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?
A powerful image, beautifully captured.
SeeRoy: I feel confident that The Young General always makes the correct decisions in the interests of His People. I see this as continuing the implementation of Juche as pioneered by his predecessors - The Dear Leader and of course The Great Leader, Kim Il Sung. The recent visit to the PRK of the notable American intellectual sports star Dennis Rodman shows us that the Young General is eager to share his nation's cultural wealth with less fortunate countries.
Cultural wealth - thank god! Now if only they could eat it.
Nothing is certain but death, taxes... and haters.
Camediadude: Out of morbid curiosity, I went over and took a look at the tablet 'article' on connect. I saw a short rundown there that was thin on substance, and of course, apple taking home the highest ratings from dpreview, which was no surprise. I closed what would be the last tab of dpreview 'connect' I ever open up on my browser. Please stick to covering cameras ... It is not too late to fix this morass that you have been mophing into. We can do this togther, just take small steps! Step one: We need to try to go one entire month without mentioning apple, facebook or instagram on this front page. We can do it, I have faith in you, dpreview!
Wow, your apology was very refreshing. Well done! DPR made the decision to separate mobile photography. Right now they obviously want to give it plenty of attention and drive traffic there. Maybe later the mobile stuff will get less of a mention on this site.
Isca: The snobbery of the "real" photographers using "real" cameras is astounding. The best camera is the one that you have with you, ever heard that phrase before? I've been shooting a photo a day for 6 weeks, many times when the other 3 "real" cameras are at home. The iPhone forces me to look at subjects differently so I welcome this refreshing direction that dept has taken (this post typed on my Canon 5D Mk 2).
I bet you haven't taken up my offer to look at the fantastic photos taken by Dean Holland with the iPhone 4S. He left his pro gear at home because he was on a short but sentimental trip with his wife, who would have been very unimpressed by his lugging around big cameras and lenses. Exactly when a half decent phone camera can fill the gap.
The fact is, pictures taken by mobile phones are improving all the time, to the point where they are good enough to take great photos. Take a look at any collection of classic photos, and you will see some examples of poorer qualities in almost every aspect - more blur, less resolution, etc. Does that detract from the shots? One day, mobile phones will take better photos than many DSLR's of today. There'll still be a larrytusaz type spitting hatred at DUMB phones, because the DSLR's will also be that much better...
Larrytusaz wants to protect tradition more than anything else. Check out these great photos at connect.com:
I don't like some of the HDR, but the photos speak for themselves.
Wow! They're great photos. The last one is a bit too heavily processed for my taste, but it shows again that the mind behind the lens is more important than the gear being used.
Am I missing something here? Maybe the other were even less interesting?