Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Re-learning
Feb 8, 2022 21:53:15 #
Feb 8, 2022 22:09:26 #
[quote=Timmers]Because I am regarded as a pain in the ass on here, I will toss in some observations. The photographers intent for cropping is a certain point of order, so that first. Cropping at the top is the photographer's concern not mine. What is of importance is the view we are given is quite helpful in a didactic sense*. The photographer is exploring the idea of portraiture, not just women out of their clothing this is what is being stated multiple times.
Is the photographer, a woman aware of precisely what she is doing, this I do not know. Has she given a proper rendering of a modern portrait, mostly yes. In fact, women who use a camera to photograph women are mostly beyond the 'normal' women out of their clothes type of scenarios. Women are interested in the female nude as a totality. In this she was made a quite correct image. The first law in modern portraiture is to separate the face (and it follows the head) from the surroundings. If one looks to the chin of the sitter we can see that this has been perfectly executed. Next comes the 'attire' of the sitter, it is partly with out clothes, but it is not in the manner for which most men would render the sitter. Her lack of clothing is secondary to the image, it is more one of ultra modern young woman, y that I mean with or without body coverings is not a real issue for a certain brand of young women. The image has shifted to that of fashion, or more to the idea of dress up/pretty-pretty princess. It is a modern woman comfortable in her own skin like many of the youthful women of today.
This is a portrait and not just a nude woman or a shot at fashion, it is purely in the realm of modern portraiture. For this it is clearly a success. If it great studio photography? Not really, in a purely technical extent it fails 'great' studio lighting. Look at the catch lights in the eyes, they are not the work of a modern master of studio lighting. Is this bad, NOPE. It tells us that the photographer and sitter don't give a fig about the rules of catch lights in the eyes, in fact having two lights that are below or just label with the horizon of the eyes is of no concern, and that tlls us that the photographer is taking advantage of the haphazard approach by dismissing the traditional 'rules' of lighting and studio work to capture the inner depth of the subject. The braces add so much to enforce the legitimacy of the image. Having the sitter crouch down and raise that chin so that the optical center of the lens falls perfectly between lips and nose reveals that this woman sitter's nose is not fashion perfect but like the braces is real and now in her life. She vary real and is a stable human, comfortable in her own skin.
*Adding a technical note and a historic reference, prior to WW II and some what after (Karsh is a perfect example), portraiture was rendered in many of the 2D mediums like that of the classic standard called The Bust. This was the head resting on the neck and that resting on partial areas of shoulders. In the common parlance of todays youth this is what defines 'old school' portraiture.
After WW II, one sees the introduction of what is referred to as fashion styling of the person being photographed.
When doing the 'old school' approach of portraiture with a camera one places the optical center of the lens on the chin and often below the chin. Like a bust the head is combined with neck and perhaps shoulder areas.
In the MODRN portraiture approach that follows that of post WW II fashion images, the single lens has it's optical center raised and placed on the lips or just above the top lip. This has the effect of separating and so emphasizing the face as the primary focus of the portrait.
In the images we are being shown, this effect is masterfully executed. The face is separated from the rest of the person and so becomes the PESONA. This is the focal point of modern portraiture and fashion, they become one and the same, they speak to the notion of MODERN, and NOW. Face is everything.
To finish, many of the modern portraits and especially the fashion images look precisely like the one we see here. There is a lot of 'sky' in the old proof sheets'. This is because the optical center of the lens is in the middle of the frame and there is literally and mostly nothing above the subject.
Only with a view camera can this effect be altered, as the lens places it's optical center on the area of the nose and then the rear standard can be used to move the images view to see below. Interesting, this will exaggerate (optically distort) the lower are of the subject, so making men have greater girth in their shoulders and chest and of course with women it creates the illusion that the breasts are larger than they would appear. There is a lot of power in the use of a view camera to create great illusion in the making of images (Now you get why the Play Boy Playmate was always shot with the big cameras).[/quotes
Timers, this is very well written. Holy moly, you’ve captured my brain cells.
Is the photographer, a woman aware of precisely what she is doing, this I do not know. Has she given a proper rendering of a modern portrait, mostly yes. In fact, women who use a camera to photograph women are mostly beyond the 'normal' women out of their clothes type of scenarios. Women are interested in the female nude as a totality. In this she was made a quite correct image. The first law in modern portraiture is to separate the face (and it follows the head) from the surroundings. If one looks to the chin of the sitter we can see that this has been perfectly executed. Next comes the 'attire' of the sitter, it is partly with out clothes, but it is not in the manner for which most men would render the sitter. Her lack of clothing is secondary to the image, it is more one of ultra modern young woman, y that I mean with or without body coverings is not a real issue for a certain brand of young women. The image has shifted to that of fashion, or more to the idea of dress up/pretty-pretty princess. It is a modern woman comfortable in her own skin like many of the youthful women of today.
This is a portrait and not just a nude woman or a shot at fashion, it is purely in the realm of modern portraiture. For this it is clearly a success. If it great studio photography? Not really, in a purely technical extent it fails 'great' studio lighting. Look at the catch lights in the eyes, they are not the work of a modern master of studio lighting. Is this bad, NOPE. It tells us that the photographer and sitter don't give a fig about the rules of catch lights in the eyes, in fact having two lights that are below or just label with the horizon of the eyes is of no concern, and that tlls us that the photographer is taking advantage of the haphazard approach by dismissing the traditional 'rules' of lighting and studio work to capture the inner depth of the subject. The braces add so much to enforce the legitimacy of the image. Having the sitter crouch down and raise that chin so that the optical center of the lens falls perfectly between lips and nose reveals that this woman sitter's nose is not fashion perfect but like the braces is real and now in her life. She vary real and is a stable human, comfortable in her own skin.
*Adding a technical note and a historic reference, prior to WW II and some what after (Karsh is a perfect example), portraiture was rendered in many of the 2D mediums like that of the classic standard called The Bust. This was the head resting on the neck and that resting on partial areas of shoulders. In the common parlance of todays youth this is what defines 'old school' portraiture.
After WW II, one sees the introduction of what is referred to as fashion styling of the person being photographed.
When doing the 'old school' approach of portraiture with a camera one places the optical center of the lens on the chin and often below the chin. Like a bust the head is combined with neck and perhaps shoulder areas.
In the MODRN portraiture approach that follows that of post WW II fashion images, the single lens has it's optical center raised and placed on the lips or just above the top lip. This has the effect of separating and so emphasizing the face as the primary focus of the portrait.
In the images we are being shown, this effect is masterfully executed. The face is separated from the rest of the person and so becomes the PESONA. This is the focal point of modern portraiture and fashion, they become one and the same, they speak to the notion of MODERN, and NOW. Face is everything.
To finish, many of the modern portraits and especially the fashion images look precisely like the one we see here. There is a lot of 'sky' in the old proof sheets'. This is because the optical center of the lens is in the middle of the frame and there is literally and mostly nothing above the subject.
Only with a view camera can this effect be altered, as the lens places it's optical center on the area of the nose and then the rear standard can be used to move the images view to see below. Interesting, this will exaggerate (optically distort) the lower are of the subject, so making men have greater girth in their shoulders and chest and of course with women it creates the illusion that the breasts are larger than they would appear. There is a lot of power in the use of a view camera to create great illusion in the making of images (Now you get why the Play Boy Playmate was always shot with the big cameras).[/quotes
Timers, this is very well written. Holy moly, you’ve captured my brain cells.
Feb 8, 2022 22:30:21 #
[quote=Evie][quote=KindaSpikey]I agree with you Rab, it is refreshing to see a female photographer in this section, I wonder if the models respond differently to female vs male photographers? I've never shot nudes myself, (although my buddy who is a pro has), and I've often wondered if there is much of a difference in attitudes, and levels of comfort.
Ray.[/quote
I thought about this type of photography for awhile. As far as me I’m a confident woman who loves herself so I’m okay with nudity. I want to show the human body as something to be admired no matter what the age or size[/quote]
Are you saying these are self-portraits? Either way, I admire your vision.
Ray.[/quote
I thought about this type of photography for awhile. As far as me I’m a confident woman who loves herself so I’m okay with nudity. I want to show the human body as something to be admired no matter what the age or size[/quote]
Are you saying these are self-portraits? Either way, I admire your vision.
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Feb 8, 2022 23:03:36 #
Timmers
Loc: San Antonio Texas.
[quote=Evie][quote=Timmers]Because I am regarded as a pain in the ass on here, I will toss in some observations. The photographers intent for cropping is a certain point of order, so that first. Cropping at the top is the photographer's concern not mine. What is of importance is the view we are given is quite helpful in a didactic sense*. The photographer is exploring the idea of portraiture, not just women out of their clothing this is what is being stated multiple times.
Is the photographer, a woman aware of precisely what she is doing, this I do not know. Has she given a proper rendering of a modern portrait, mostly yes. In fact, women who use a camera to photograph women are mostly beyond the 'normal' women out of their clothes type of scenarios. Women are interested in the female nude as a totality. In this she was made a quite correct image. The first law in modern portraiture is to separate the face (and it follows the head) from the surroundings. If one looks to the chin of the sitter we can see that this has been perfectly executed. Next comes the 'attire' of the sitter, it is partly with out clothes, but it is not in the manner for which most men would render the sitter. Her lack of clothing is secondary to the image, it is more one of ultra modern young woman, y that I mean with or without body coverings is not a real issue for a certain brand of young women. The image has shifted to that of fashion, or more to the idea of dress up/pretty-pretty princess. It is a modern woman comfortable in her own skin like many of the youthful women of today.
This is a portrait and not just a nude woman or a shot at fashion, it is purely in the realm of modern portraiture. For this it is clearly a success. If it great studio photography? Not really, in a purely technical extent it fails 'great' studio lighting. Look at the catch lights in the eyes, they are not the work of a modern master of studio lighting. Is this bad, NOPE. It tells us that the photographer and sitter don't give a fig about the rules of catch lights in the eyes, in fact having two lights that are below or just label with the horizon of the eyes is of no concern, and that tlls us that the photographer is taking advantage of the haphazard approach by dismissing the traditional 'rules' of lighting and studio work to capture the inner depth of the subject. The braces add so much to enforce the legitimacy of the image. Having the sitter crouch down and raise that chin so that the optical center of the lens falls perfectly between lips and nose reveals that this woman sitter's nose is not fashion perfect but like the braces is real and now in her life. She vary real and is a stable human, comfortable in her own skin.
*Adding a technical note and a historic reference, prior to WW II and some what after (Karsh is a perfect example), portraiture was rendered in many of the 2D mediums like that of the classic standard called The Bust. This was the head resting on the neck and that resting on partial areas of shoulders. In the common parlance of todays youth this is what defines 'old school' portraiture.
After WW II, one sees the introduction of what is referred to as fashion styling of the person being photographed.
When doing the 'old school' approach of portraiture with a camera one places the optical center of the lens on the chin and often below the chin. Like a bust the head is combined with neck and perhaps shoulder areas.
In the MODRN portraiture approach that follows that of post WW II fashion images, the single lens has it's optical center raised and placed on the lips or just above the top lip. This has the effect of separating and so emphasizing the face as the primary focus of the portrait.
In the images we are being shown, this effect is masterfully executed. The face is separated from the rest of the person and so becomes the PESONA. This is the focal point of modern portraiture and fashion, they become one and the same, they speak to the notion of MODERN, and NOW. Face is everything.
To finish, many of the modern portraits and especially the fashion images look precisely like the one we see here. There is a lot of 'sky' in the old proof sheets'. This is because the optical center of the lens is in the middle of the frame and there is literally and mostly nothing above the subject.
Only with a view camera can this effect be altered, as the lens places it's optical center on the area of the nose and then the rear standard can be used to move the images view to see below. Interesting, this will exaggerate (optically distort) the lower are of the subject, so making men have greater girth in their shoulders and chest and of course with women it creates the illusion that the breasts are larger than they would appear. There is a lot of power in the use of a view camera to create great illusion in the making of images (Now you get why the Play Boy Playmate was always shot with the big cameras).[/quotes
Timers, this is very well written. Holy moly, you’ve captured my brain cells.[/quote]
Now, now Evie, I am a pariah on here, you don't want to sound like you think I am doing you any good! Most hoggies on here regard me as a big pain in he backside, or, become Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk softly and carry a big stick!" LOL!!!
When I taught photography I found every once a while a class contained a woman in the group. Men focus their attention on the measured and structural side of photography, women not so much. When working on an assignment the women did not get the construct of the assignment. I found that if I got them aside and spoke to them in the terms of the poetic and emotion, or in simple terms, the realms of perhaps I discovered that the only assistance they required was to render the necessary technical needs to accomplish the goal and cut them loose to develop a creative solution often in ways that I and most men would never understand until after the fact.
I learned a lot about new and insightful ways to see the world and often came up with solving a problem that was basically not really there. The problems were simply my perception of the situation and were not problems only possibilities that did not need to be over come because they were just options.
The image that you made of this woman has a depth of feeling that is both you and her. There is no correct nor incorrect, it is just the way things were.
I'm looking to see what other images you create. One thing that is important is to only pay attention to the 'tech' of photography as long as it gets the results that you want, the rest is what my great friend Deric Loamier like to call 'Finish Fetish'.
Greatness in art is knowing when the work is finished, at the point you just let it alone. As you make more and more images, it may take months or years, but after a while you will run across the image and it will astonish you. You know that you did it but you just can not believe that you made it! That is when you know you have arrived at the moment of realization that you are truly original and creative. As this happens it will happen more and more.
The secret to being 'great' at making art is to reach a point that you know you are simply repeating yourself and that is when you throw a monkey wrench into the works and begin down a new path.
That perhaps will speak to why you took a sabbatical for a year and a half and why you decided to do something completely different. Keep at it, you are your own best critic and advocate. Good luck!
Is the photographer, a woman aware of precisely what she is doing, this I do not know. Has she given a proper rendering of a modern portrait, mostly yes. In fact, women who use a camera to photograph women are mostly beyond the 'normal' women out of their clothes type of scenarios. Women are interested in the female nude as a totality. In this she was made a quite correct image. The first law in modern portraiture is to separate the face (and it follows the head) from the surroundings. If one looks to the chin of the sitter we can see that this has been perfectly executed. Next comes the 'attire' of the sitter, it is partly with out clothes, but it is not in the manner for which most men would render the sitter. Her lack of clothing is secondary to the image, it is more one of ultra modern young woman, y that I mean with or without body coverings is not a real issue for a certain brand of young women. The image has shifted to that of fashion, or more to the idea of dress up/pretty-pretty princess. It is a modern woman comfortable in her own skin like many of the youthful women of today.
This is a portrait and not just a nude woman or a shot at fashion, it is purely in the realm of modern portraiture. For this it is clearly a success. If it great studio photography? Not really, in a purely technical extent it fails 'great' studio lighting. Look at the catch lights in the eyes, they are not the work of a modern master of studio lighting. Is this bad, NOPE. It tells us that the photographer and sitter don't give a fig about the rules of catch lights in the eyes, in fact having two lights that are below or just label with the horizon of the eyes is of no concern, and that tlls us that the photographer is taking advantage of the haphazard approach by dismissing the traditional 'rules' of lighting and studio work to capture the inner depth of the subject. The braces add so much to enforce the legitimacy of the image. Having the sitter crouch down and raise that chin so that the optical center of the lens falls perfectly between lips and nose reveals that this woman sitter's nose is not fashion perfect but like the braces is real and now in her life. She vary real and is a stable human, comfortable in her own skin.
*Adding a technical note and a historic reference, prior to WW II and some what after (Karsh is a perfect example), portraiture was rendered in many of the 2D mediums like that of the classic standard called The Bust. This was the head resting on the neck and that resting on partial areas of shoulders. In the common parlance of todays youth this is what defines 'old school' portraiture.
After WW II, one sees the introduction of what is referred to as fashion styling of the person being photographed.
When doing the 'old school' approach of portraiture with a camera one places the optical center of the lens on the chin and often below the chin. Like a bust the head is combined with neck and perhaps shoulder areas.
In the MODRN portraiture approach that follows that of post WW II fashion images, the single lens has it's optical center raised and placed on the lips or just above the top lip. This has the effect of separating and so emphasizing the face as the primary focus of the portrait.
In the images we are being shown, this effect is masterfully executed. The face is separated from the rest of the person and so becomes the PESONA. This is the focal point of modern portraiture and fashion, they become one and the same, they speak to the notion of MODERN, and NOW. Face is everything.
To finish, many of the modern portraits and especially the fashion images look precisely like the one we see here. There is a lot of 'sky' in the old proof sheets'. This is because the optical center of the lens is in the middle of the frame and there is literally and mostly nothing above the subject.
Only with a view camera can this effect be altered, as the lens places it's optical center on the area of the nose and then the rear standard can be used to move the images view to see below. Interesting, this will exaggerate (optically distort) the lower are of the subject, so making men have greater girth in their shoulders and chest and of course with women it creates the illusion that the breasts are larger than they would appear. There is a lot of power in the use of a view camera to create great illusion in the making of images (Now you get why the Play Boy Playmate was always shot with the big cameras).[/quotes
Timers, this is very well written. Holy moly, you’ve captured my brain cells.[/quote]
Now, now Evie, I am a pariah on here, you don't want to sound like you think I am doing you any good! Most hoggies on here regard me as a big pain in he backside, or, become Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk softly and carry a big stick!" LOL!!!
When I taught photography I found every once a while a class contained a woman in the group. Men focus their attention on the measured and structural side of photography, women not so much. When working on an assignment the women did not get the construct of the assignment. I found that if I got them aside and spoke to them in the terms of the poetic and emotion, or in simple terms, the realms of perhaps I discovered that the only assistance they required was to render the necessary technical needs to accomplish the goal and cut them loose to develop a creative solution often in ways that I and most men would never understand until after the fact.
I learned a lot about new and insightful ways to see the world and often came up with solving a problem that was basically not really there. The problems were simply my perception of the situation and were not problems only possibilities that did not need to be over come because they were just options.
The image that you made of this woman has a depth of feeling that is both you and her. There is no correct nor incorrect, it is just the way things were.
I'm looking to see what other images you create. One thing that is important is to only pay attention to the 'tech' of photography as long as it gets the results that you want, the rest is what my great friend Deric Loamier like to call 'Finish Fetish'.
Greatness in art is knowing when the work is finished, at the point you just let it alone. As you make more and more images, it may take months or years, but after a while you will run across the image and it will astonish you. You know that you did it but you just can not believe that you made it! That is when you know you have arrived at the moment of realization that you are truly original and creative. As this happens it will happen more and more.
The secret to being 'great' at making art is to reach a point that you know you are simply repeating yourself and that is when you throw a monkey wrench into the works and begin down a new path.
That perhaps will speak to why you took a sabbatical for a year and a half and why you decided to do something completely different. Keep at it, you are your own best critic and advocate. Good luck!
Feb 8, 2022 23:33:41 #
[quote=Rab-Eye]Are you saying these are self-portraits? Either way, I admire your vision.[/quote
Too be so young and lovely. I’ve had my time with youth I’m okay with myself taking these photos. I would think some, not all women would be insecure or jealous. It wouldn’t bother me if a significant other was with me. The body is to be admired.
Too be so young and lovely. I’ve had my time with youth I’m okay with myself taking these photos. I would think some, not all women would be insecure or jealous. It wouldn’t bother me if a significant other was with me. The body is to be admired.
Feb 9, 2022 02:33:46 #
Timmers
Loc: San Antonio Texas.
[quote=Evie][quote=Rab-Eye]Are you saying these are self-portraits? Either way, I admire your vision.[/quote
Too be so young and lovely. I’ve had my time with youth I’m okay with myself taking these photos. I would think some, not all women would be insecure or jealous. It wouldn’t bother me if a significant other was with me. The body is to be admired.[/quote]
How odd are these questions? Do women always have to answer to these sorts of things...only from men. It's why I am so happy working with women.
Too be so young and lovely. I’ve had my time with youth I’m okay with myself taking these photos. I would think some, not all women would be insecure or jealous. It wouldn’t bother me if a significant other was with me. The body is to be admired.[/quote]
How odd are these questions? Do women always have to answer to these sorts of things...only from men. It's why I am so happy working with women.
Feb 11, 2022 08:59:20 #
Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Feb 12, 2022 21:44:39 #
Evie wrote:
After not picking up the camera for over a year, I've decided to re- teach myself. Trying something different. Yes, no, maybe or throw the camera out the window?
So - without reading all the previous posts which I'm sure may suggest the following... beautiful model, great light, fine pose other than PAR4DCR suggestion to get the hair in the eye fixed I would crop out the top blank space above the model. There is way too much of nothing up there. A tighter crop can definitely be achieved here.
Apr 14, 2022 21:07:06 #
Apr 19, 2022 06:54:56 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.