Fantastic - what a breath of fresh air!
Stunning pictures, but I find the heavy vignetting a distraction, which seems completely counter-intuitive.
gwales: Well, I find it amazing that there are 70 comments about this - possibly the least commentable event ever on dpreview. I can't think of anything to say about it. It shows you what a perverse bunch many people are.
It was meant to be a light-hearted comment. Sorry if you missed the tone.'perverse' - showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable.
Well, I find it amazing that there are 70 comments about this - possibly the least commentable event ever on dpreview. I can't think of anything to say about it. It shows you what a perverse bunch many people are.
backayonder: A bloke with a beard wearing a dress has just won the Eurovision Song Contest so lighten up anything goes.
*in bad taste...
@danielbw - I assume you didn't watch Conchita preform. Your comment is off-topic and in bed taste. Live and let live - you'll be a better a person for it.
pbailey4: Technology over creativity - a deal of effort over a picture that means nothing.
When is dpr going to introduce downvotes? The picture took a lot more than technology. It took a lot of patience and skill and hard work. Don't like it? Fine. Why don't you just say so?
Enjoyed both videos. I'm not a good enough photographer and I don't own enough quality gear to sneer at other photographers, so I don't.
Majauskasson: Elina Shumilova, professional photographer, masquerading as a talented amateur seems to impress some. After just 18 months, this supposed amateur mastered a complex $5000 camera and various lighting equipment and lenses plus the photo editing program it would take to get these results. She also miraculously managed, in this time, to visit many different bucolic scenes and locations and process these plus somehow look after her small brood of young children and apparently a host of farm animals. I would have been just as impressed if she, or whoever is the actual talent behind this, was honest about how she actually accomplished this. Simple genius is not enough. It takes money and lots of people behind you, to get such results. Pretending to be a simple mother snapping pictures in the Russian wilderness is a bit much. Its also dishonest.
So, if you're wrong, that makes her even more amazing, doesn't it?
Samuel Dilworth: This rampant kitsch (which runs amok on sites like 500px) is destroying our ability to see. It’s like the ‘loudness war’ in music: everything is turned up to eleven to attract attention. More is without exception more in this world.
So it follows that if a dog is good, and a pot-bellied toddler is good, putting the two of them together at sunset on a misty farm is even better. (Duh!) If you formulaically combine:
• fluffy pets• children• sunsets• snow• backlit mist• flowers• bucolic artefacts• fabrics blowing in the wind• blurred backgrounds• very warm, highly saturated colours
… you arrive, as Shumilova did, at the apogee of this aesthetic – the equation can’t be denied! – even though you’ve truthfully created an absurd parody of beauty.
As this garish view of the world becomes normalised, it becomes harder for people to see other, better possibilities.
There is truth in what you say, but beauty is always subjective. The things you list are popular because they make people feel good. How they are presented is still a question of aesthetics. These photographs show an approach to the subject that has deep affection and care. She loves her subjects - that is her vision, if not yours... I took a peek at your website. I can see why you hate these photos. Some people might like your pictures, and some might not. I found them cold and depressing, frankly, but that's your vision, OK.
gwales: I like the photos, but I suspect a lot has to do with the highly emotive subject matter and the central role of 'softness and light'. Nevertheless, the compositions are all very good, especially number 9, of the boy balancing, being watched by the cat on the fence. It shows a keen eye - taken by someone who knows how to capture a key moment in time.
Well said, Zeisschen. Not all photographers make these things as obvious as she does, is probably what I was trying to say. As some others have said, a little cruelly perhaps, the subject and style are guaranteed to succeed, regardless of the talent. This photographers clearly has plenty of talent, though.
I like the photos, but I suspect a lot has to do with the highly emotive subject matter and the central role of 'softness and light'. Nevertheless, the compositions are all very good, especially number 9, of the boy balancing, being watched by the cat on the fence. It shows a keen eye - taken by someone who knows how to capture a key moment in time.
Karroly: I like these pics. And I also like to read negative comments and critics : this is the proof I live in a free country, not a totalitarian one with forums full of positive and politically correct comments only...
I agree with you, but I don't like seeing people abuse each other, which is what usually happens around here when person A disagrees with person B.
salamander1: while some of these pictures are very nice, motherly and estrogenic - we, men, have a hard time deciphering female art and would rather shoot hurricanes and tornadoes in the wild - i personally would not even think of showing my children to the world as fashion models purposefully posing half naked with their pants sagging gangsta style. i think this is very exploitative in a number of ways, and it is simply not decent in my opinion. i would not take such a photo of a child. it's a bad taste indeed. you've got to draw the line somewhere. children are still part of their parent's physical territory and their pictures belong in the family too. respect them. portraits and pictures of kids with, say, dogs and geese are okay, kids as naked fashion models are not okay. my opinion.
I didn't even notice the (lack of decent) clothing. Maybe because I grew up as a nudist?
The guy pointing in the air the whole time was really useful - I think he was shouting, "Fire!"
ljmac: It just doesn't work for me - it looks like he's superimposed translucent strips of colour over a base image or something. And given that you have a single set of fireworks stretching over three time periods (for example), this is obviously true to an extent. The clouds are the same throughout the first image too. If he wants it to work, he should do what he says he is doing without this trickery.
I was wondering about the tides in one of the photos. There seems to be little movement, which made me wonder what kind of time lapse is he working with. I also suspect a bit of trickery here, too.
I went to the picture style page put up by Canon. It looks like it was designed for a 12" screen by somebody who is really starting to get the hang of html.
trac63: Here in Canada we're constantly force-fed Brian Adams' photography, and quite frankly the guy's portraits are not very good.
A good portrait evokes a sense of who the subject is. Adams does the opposite: he masks his subject with phoney costumes, make-up and backgrounds, then clobbers the entire image with harsh, one-dimensional lighting.
I had a look at his photos and they look over-processed.
Great effort - achieving effects like this with a low budget will inspire others. In a few years we will be seeing a whole new wave of cinema, with low budgets and great results (and a shitload of crap, of course). Isn't that what every filmmaker dreams of?