I think the thing about Serg's style is that it looks almost haphazard, like a series of moment that were casually captured that perfectly encapsulate a whole wedding - these are scenes that we would have seen with our own eyes, from our seat in the pews or as we walked around the reception with a drink. I don't mean to say haphazard in a negative way, since it's obvious that consistency like this couldn't be achieved through luck alone. It's more like a Miles Davis approach to photography, so practiced & sure that it looks improvised.
Thank you for finding the words I've been looking for to describe why I like Serg's work. Your description pretty much sums it up for me.
It's funny, the image that stopped me in this strong set was the little girl. There's an entire story in this photograph! I love the way it is subtley grounded in the event.. I love her expression, it's a combination of shyness and coyness.
I started assisting with wedding photography when I was 16 and after graduating from photography school I photographed weddings for over a decade. Through that experience I became very sensitive to people's reactions to the photographer. There's an intangible in Sergio's work, and that is his ability to have people open up to him and his camera. I believe in the importance of non-verbal communication, there's something about Serg's demeanor that makes people comfortable around him. It comes out in his work.
Lovely photos, Serg
Doug
PS I find it fascinating how Serg's post seems to be able to separate the sheep from the goats. It's interesting to see how the audience shakes out.
canonet wrote:
Basically if someone says they like something, should be able to say why instead of giving a 'just because........."
Being able to articulate "Why" should not be a prerequisite to viewing or liking "art".
I honestly cannot tell you why I like the picture of the girl, but it made me pause and look for a minute. I even went back to it after the set. Why? I can't tell you why. But I do like it.
bwield wrote:
Being able to articulate "Why" should not be a prerequisite to viewing or liking "art".
OK, I'll play devil's advocate. If we hold that belief, then we should not ask Grognard or anybody else who doesn't like Serg's work to articulate "Why not".
Crash10 wrote:
Oh ya...I showed these to MY wife and she likes them! It's nice to know people care what their wife thinks but thinking everybody else should give it extra weight too is...confusing
I think people bring that up because in most cases on here and anywhere for that matter our wives/husbands/SO's all see things from the perspective of a potential client, and not a photographer. I can't count on both hands the amount of times I've wanted to delete a photo and my wife convinced me to keep it and low and behold I sold the most prints of that shot...
Is it stupid to post about on a message forum full of photographers, absolutely, but the posters seem to think it validates their observations.
dmacmillan wrote:
OK, I'll play devil's advocate. If we hold that belief, then we should not ask Grognard or anybody else who doesn't like Serg's work to articulate "Why not".
Very true. IF they wish to explain why they do not like the work than by all means they can. But it does go both ways, I am sure there is work that I am not attracted too, but couldn't tell you why.
Its art, not everyone is going to like it. Just the way it is.
I agree about the Art part, however, the poster said it seemed "poorly executed". It is appropriate to ask that poster why it was "poorly executed", isn't it?
Crash10 wrote:
I agree about the Art part, however, the poster said it seemed "poorly executed". It is appropriate to ask that poster why it was "poorly executed", isn't it?
Absolutely. I'm waiting for an explanation.
Here's some more examples of "poorly executed" photographs:
How did you blue out the top of the pic? Is it a simple blur brush?
Tilt shift was used (in more than just that photo) to get the focal plane parallel to the ground, so above and below the focal point in the frame it's blurry.
bwield wrote:
Being able to articulate "Why" should not be a prerequisite to viewing or liking "art".
I honestly cannot tell you why I like the picture of the girl, but it made me pause and look for a minute. I even went back to it after the set. Why? I can't tell you why. But I do like it.
if it made you pause, then it could have been her expression, what she is holding ( wine glass with some punch) colors, or something caught your attention. Nothing is ever 'Just because'. If a dog is on one side of a room and goes to another, it did it for a reason and not for randomness. Its the way they operate and we are no different. We like and do things for a reason.
Canonet, I totally disagree, sometimes emotional responses are hard to figure out. We often dont know why we react/enjoy/dislike somethings. Somethings are hard to articulate.
If the world was indeed that way that you describe we would all know how to describe our ideal soulmate and be able to look them up in a catalogue.
morganb4 wrote:
Canonet, I totally disagree, sometimes emotional responses are hard to figure out. We often dont know why we react/enjoy/dislike somethings. Somethings are hard to articulate.
If the world was indeed that way that you describe we would all know how to describe our ideal soulmate and be able to look them up in a catalogue.
Morgan, thats fine. When it comes to critiquing art, we should be able to describe why something is appealing than go with a gut feeling. it would be similar to a movie reviewer who, for example, sees Avatar, and cannot put into words why it was appealing more than saying..........." I just liked it, nothing else".
morganb4 wrote:
If the world was indeed that way that you describe we would all know how to describe our ideal soulmate and be able to look them up in a catalogue.
We would also be able to understand the behavior of cats. ;-)
When I was at Art Center, I put a portrait up on the crit board. Our teacher was Jim McCrary, who at the time was Director of Photography for A&M Records. He went down the line, critiquing each photo.
As he was speaking, he became more and more agitated and distracted. Finally he apologized to the class, went several photos down the row until he got to my photo, and turned it face to the wall. He continued to work down the row until he got to my photo. He turned it around, looked at it for a moment, then turned it back. He explained: "I'm sorry, but I'm having a very emotional response to this photo. I just can't deal with it right now."
I've never seen anyone have such a strong reaction to one of my photos. He never could articulate why.
canonet wrote:
Morgan, thats fine. When it comes to critiquing art, we should be able to describe why something is appealing than go with a gut feeling. it would be similar to a movie reviewer who, for example, sees Avatar, and cannot put into words why it was appealing more than saying..........." I just liked it, nothing else".
Yes exactly, thats a exactly what a critique is. 'I just liked it' or 'not my cup of tea' are not critiques, they are emotional responses and the two should not be confused.
I get pissed off at people here who have a negative emotional response to an image or set and wade in with personal attacks/patronising comments and then pretend that its a valid critique and say crap like 'I didnt know I was only allowed to give positive critique.
Emotion is not rational, critiques is. As wedding photographers our primary goal is to create positive emtional reactions for our clients, not to produce work that stands up to a rational critique. The two often go hand in hand but not always.
Doesnt mean that stating an emotional response is not of some value, unless a purely negative response is then 'justified' by a bunch of personal attack/nasty comments, as has been the case here and with others.
morgan,
I guess from years in a science lab, I have to rational and explain things so the tech angle is how I approach photography. I like to hear/read valid critiques of mine and other photos to learn as it points people to becoming better photographers.
If a photo is technically bad and gets rave reviews, they will continue to stay on that level unless given some constructive criticism. IN this forum, I have seen lots of that in here.
being emotional is fine but when constructive criticism comes in , its seen as negative. Or, many times they will have nothing in their portfolio to demonstrate a proper technique. I ran into that in the Sports form where i got a harsh critique and came to learn........the guy doing it had really nothing better showing a 'proper' method.
The same old tired arguments get rehashed *every*single*time* this guys posts an image set. It's almost like he's flame baiting, but he's not.
Most regulars here seem to like his work while most others just don't get it. The two factions argue it out for 5,7,10 pages before the moderator locks the thread. Wait three weeks, repeat cycle. Very predictable.
@ four pages