Irakly Shanidze

Irakly Shanidze

Lives in United States Grosse Pointe, United States
Works as a photographer
Has a website at www.shanidze.com/en
Joined on May 21, 2004
About me:

I am a founder of International Academy of Photographic Arts that provides
workshops in the US, Canada and around Europe and full curriculum (Currently
only in Moscow, Russia) studies in fine art photography ith an emphasis on
creative approach and non-standard thinking.

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 21 – 27
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Leica Noctilux: Overkill or Necessity article (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheLastMan: The benefit of this lens was obvious in the days of film when films had a fixed ISO rating and anything higher than 400 asa was seriously grainy.

However with digital, the fall-off in quality by going from ISO 100 to 400 is probably a lot less than the compromises resulting from a lens at f1.0 compared to f2.0. In fact with a 16mp camera with a good f2.8 lens at ISO 800 will have a better "printable" quality than the same camera with an f1.0 lens at ISO 100.

If you want a shallower DOF than you will get with an f2.8 lens, why not go medium format? A Pentax 645D with the "kit" 50mm costs the same as this lens!

You are right. Medium format is a great idea... In the studio.
You cannot discount ergonomics in photography and judge cameras/lenses only on their basic parameters. Pictures always show how tired a photographer was while shooting.
Photographer is not a machine, which performs the same way in every instance. So, getting "better printable quality" at 2.8 does not mean that the picture will be better overall.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2011 at 13:57 UTC

I am not sure about Edward Hopper analogy, as visual aesthetics of this image is 100% photographic, while Hopper's paintings tend to be more of an illustrative poster-like style. On the other hand, Hopper seemed to know a bit more about composition :)

The rhetoric regarding differences between photography and "more traditional art forms" I find somewhat shallow. Are you sure that artists expressing their creative urges in painting always have control over the content of their images?

Art critique statement aside, apparently, square composition didn't cross the Reviews Editor's mind while it should have.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 16:42 UTC as 5th comment
On Leica M9 comparison shots added to dpreview database article (149 comments in total)

I wonder why 2.5/75 Summarit was chosen for the test? Obviously, it is a professional-grade optics, but to prevent comparing pineapples to grapefruits it would make sense to use lenses that occupy comparable slots in system line-ups for all manufacturers.

Also, using portrait lenses for a test like that is somewhat questionable. If seeing how etching lines are resolved was the goal, why didn't you use macro lenses? Portrait lenses are for faces, not for shooting a newspaper page from ten feet away.

I could understand if someone on one of the forums posted a quick comparison test, but you guys have been doing this for too long to allow this sort of blunders. Honestly :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 16:22 UTC as 2nd comment
On Editorial Lighting - The Minimalist Way article (89 comments in total)

Thomas, I mean no disrespect, but your examples are not very convincing fashion photos. Portraits maybe, but not fashion. None of these pictures shows the dress well enough. This is important, because taking a photo fulfilling this requirement actually would force you out of the car. I'd like to see how you would handle this glamorous location in that case.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2011 at 22:22 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply

I can't believe that I once contemplated publishing with Amherst Media...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2011 at 06:51 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

franta123: I'm struggling to tie together the first part of the article (upside down = good) and the second (look through a frame). In fact, I do not see much difference between using the frame to isolate the scene and using your camera's LCD or viewfinder to do the same.
Anyone care to explain ?

What the author meant, when looking through a viewfinder, you have to dissociate from the semantics of the scene. The ground glass makes it easier, but, with some practice, you will be able to do it in a viewfinder of your SLR.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2011 at 11:13 UTC
On Photo Tip: Five for Five article (111 comments in total)

The tips are certainly valuable. However, the author's position is somewhat single-sided: elimination is not the only way of dealing with distractions. It is effective, but inevitably leads to "pictures of dead cities". Elements that the author assumes to be offensive for the composition are, in fact, effects of normal life. When one takes them out of the frame, picture becomes barren. Sometimes it can be necessary, most of the time lifelessness is not what you want.

An alternative approach requires more skill, but leads to better results. Instead of taking a trashcan out of the frame, make it work for the image. Do not be afraid of using people (or parts of people) as compositional elements. Try it, and you will be surprised how live your pictures will look.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2011 at 10:56 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
Total: 27, showing: 21 – 27
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »