Archive 2021 · Gracie in The River
p.3 #1Gracie in The River
friscoron wrote:
You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo.
Again, this is completely false.
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.
You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo.
DanielScott wrote
RustyBug wrote
The point was about the uber-soft lighting, and that when uber-soft lighting is present, it essentially offers the same look whether it is shot by a skilled craftsmen, or a rookie.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.
Aug 02, 2021 at 07:20 PM
p.3 #2Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
Again, this is completely false.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.
May you find better light elsewhere.
friscoron wrote
You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo.DanielScott wrote
RustyBug wrote
The point was about the uber-soft lighting, and that when uber-soft lighting is present, it essentially offers the same look whether it is shot by a skilled craftsmen, or a rookie.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.
Aug 02, 2021 at 07:36 PM
p.3 #3Gracie in The River
Mongrel wrote:
Again, this is completely false.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.
May you find better light elsewhere.
I have insulted nobody. But seriously, you can kiss my ass.
DanielScott wrote
friscoron wrote
You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo.DanielScott wrote
RustyBug wrote
The point was about the uber-soft lighting, and that when uber-soft lighting is present, it essentially offers the same look whether it is shot by a skilled craftsmen, or a rookie.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.
Aug 02, 2021 at 07:45 PM
p.3 #4Gracie in The River
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.
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.
Aug 02, 2021 at 08:31 PM
p.3 #5Gracie in The River
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,...Show more →
Thank you for saying it better than I could.
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,...Show more →
Thank you for saying it better than I could.
Aug 02, 2021 at 08:44 PM
p.3 #6Gracie in The River
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.
Aug 02, 2021 at 10:06 PM
p.3 #7Gracie in The River
RustyBug wrote:
Thank you for saying it better than I could.
I tried.
Thank you for saying it better than I could.
I tried.
Aug 02, 2021 at 10:08 PM
p.3 #8Gracie in The River
friscoron wrote:
I tried.
You done good.
RustyBug wrote
Thank you for saying it better than I could.You done good.
Aug 03, 2021 at 05:54 AM
p.3 #9Gracie in The River
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".
-Phil
...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".
-Phil
Aug 03, 2021 at 05:35 PM
p.3 #10Gracie in The River
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.
BTW, I can't remember ever seeing any of your work around here.
Aug 03, 2021 at 07:27 PM
p.3 #11Gracie in The River
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.
Allen
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.
Allen
Aug 04, 2021 at 03:09 AM
p.3 #12Gracie in The River
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...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!).
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...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!).
Aug 04, 2021 at 04:56 AM
p.3 #13Gracie in The River
Judging by all the fur flying in this thread Daniel must have a real home run photo! I look at it, and yes - it's a killer shot! Congrats Daniel!
Aug 04, 2021 at 04:08 PM
p.3 #14Gracie in The River
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.
-Phil
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.
-Phil
Aug 04, 2021 at 08:40 PM
p.3 #15Gracie in The River
That wasn't personal insult. I was talking about your comment not you. There is a difference.
And again I never said they had to be 100% objective. I did say we should try and be more objective and less subjective. I know you didn't read this so I will post it again. It is close to how I feel about that matter.
https://theaestheticist.com/the-truth-unfolds-objective-evaluation-of-art/
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.
Edited on Aug 05, 2021 at 08:31 PM · View previous versions
And again I never said they had to be 100% objective. I did say we should try and be more objective and less subjective. I know you didn't read this so I will post it again. It is close to how I feel about that matter.
https://theaestheticist.com/the-truth-unfolds-objective-evaluation-of-art/
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.
Edited on Aug 05, 2021 at 08:31 PM · View previous versions
Aug 04, 2021 at 09:05 PM
p.3 #16Gracie in The River
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.
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.
Aug 04, 2021 at 10:04 PM
p.3 #17Gracie in The River
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
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
Aug 05, 2021 at 06:04 AM
p.3 #18Gracie in The River
Love this Daniel. Love the look on her face and the reflection.
Joel
Joel
Aug 05, 2021 at 06:37 AM
p.3 #19Gracie in The River
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?
_______
+1. Well done. Still using the 5D?
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?
_______
+1. Well done. Still using the 5D?
Aug 07, 2021 at 02:22 PM
p.3 #20Gracie in The River
dalite wrote:
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?_______
+1. Well done. Still using the 5D?
Yes, but infrequently. Other interests - golf, Pickleball, snooker and canoeing are my usual activities.
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?
+1. Well done. Still using the 5D?
Yes, but infrequently. Other interests - golf, Pickleball, snooker and canoeing are my usual activities.
Aug 08, 2021 at 05:37 AM