioned in the other thread already. First they got derided by their critics, then they become successful, and all of a sudden they get praised by the same people that tore them apart earlier. So much for the value of critics and their "wisdom".
I don't take any of this to serious. But there are objective ways to help one decide if a piece has any merit beyond I like it or I don't like it. You don't have to believe it. Just like you can still believe the world is flat, man never went to the moon, etc if thats what you want to believe. It would be wrong but you are surely free to believe whatever. And actually understanding some of this can give you more insight into an artist.
BTW, I can't remember ever seeing any of your work around here.
PhilPDX wrote:
So much for the value of critics and their "wisdom".
-Phil
Ya mean like this Phil?
Your words from this thread pg1 #16
"I prefer women that smile. The eyes and mouth of the lady are screaming 'It's cold. Get me out of here."
So much for the wisdom of critics huh?
Seems more like a subjective, mean spirited, attack to me than any kind of useful critique.
Anyway here is a great quote by Irving Penn that I think fits so nicely here.
"Most of the time the ones who dislike the pictures the most confirm to me that the picture has hit home and is probably truer than I know."-Irving Penn
Hey Daniel looks like you might be on to something according to Penn. I say keep up the good work.
BTW I see a real visual connection between this piece and some of Daniels other work.
friscoron wrote:
I've got a few responses to this discussion. One, someone asked why professional photographers would post their work on here. I'm a pro and I focus mainly on dancers. I used to post a lot but have just gotten too busy the last couple years. When I do post here, I'm really posting my best work, and I like to see what the responses are. Do ppl here like it as much as I do? Do they find things wrong with it that I missed? I've always appreciated the critical responses I got here. I didn't agree with some of it, maybe even a lot of it, and if so, I just blew it off. Those were critiques that didn't really take my brand/style into consideration, or something like that. But I got lots of nuggets, too, and that's what really matters.
Part two is this whole idea of getting feedback and critiques, whether you asked for them or not. I mean, honestly, what do you expect when you post a pic to a photographer forum? And photographers are a helpful lot, they like to give feedback that they think would improve the shot. It would seem weird to not get feedback.
So.... probably not helpful, but my two cents. ...Show more →
What Ron said.
He summed it up very well.
I'll add that critiques are opinions. We can learn from the opinions of others (sometimes we learn to ignore them!).
airfrogusmc wrote:
Just like you can still believe the world is flat, man never went to the moon, etc if thats what you want to believe.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Seems more like a subjective, mean spirited, attack to me than any kind of useful critique.
Running out of arguments, or why do you have to resort to personal insults?
airfrogusmc wrote:
I can't remember ever seeing any of your work around here.
And?
If someone posts an image, I will occasionally give my honest and frank opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether the artist or any other forum member can handle that or not, is not my problem. You obviously believe that any art critique has to be "objective" and that the theories behind this (supposedly) "objective critique" are sacrosanct. To me a first impression is a thousand times more valuable than all of your dusty text books combined. It is honest, as I already said, and the artist knows immediately how his work comes across. I'm the customer to satisfy, not some self-proclaimed art critics who are full of themselves.
Well once you have started typing a critique you have become a critic. Wouldn't it be nice to be honest and say something that actually gets to something real? Because these things are real. I didn't make this stuff up. The funny part is once you start understanding more, if it is actually there in work, the more you start seeing in pieces that you had never noticed before. The more fluent you become the more it can start showing up in your own work. I say to achieve more content in our work should be a goal of all of us as photographers.So having those tools doesn't make one some kind of BS critic. It just makes one more informed.
I'm with friscoron and rustybug in regards to personal behavior. They've said everything that needed to be said.
The image itself is a large departure from your style, which I have been a fan of. This image does not showcase the skill with light that you are known for.
I can't find anything actually wrong with the photo. It's a good photo. I'm just confused by it more than anything.
I'm sitting here wondering is it a study in natural light? is it an experiment? did the model ask for this style? is this a lens test? was lighting equipment unsafe because of the water? is he just being a bit goofy? what is it? I'm confused.
Think about it. If I mimicked your style for one of my clients, I'd get questions after delivery because everything is going to be sooooo different from what they saw in the demo portfolio during consultation. The same psychology is happening here.
I would say the basic composition of this image, I'm not talking about lighting, is pretty similar to the portrait he posted in the thread Micay-Portrait of an Actress with the Micay being a tighter crop. But the composition, the way he put the images together visually, is similar.
Avedon, Penn, Newman all would use different lighting in differenbt situations. I do to. I mean look at how different Avedon lit and even cropped the portrait of David Bowie and the protrait of Marilyn Monroe. Look how different the lighting and feel is of Newman portrait of Krupp and the portrait he did of Stravinski. These are all much bigger departures than this is for Daniel.
For this image I think the really soft lighting works very well for subject and the situation. There is a nice tension with the subject facing to camera left with the implied motion moving slightly out of the frame. A lower than eye level for the camera gives the subject stature. I like the fact he didn't shoot down on her. Nice catch light in the eyes and speaking of eyes I like the repeating shape of the eyes in the tat on her shoulder. I think the muted green and blue in the background is just the right splash subtle color and helps balance the skin tones and because they are muted help retain the overall feel of the image .
And over all the decades I have been doing this professioanally and working both in the studio and on location I would say that learning to see and having the ability to master available light/natural light is every bit as hard to master as mastering studio lighting. With studio light you create it and natural light you have to see it. And that seeing it is becoming a lost art and can be VERY difficult to do well as is the case with studio light. And in this instance I think Daniel handled the natural light extremely well in maintaining the overall feel to the piece. He was helped becasuse the water became a big reflector even though the late light was already very soft. I also like the slight direction in the light coming from camera left and you also can see it in her eyes.
So for some of these reasons, and there are more, I think this image is successful Subjectively, I like this image
My 2 cents...
Allen
Jim Rickards wrote:
Putting that macro lens to good use, I see.
The lighting turned out well. Thanks for the story behind it.
The previous comment seems odd. Protruding bit? Really? If anything it would be better protruding a bit more.
And criticism of a reflector that wasn't used? Why?
