|
brad industry posted:Cheap print - http://www.20x200.com/art/2009/08/victorias-peak-hong-kong.html 20x200 have a promotion at the moment: enter code 20XRMN10 for 10% off $100+ orders or 20XRMN20 for 20% off $200+ orders.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:Please go back and read (at the very least) the first 5 pages of this thread and you'll find your question has been answered. Thanks for making me go reread the whole thread, it was nice to see everything again. Frinkahedron posted:I've always liked Annie Leibovitz's portraits of the Bush administration that she did for Vanity Fair's An Oral History of the Bush White House Sorry for dredging up an old post but I wanted to add something about this picture. This shoot was talked about in Leibovitz' book At Work. Apparently lots of things went wrong. First of all they worked (for 2 days!) on a lighting set up for six people, but Andrew Card was asked to be in the picture as well and you can't really say no to the PotUS, can you? The picture isn't exactly a composite, but it is two medium format shots stitched together, which she does because she doesn't like the square format of her RZ67. In the end, the photo was trimmed a bit, which explains why Powell looks rather cramped on the side there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:drat, I just spent the last 40 minutes on this site. So many awesome photos I can't pick just one to even show in the thread. Her portraits have so much life in them. She even makes great landscapes. The sheer volume of great photos makes me want to run out into the middle of the street and start shooting. loving inspired. Her portraits are all amazing, but I think 41 - Mike Judge, 42 - Jeremy Piven and 65 - Dave Grohl are as close to perfect as you can get for letting personality shine through, and even though I don't know his work that well 59 - James Spader is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
What camera is she using? I wish the exifs weren't stripped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
A5H posted:What camera is she using? I wish the exifs weren't stripped. I believe (based on that linked article) that a lot of her stuff is all medium format, especially the landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
I remember reading a lot of it is 4x5, especially the personal work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
I know this isn't the usual fare for the Dorkroom, but I find this guy impressive as hell. He figures out where WWII era photographs were taken from, shoots his own shot from there, and then blends the two images together.   It really gives a feel for the history of a place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Rephotography has always been really cool to me. It says a lot about the power of capturing a still image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
hopefully hasn't already been posted, this woman's collection was found in an auction. http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/ just click it. ridiculously, consistently good. e: well gently caress, just posted on the previous page. carcinofuck fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
I've always wanted to do that re-photography thing, I have a few spots near me I'd like to try it on.. but it's hard to set up shots exactly like they used to be because things change so fast here in america.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
 I see very few shots where handholding blur actually works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:I know this isn't the usual fare for the Dorkroom, but I find this guy impressive as hell. This is cool as hell. E: Deleted for not impressing anyone. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jan 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Hey, look, it's a product photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
 http://www.thiaps.com/2011/01/marina-romanova.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:E: Deleted for not impressing anyone. lame. who cares what other people think? if you like it, explain why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Mugshots of Australian criminals (heh) from the 1920's. Mugshots are a lost art IMO: Dude on the left is now a prominent figure in my nightmares. Mostly the eyes.   Click here for the full 627x325 image.      Click here for the full 723x686 image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Mugshots of Australian criminals (heh) from the 1920's. Mugshots are a lost art IMO: These are amazing, link to more?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
It's hilarious how good those mugshots are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Yes especially the mugshots of Matt Damon and Maeby Fünke?? But yes, those are really very nice. More please!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
Aww crap, I meant to put the link in the post but forgot! http://www.laboiteverte.fr/portraits-de-criminels-australiens-dans-les-annees-1920/ At my university library I found a whole book of mugshots from San Francisco around the same time period, if I can find it again I'll scan some of the cooler ones. scottch posted:Yes especially the mugshots of Matt Damon and Maeby Fünke?? Lol, I saw a resemblance so I put the celebrity pic under them. The Matt Damon one is a bit of a stretch, but that was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
A girl I went to high school with posts a lot of stuff on Facebook. At first, she seemed to be posting a lot of sort of gimmicky things, hipster-y holga stuff, etc. But most recently, she's really started to develop.      
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
dakana posted:What is good about this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
A5H posted:What is good about this? interacting horizontal and vertical lines give it a pleasing aesthetic. It's not amazing but I can see the intent. I wish we had more posts like this rather than "lol lovely facebook friend photographer" ones in the terrible photographer thread. I think her first photograph would be infinitely stronger without the double exposure/layering gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
dakana posted:This one works for me, I like the experiment and the thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Mugshots of Australian criminals (heh) from the 1920's. Mugshots are a lost art IMO: You could write an entire horror/thriller screenplay based entirely on this image of that guy. Incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
A5H posted:What is good about this? It looks cool, there's like a little dark guy in a big white rectangle with some stripes and then there's an even bigger grey rectangle which is in another white rectangle
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:It looks cool, there's like a little dark guy in a big white rectangle with some stripes and then there's an even bigger grey rectangle which is in another white rectangle Those look like trapezoids to me  Except for the "it's art!" excuse that picture might as well reside in the Terrible Photos thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Those look like trapezoids to me Why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Why? You could argue that it has pretty sloppy composition. The horizontals aren't' level and the figure is framed awkwardly. Of course you can say that this is the photograph's intent and I'm sure the photographer says that. I can't help but feel for a lot of art photographers - they think of what the image's meaning is after taking it. A lot of them seem to challenge the viewer to say "well this is poo poo" just so someone can say "you don't understand it." Don't get me wrong, in this particular case I don't hate it - it's got a pleasing aesthetic to it. I like geometry. We really need a "what is art?" thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Why? I mean, we could just put every single image from every photographer and say it's good and if you don't like it, you don't understand. At some point there needs to be some kind of aesthetic appeal. I'm not going to try to tell you that you don't like it, it sounds like you do, but it's a very boring and uninteresting photo. Especially compared to most of the other ones in that same post. Sometimes it seems like you and Reichstag only like things if they are very boring and bland *but* on purposely so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:You could argue that it has pretty sloppy composition. The horizontals aren't' level and the figure is framed awkwardly. In pretty much any form of art some dead guy thousands of years ago figured out a bunch of rules that if followed your painting/choral arrangement/whatever is probably going to look or sound pretty good. Photography picked up a lot of these rules from painting and as a result it is, along with painting and music, still taught under the same guidelines because once you know how to make something that looks how you like it then you are pretty much free to do whatever you want whether it be following the rules or breaking them. In this particular photo you point out that the framing is awkward (something that you don't qualify at all) and that the horizontals aren't levelled. I guess I would ask you why that even matters. It's not the worlds most exciting image but I think what the photographer was going for (i.e. this looks pretty cool I'll take a photo of it (more on this later)) is pretty clearly expressed without having the horizontals levelled or with perfect framing (an idea that still perplexes me). Photography is a unique medium in that you are essentially capturing what you see. The transformation from what is real to an image on a print or on canvas is not nearly as abstracted as it is in painting. As a result you can pretty much take a picture of anything that you run across. It is entirely possible that when this photo was taken the photographer had no idea what exactly about the scene was interesting but after it was printed it becomes extremely clear. Is it a failure on the part of the artist that they didn't know what affected them to take a photo before they took it? I would argue that it isn't because obviously something about the scene was interesting to them. In this case particularly I'm sure that the photographer new what was going on because the person in the photo was very deliberately placed in the frame and the distances from the garage door to the side of the frame is mostly uniform. It's possible that the photo was taken like that because "it looked right" but I don't really see how that informs a lack of intent. Finally the photo was was taken with an instant camera (and that it was scanned to show the borders, including time stamp). I would believe you if you said that whatever interactions the border holds with the frame were unintentional on part of the artist but I think that's it's a fallacy to suggest that the intent of the artist is relevant in a critical analysis of the formal elements of a work. When you are criticizing a work of art you are essentially recreating it in your mind. Each element becomes an abstraction based on your values. Northrop Frye argues in his essays Anatomy of Criticism (admittedly they are about literature but I think they are still relevant here) that the artists intent is only their personal criticism of the work. He uses Shakespeare as an example saying that the bards intent in his writing is completely unknown and it is only by people hundreds of years later "filling in the blanks" that we have come to a group consensus on what Shakespeare was about. Returning to the original point I would say that one could argue that the fact that this is an instant photo implies a certain off-the-cuffness (corroborated by the time stamp, just a day in the life) and that the sloppy geometry of the image itself is contrasted to the perfect rectangle of the frame. Similarly, the dirty white and grey in the image is contrasted to the perfect whiteness of the border. Was this the original intent of the photographer? Maybe, but probably not. I don't think that it matters in the least because its a cool looking photo that shows something other than what you see every day browsing photo forums and flickr. poopinmymouth posted:I mean, we could just put every single image from every photographer and say it's good and if you don't like it, you don't understand. At some point there needs to be some kind of aesthetic appeal. I'm not going to try to tell you that you don't like it, it sounds like you do, but it's a very boring and uninteresting photo. Especially compared to most of the other ones in that same post. It would seem like based on what criticisms you might get online and from the general public that every photo needs to be something exciting (like a sunset over a vast plain or an attractive women or some gnarled old man or something) that looks great because it followed the rules or has some kind of historical relevance. Well I think that's a bad way to think. I see a lot of beauty in banality and feel that there is a lot that can be expressed by it. Most of life is banal and I think the best way to tap into capturing most of life is by tapping into that banality. I choose to do this primarily by taking photos that show the interaction between nature and humanity. Showing how people conform to what is natural and how nature conforms to and is moulded by people. Imaging the strange products and ironies of people in how they live and form the world around themselves is really interesting to me. Most people might see that and think that it's boring and bland because they see that stuff everyday but as a photograph it becomes an expression of the weird things in life that are just accepted as normal. In my personal life I go to school to study geography which, in its current academic incarnation, is the study of the interactions between people and space. The way that how I think and my approach to photography is, I feel, deeply informed by my field of study.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Returning to the original point I would say that one could argue that the fact that this is an instant photo implies a certain off-the-cuffness (corroborated by the time stamp, just a day in the life) and that the sloppy geometry of the image itself is contrasted to the perfect rectangle of the frame. Similarly, the dirty white and grey in the image is contrasted to the perfect whiteness of the border. Was this the original intent of the photographer? Maybe, but probably not. I don't think that it matters in the least because its a cool looking photo that shows something other than what you see every day browsing photo forums and flickr. You've pointed out why this photo resonates with me. It's an instant photo, taken at night on the last day of 2010. There's a guy all dressed up standing against a dirty garage door at a run-down-looking building. That in itself is interesting because I start making up all sorts of stories as to why he's there. Then, you add all of the purely aesthetic qualities of the photo -- the concentric rectangles, the mostly parallel yet off-kilter lines, mostly monochromatic color palette with odd splashes of color... it's a nice photo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
tl;dr photos like that emphasize a photographic way of seeing that is unique to photography
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
brad industry posted:tl;dr photos like that emphasize a photographic way of seeing that is unique to photography Basically 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:In pretty much any form of art some dead guy thousands of years ago figured out a bunch of rules that if followed your painting/choral arrangement/whatever is probably going to look or sound pretty good. Photography picked up a lot of these rules from painting and as a result it is, along with painting and music, still taught under the same guidelines because once you know how to make something that looks how you like it then you are pretty much free to do whatever you want whether it be following the rules or breaking them. In this particular photo you point out that the framing is awkward (something that you don't qualify at all) and that the horizontals aren't levelled. I guess I would ask you why that even matters. It's not the worlds most exciting image but I think what the photographer was going for (i.e. this looks pretty cool I'll take a photo of it (more on this later)) is pretty clearly expressed without having the horizontals levelled or with perfect framing (an idea that still perplexes me). No, I agree with you in that I like that particular photograph- I was just pointing out why someone might think it could be a terrible photograph. I like some banal things but like I said it seems to me that some people use it as an excuse to wrap their work in a veneer of bullshit. I don't think that's the case with this particular photograph. Photography for a vast majority of people is about accessibility - conveying scenes that people could otherwise never visit or conveying events or people they could never see first hand. That's why I think a lot of people get frustrated with art photography because there are a lot of people that lock it behind the gates of elitism. banal stuff especially I think rubs people the wrong way because it just comes across as really low effort despite any explanation or qualification. I'd bet there are more than a few art students that ended up making up some complete bullshit about a photograph of a tea cup or mug they took the night before the assignment was due. To contribute to this discussion and thread topic - I love this photographer and I think you will too. http://www.noahkalina.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:No, I agree with you in that I like that particular photograph- I was just pointing out why someone might think it could be a terrible photograph. Sure but that is true of anything. I was glad someone posted Emily Shur a page or two back because to me the reason her work is so good is because she embraces the banal but it's very nostalgic without being overly sentimental. I think that is an extremely hard thing to pull off, especially with how consistent she is over everything she does. I think a lot of people who do that kind of work take the opposite approach, and default to this kind of ironic detachment because they can't pull it off any other way. Which is why to me a lot of it is boring, they have picked up some of the visual signifiers but there's not much in the image beyond that to pull it together the way people like Martin Parr, Noah Kalina, etc. do. quote:Photography for a vast majority of people is about accessibility - conveying scenes that people could otherwise never visit or conveying events or people they could never see first hand. That's why I think a lot of people get frustrated with art photography Right, and this kind of art photography directly rejects that, which is the real reason it rubs people the wrong way (not because it appears low effort). To emphasize an image as a kind of window to another place or experience is something that comes from thousands of years of painting's history, not photography's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
brad industry posted:tl;dr photos like that emphasize a photographic way of seeing that is unique to photography Art only for other artists always reminds me of mutual masturbation. Fun for the 2+ people doing it, but near worthless for everyone else. *edit* I get what both you and 20s are saying, and I certainly appreciate the photo more now than I would have 5 years ago before I got into photography, but I still feel like if it takes a deep understanding of the medium to enjoy it, it's basically bourgeoisie art, and I have more respect and enjoyment of art that a wider audience can appreciate and enjoy. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
It's not art for artists, it's art for people who can be bothered to know how to read art at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:It's not art for artists, it's art for people who can be bothered to know how to read art at all. So... mostly rich white westerners. Got it. Sounds really worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
quote:So... mostly rich white westerners. Got it. Sounds really worthwhile. Literature is for rich white westerners, anything other than Twilight is not worthwhile. I don't think you need an art degree to appreciate Shore, Eggleston, Parr, Kalina, Shur, or any of the other photographers mentioned here. I think the photo that started this discussion sucks FWIW. I don't understand why people think only a surface level appreciate of photography is acceptable, as if photographs are created in some kind of vacuum, and that even the slightest appreciation for history or context is pretentious art fag bullshit. This kind of stuff is what makes photography interesting and different from every other medium ever invented. It's like saying Huck Finn is a story about raft. I mean I guess so, but that's a pretty loving boring way of looking at it. brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 22:58
|
|