Portrait

The purists will hate this one. But what do you think of it.....as a photograph? Prizes for answers without the words 'burned out' in them. Lol.

Jules



--
Black holes do not destroy information.

...wrong picture. It was meant to be this one (not the worlds smallest post office). On some forums you can edit your posts, unfortunately not this one.



Jules
--
Black holes do not destroy information.

It would be a whole lot better if it was shot properly, allowing for a wide range of definitions of "properly."

But right now, it looks like an accident, and that draws too much attention to the failed technique, and too much attention away from the subject.

BAK

It would have never made it passed the initial culling of images if I shot it. But if you like it...all the power to you.
--
David L. Morel
http://www.pbase.com/dlmorel

Jules, Think it would have more impack in black and white.

Well taht just shows you what the advent of the digital camera has done to you lot. the only acceptable shot is one in focus, correctly exposed and no noise. How sad. That's why 99% of pictures on this forum are so lifeless and boring. Did none of you guys go to art school andf experiment, play with light, do things you weren't meant to ever.

Just look at the picture, you can see what it is of, the light was bursting into the boat like that. Ok back to your hummingbirds, babies, dogs and ugly relatives all correctly exposed with your lates D80 or whatever, or is the D90 you've all all oredered and are waiting for.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I'm going to bed.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Whassup man! I think the others are just trying to be helpful. Not to say that the exposure, and composition have to be nailed in every shot, but the shot is so badly exposed that is very difficult to understand the point.

This is a forum where people can feel free to give their opinion. I have posted here and got ZERO responses before. How am I to take that?? At least you are getting feedback. Now, whether you agree, is totally up to you. Photography is an artform....not a science.

But, the bottom line is that if you like it....print it 20x30 and hang it proudly.

Pat

PS. Not waiting on the D80....but the D3xs!!!

yeh, I know patrick. But I guess I did it on purpose and expected such comments. Sure, byt the technical book it's all wrong, yes there's bits so overexposed that they are white. but so what? Look at the final image, is it so bad. I happen to quite like it. i just think people on this forum are so concervative they would'nt recognise something if it fell on their heads. What do they think of picasso? he put both eyes in the same side of people's heads. Dali distorted things outof recognition. The purists on this forum would have killed them!

My shot might not be cartier Bresson, but it is a Jules, and it did, as you say, provoke response.
I really am of to bed now.
jules

(Bored of noise, bored of D80, bored of dogs, bored of Nikon vs Canon, bored......)
--
Black holes do not destroy information.

I think that was what art is all about--expression. You expressed yourself, and it brought you some degree of self-fulfillment or satisfaction.

My thing is as long as I like it--forget the rest. If you I don't want to make photography a job, ultimately you are your only customer.

But, if you post your artwork on a public form, be prepared to hear all sorts of opinion--not just the one you want to hear.

Sleep tight...

Patrick

I personally do not like it.

My opinion has nothing to do with your technique. I just don't care for the image.

The world's smallest postal shack looks pretty cool, though. =)

JulesJ wrote:

I like it but think its composition will be improved by cropping and a bit of darkening.



Perfect facial angle and short lighting on the face of the woman. Duplicate that in a conventional portrait of her and its a winner. The combination of poncho, pose and lighting reminds me of a religious painting, then there's the dog off to the side; he's in a very nice oblique pose too. The fact that the lighting is blown in the upper left adds to the offbeat quality and with the crop above it balances the poncho filling up the lower right corner with equally uninteresting "negative space. Off beat, but it works for me

CG

LOL

Ignoring the picture here for a moment, there good points in this thread by the techies and the artists. You have to love them both! The dinosaurs took themselves pretty seriously as well!

--
Brian_

Chuck Gardner said:

JulesJ wrote:
I like it but think its composition will be improved by cropping
and a bit of darkening.



Perfect facial angle and short lighting on the face of the woman.
Duplicate that in a conventional portrait of her and its a winner.
The combination of poncho, pose and lighting reminds me of a
religious painting, then there's the dog off to the side; he's in a
very nice oblique pose too. The fact that the lighting is blown in
the upper left adds to the offbeat quality and with the crop above
it balances the poncho filling up the lower right corner with
equally uninteresting "negative space. Off beat, but it works for
me

CG

Click to expand...

A very good abservation of the potential of an image - and the selective cropping has added impact to bring out it's unconventional qualities.

It's all too easy to dismiss an image just because it doesn't follow normal conventions but in this case, the image does contain the essentials and inherent formal requirements to create an interesting 'image' rather than just another 'photograph' or faithful reproduction. The image just needed someone to look at it from a different perspective.

As suggested, and without sounding like some sort of justifying art critic, the lighting is somewhat alegorical which is totally against the usual convention of what is normally considered acceptable but, it creates a natural vignette to the image which gives it a look of serenity!

Lighting takes many forms but, it's all too easy to place too much emphasis on traditional rules - sometimes accidental lighting can create what normal efforts can't! In this case, the over-exposure has worked effectively.

Many famous images, among them the portrait of Che Guevara which was synonimous with Cuba for over a decade, have less than perfect technical qualities yet they were and still are instantly recognisable and warmly received! - which suggests that it's the overall image rather than just technical qualities that produce memorable images. I see many superbly lit composed and exposed shots on this forum, all with perfect technical qualities but that doesn't make them memorable. To be memorable, an image has to contain something that is individual and different to other images of it's genre.

It would be a good opportunity for a forum such as this to actively encourage and exploit diversity in experimenting with light and image content in a positive way, rather than stay entrenched and dismissive of anything that doesn't meet or follow so called taditional methods.

I'm sure many will disagree with my views but photography has been continually evolving since it's inception!
Regards...
Tony

--
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tsphoto/monochrome1.htm

JulesJ, sorry I won't win a prize for not using the words "burned out" because there is no doubt that you already know it's burnt out. Before I make any more comments about your picture just a brief photographic background of myself. Basically since buying a DSLR 3 months ago I have made at least 6000 shutter clicks. I have no legacy equipment or any legacy experience since using a Polaroid in the 60's and 70's. Never got into film because I guess I like instant gratification. After finding Pbase and looking at 1000s of DSLR pictures from amateurs as well as pros, I decided to take the digital leap and eventually ended up here reading the forums (Oly SLR, Lighting, Printing, Mac and PC). Nobody told me photography could become an obsession or that it would cost 1000s.

OK back to my point, barely being in the position to comment on the technical aspects of your picture being burnt, your picture inspired me. Many of my first digital attempts were either grossly overexposed or underexposed. Came to the forums, read, and learned. I started to trust the histogram. My first thought about your picture was wow (in a bad way) blown highlights. After looking at it for a while I started liking the overall feeling of it and started to experience your picture rather than looking at it for noise, dynamic range, camera settings, or any technical aspects. From an art history class I remember hearing when the camera first hit the scene in the mid 1800s, artists had to get better than the camera and make their art more realistic than a photo or paint an impression of the subject matter. Now with digital files replacing film for most photographers, photography seems to be at a "new fork in the road". Pixel peeping for digital perfection or breaking the rules to find digitals potential as an art form.

Just a little more rambling. Recently I subscribed to the B&W Magazine and have been looking at the pictures trying to discover just what makes certain pictures into a piece of timeless art. JulesJ thank you for having the guts to post your picture and inspiring me to start experimenting with pushing the white side of the histogram over-the-edge. I know your ending signature is "black holes do not destroy information" I think you already know what I discovered in your post, white holes don't either. Oh BTW, what do I know, I'm just a beginner with an opinion.....dennis.

Thanks Tony,lots of good points, at least there is someone out there who can think a bit further that the D70 manual.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Thanks for your interesting words drp5. i think you are at the satge i was many years ago when I got really excited about photgraphy. I can still remember that days when I was shooting with a single shutter speed camera (the Brownie 127) of actually dreaming of having a camera with a fast shutter speed (I'm talking 1/125 here) and how I could stop movement. When i did my brother and I threw water and our cats intothe air to simulate a shot done by Dali. Photograph was a huge amount of fun. We rigged up a darkroom, developed and printed our own pictures and broke every photography rule there was. We produced images and used our own rules.

I think the techies have taken a lot of 'fun' out of photgraphy. I don't even know how the different focussing options work on my D70 and my wife certainly doesn't on her D2x which she uses to make our living.
She does however, know how to take a good photograph.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Here's another one. Shot into the sun against all rules, half the picture is grossly over exposed and the other half completely underexposed, and not a dog or baby in site. Ha. Don't ask for the exif as I haven't got the first idea.
Jules



--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Not bad, looks almost biblical!
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Bak, you obviously know what 'properly' means. I have no idea in this context. Did Picasso paint his pictures properly?

As for this picture being an accident there you are completely wrong. I saw the light in the background diffused and streaming in as I was in the boat and shot some pictures to use this powerful light knowing what is would do. I took a few because I like this sort of picture. I try to make pictures interesting , there are too many boring ones about. It's not an award winner, I know that, but I didn't delete though because I like it.
jules

PS. Completely aside but as I type I am listening to BBC Radio 4's Today programme and John Humphrey is talking to a news photographer about what makes a great photograph. It's a small world.

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Patrick I posted the picture and expected such comments. I expected to hear negative comments. But I think I am allowed to debate them and try to change the authors viewpoint am I not? It's all about opinion.
Jules

Patrick Love said:

I think that was what art is all about--expression. You expressed
yourself, and it brought you some degree of self-fulfillment or
satisfaction.

My thing is as long as I like it--forget the rest. If you I don't
want to make photography a job, ultimately you are your only
customer.

But, if you post your artwork on a public form, be prepared to hear
all sorts of opinion--not just the one you want to hear.

Sleep tight...

Patrick

Click to expand...

--
Black holes do not destroy information.