|
I'm really into Jamie Chung's work. She's super young and has one of the best still life portfolios I've seen: http://cyanatrendland.com/2009/06/29/jamie-chung-still-life-photography/ brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Nov 18, 2009 |
#
¿
Nov 17, 2009 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:I'm intrigued by photos like this, but intimidated by trying to execute them because they require such strong vision. I don't always have that when I'm photographing, my vision comes as I go along. I'm terrible about conceptualizing and planning. I have a feeling that art school really helps with that kind of thing. I don't really read anything deeper into, he is a editorial/commercial dude and it's just a photo version of a Rube Goldberg illustration. I was actually sort of planning to do something similar to that for my portfolio but after seeing his... gently caress it. I'm really into Jamie Chung's work because the ideas are fairly simple but they are executed at such a high level. That image I posted obviously took a poo poo load of planning and time to not only come up with, but then go find all of those objects, arrange and style them, and put it all together. Everything in his portfolio is very carefully put together like that, but still retains a very consistent playful/funny tone which is why it's so good. As far as vision I think it's just a (never ending) process of figuring out what kind of images you are interested in making and pursuing it (technically/aesthetically/conceptually/whatever). Alec Soth did this interview and he talks about "what's the point of making photos in a world where there are 2 billion images on Flickr" which I think basically boils it down, why do you make pictures? http://www.bigredandshiny.com/cgi-bin/retrieve.pl?source=RSS&issue=issue119§ion=article&article=20091016133834289803794155 Alec Soth posted:This is the never ending struggle, I think storytelling is the most powerful art, for me. I just think there's nothing more satisfying than the narrative thrust: beginning, middle, and end, what's gonna happen. The thing I'm always bumping up against is that photography doesn't function that way. Because it's not a time-based medium, it's frozen in time, they suggest stories, they don't tell stories. So it is not narrative. So it functions much more like poetry than it does like the novel. It's just these impressions and you leave it to the viewer to put together. He used to have a blog and it was always brilliant, I wish he hadn't quit that. His Sleeping by the Mississippi book is one of my all time favorites:   McMadCow posted:Since there's been so much talk of Avedon, I'd just like to remind Bay Area Dorkroomers that the Avedon show at the MOMA closes on 11-29. If you haven't seen it yet, FOR SHAME. Hopefully I'm making a third visit tomorrow after work if the swine flu hasn't caught hold of me by then... I've been to that four times, sooooo good. I thought it was a good choice to minimize the fashion stuff and have it be mostly portraits. The 'American West' series is my favorite work by Avedon and it was awesome seeing those prints in person. SFMOMA has had tons of good photo shows lately. brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2009 00:34
|
|
|
This stuff by Antony Crossfield rules  ^ good on so many levels jesus http://www.antonycrossfield.com/ NYC goons should go check it out: quote:Antony Crossfield, Foreign Body brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
Sorry this is long as gently caress I just really like looking at/talking about photos.quote:Sarah Stolfa: The Regulars That is a cool project. Simple idea but good subject matter done well. If you are interested in portrait typology's kind of along those lines you should check out Thomas Ruff's early work (which I actually can't find any good images of online unfortunately, but this one is from it):  http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phdu/ho_1999.210.htm He was a student of Bernd & Hilla Becher at the Dusseldorf school (along with Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, and some other awesome photographers). The Bechers are known for obsessively cataloguing water towers, among other things. I am sort of obsessed with the Bechers:  This is only tangentially related, but I just bought this the other day: http://www.beikey.net/mrs-deane/?p=2942 Apparently "becher" is the German word for container so someone did a Becher-style typology of yogurt containers  quote:If it means anything to you, I can see his influence on your photos. I hadn't heard of him until recently but I think we both are both prolly drawing from the same source, and by the same source I mean Gregory Crewdson. (Can't help posting this, dude is my all time favorite photographer). his one and only commercial commission to date (since someone already posted the Sopranos)  From his book 'Twilight':   Those are some lovely scans I highly recommend checking out the book in person. Cyberbob posted:TBH I think most of his stuff is too little photographic skill, too much "how well can we mix photos together in photoshop" You kind of missed the point, which is unfortunate because that photo is really intelligent and pretty fascinating no matter what your opinion of highly stylized/constructed images is. Here's some context (plus Edward Muybridge owns hard):  
brad industry fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I saw some huge Crewdson prints at the North Carolina Museum of Art, they are so much more awe-inspiring at tremendous size. I couldn't find a mention of it on their site, is it still up? Or is it part of their permanent collection? I'm going to be in Charlotte next month, might have to make a road trip to Raleigh - I've never seen those prints in person. jackpot posted:You mentioned his one-and-only commercial photo for Six Feet Under, so I've got to ask: where's the money come from? I mean he's got some serious poo poo going on when he puts a photo together; he's got a crew that looks to be around 20 strong, he's closing down streets, etc. Do his prints sell for millions or something? I really don't know, I imagine he gets a lot of grants. I have a feeling his crew is a lot of student volunteers (he teaches graduate level photo at Yale). Maybe he does fund-raising like indie filmmakers do. It's really interesting to me how 'Twilight' is basically a frame-for-frame ripoff of Spieldberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', and now there are all these young photographers who grew up watching those 80s movies and are making these narrative, produced photographs influenced by him: Ryan Schude:  Sorry that image is huge, there's so many little details you miss in a small JPEG. http://fashionindie.com/ryan-schude-photography/ This guy Gerald Edwards was one of Crewdson's assistants, the influence is pretty obvious:   http://www.booooooom.com/2009/10/29/gerald-edwards-iii-photographer/ Adam Rankin, Canadian guy I am really into:  http://www.adamrankin.com/ quote:A mixed composition or reconstruction in any other medium is referred to as such (ex. matte painting, collage, mixed media). Yes but no one sits around talking about whether Picasso's collages or Rauschenberg's combines do or do not qualify as painting. Painting is now more of a tradition of image making than it is about actual paint on canvas, basically anything that anyone says is a painting now falls under the painting umbrella. They don't have these dumb discussions of what techniques are or aren't painting because it's irrelevant. I prefer to think about photography as a medium in the same way. It is it's own tradition of image making, which is undergoing pretty radical changes right now. Photography is a pretty broad medium, and whether someone develops their film in their own urine, makes photograms, or builds scenes object by object in Photoshop isn't particularly interesting or relevant to me except maybe as historical context. I don't care what is or isn't "real photography" because there's no such thing, photography has always been in flux. That is part of the reason why photography is so awesome, and why photography in particular is a really interesting medium right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
Which project is that one from? I don't think I've seen it before. I think this is probably my favorite Gursky photo  and all of ya'll have seen this I'm sure, most expensive photo print ever sold ($3.something million I think?)  quote:My favorite is Leibovitz. When her photos have too many subjects I tend to dislike them, but 2 or less and I'm almost always in love. I think I'm like the only person who really loves her group portraits. brad industry fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 25, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
notlodar posted:It seems that the Yale School of Art's photo program just teaches it's students to be banal, at least that's what I see in their work now, and in the work of all those photo professors that went to and teach at Yale. I actually think it's kind of strange you say that, because to me the "Yale aesthetic" is the opposite of the banal, Eggleston-esque "snapshot". I associate Yale with staged photography in general, not a specific look (a good example, who's name excuses me right now, is the guy who just won the Conscientious blog grant thingie). I am not particularly a fan of much "banal" work, there are people who are doing really, really great images who are drawing from that tradition. I think I already posted the Swedish school that is currently ruling hard - Thobias Faldt, Klara Kallstrom, Paul Herbst, etc. - I love that poo poo and bought all those books, but there is also a lot of crap with people mimicking the aesthetic part and missing the other half of it. I think some people are looking for a "gotcha" explanation of that work, like there's some kind of trick to do it. If you think about images in terms of visual vocabulary - why did someone choose that aesthetic, that subject matter, that way of making images, that context - it makes more sense. No one has trouble reading an advertising image, because that is a vocabulary we all understand. Or Flickr Interestingness, that is it's own aesthetic and way of visually describing things. "Banal" work is just using a different visual language and some people just only read "crappy snapshot / anyone could do it" from it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 06:50
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:One of my biggest interests is Underwater Photography and Norbert Wu just published some photos that he took of his diving in the Antarctic. I've taken some good shots with what I have but this just makes me just want to give it up because I doubt I will ever be this good Those are pretty rad, I've been wanting to do a shoot in a pool or something because water does such interesting things to light. Jill Greenberg did a pretty sweet editorial for Radar with synchronized swimmers about a year ago.   http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/06/floaters-jill-greenberg-for-radar.html The Whitney 2010 Biennial was just announced and one of four photographers in it is Josh Brand who I'm a pretty big fan of. He doesn't use a camera, and instead just paints directly with light onto photo paper in a darkroom.    
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
RIP Larry Sultan    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/arts/14sultan.html?_r=1
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
This guy has so much awesome stuff on his site it's taken me 2 days to go through it all http://www.luissanchis.com
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
What's always impressive to me about fashion photographers like that is that the work is really loving killer but they also have a ton of images. Those guys are constantly shooting tests all the time and making images that good, it's crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
Best guess it's just the edge of falloff from a beauty dish or something at a pretty severe angle over/above the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
They look like lithographs to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
This portfolio aggregator thing is cool: http://thisalso.com/
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
Seeing poo poo like that on the ground glass is hard in the dark. I hate it when good Flickr users don't have a portfolio. I don't want to look through their stream - I want the edited and thoughtfully sequenced version. Flickr is such a terrible way to look at multiple images.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
The reason that picture is interesting is because of the composition.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Yet if you look at other photos in his pool, this compositional skill you praise muchly is not evident, is not there. Maybe not as strong in the other images, but you can tell what he's trying to do even if the images are not as successful as that one. Also Twenties Superstar posted a pretty detailed explanation of what he thinks, if you disagree that's fine but it would be great if you could say why in a reasonable way beyond "it's all opinion and I think it sucks". AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I think it was kind of talked about in the art thread, and this is advice I've heard a couple times from all over, but you have to look at a ton of images. Look at stuff from all time periods across all subject matter. After some study you start to just kind of appreciate it differently. I think visual literacy is the same as anything else, the more images you are exposed to and the more constructively you think about them, the better your ability to read (and talk about) photographs becomes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
Here's some Sandy Skoglund:   
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I'm eagerly awaiting the "selective color.. OH NOES!" responses. That one is called "Revenge of the Goldfish" I think. I think artists that start out in other mediums and end up becoming photographers by documenting their installations/work are really interesting. Here is Thomas Demand (former Dusseldorf student), who builds these sets entirely out of paper:    
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 22:10
|
|
|
She builds those scenes, it takes her months. I believe they are shot on 8x10. If you ever get the chance to see them in person, do it - her older work is all dye prints and the color is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
spog posted:If the photographer was aiming to capture an emotion, he should have just included the girl and the pool, so we concentrated on her and thus were more likely to empathise with her. Do you really think this photo is about the girl? Or an emotion? Seems like he shot her back to emphasize that it's not about her.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
spog posted:She's slap bang in the middle of the frame and the only object that is in focus. So, yes, I think she is the key subject here. I just asked because to me it seems like Shore has taken aggressive steps to not make her the subject of the image, despite being in the center of the frame. Angela Strassheim was a forensic photographer but is now a fine artist.    Her newer work, "Evidence":   
brad industry fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jun 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Subjunctivitis posted:NSFWRyan McGinley and his coked-up naked kids.NSFW I'm not a massive McGinley fan but that whole series was loving amazing, probably the best work he's ever done. Speaking of McGinley, here is a video he directed where Carolyn Murphy makes out with a dog in slow motion: http://www.selectism.com/news/2010/06/24/video-ryan-mcginley-entrance-romance/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
He went to me and poop's alma mater, one of my best friends assists him. His work rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 00:58
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Excellent concepts that are ruined in post for me by the overdark micro contrast. Why does he have such a strong vision for the shoot but then thing that kind of contrast looks pleasing? I feel like my retinas were punched. (by nice designer Gucci gloves, but punched no less) You dislike things for the weirdest reasons. Not all shadows need to be exercises in subtlety. What does "micro contrast" even mean, it's just contrasty light + a curve or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Iit fades from light to dark, then suddenly it's white at the division, and then fades back to a more neutral tone. The background and subject are lit separately, did not know this was so strenuous for so many people's poor eyes. These discussions always seem so nitpicky to me, I understand not being into the aesthetic or whatever (some of you seem like you hate everything that isn't broadly/flatly lit or meets some weird personal technical litmus test). My first reaction to strong work executed well is not to look at the MICRO-CONTRAST HALOS of a shirt fold I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I'm pretty sure this is the kind of work you have to see in a gallery to properly appreciate. I'm sure I would sit just soaking in the tones, colors and details in the prints. Yeah and working in a series like that is sometimes the only way to convey those things. One photo is just a snake as a rectangle, a series is a study on color and texture since it becomes about the differences. aka a typology  Bernd & Hilla Becher
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Noah Kalina made a cool one:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
quote:Sorry, I guess I just don't understand how whether or not a homeless guy has eaten recently is relevant to anything. As far as I can see, Schuman takes photos of whoever looks interesting to him - it's not just people with fancy expensive clothes, he has tons of photos of people in generic casual clothes, work clothes, uniforms, etc. Why would a homeless guy be off limits? If they have no problem posing for him, why do you? Exploitation of subjects has been a constant issue throughout the history of photography... maybe this discussion should be taken to a new thread because it's pretty interesting. What about (rich, upper class) Diane Arbus photographing "deviant and marginal people"?   
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2010 06:35
|
|
|
I like all these video experiments by photographers and seeing what they do with the limitations they have. Here's a short film by fashion photographer Alex Prager: http://www.nowness.com/day/2010/6/10/683/bryce-dallas-howard-in-despair
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:That was interesting, it's pretty neat to see how his still work is transformed into motion. Also, it still feels very much like his still work because he kept the 4:3 aspect ratio instead of widescreen. Do you know what the significance of the birds/planes imagery is? I don't know about that specific image, but I noticed it started and ended with a shot of the shoes. I think in her (it's a woman) photography women taking action is kind of a reoccurring theme so read into that what you will.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
The clarity slider: helping homeless people look wise since Lightroom 1.1
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It's so perfect, it looks kind of fake. At first glance I thought the same thing and thought maybe it was a model he had built.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Emily Shur has been killing it for years, she is one of my favorite editorial shooters. You can't pick up any magazine now without seeing her work in it. Interview - http://toomuchchocolate.org/?p=167 Cheap print - http://www.20x200.com/art/2009/08/victorias-peak-hong-kong.html brad industry fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jan 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
There's a statement right under the image... or just look at her portfolio.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
I remember reading a lot of it is 4x5, especially the personal work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
tl;dr photos like that emphasize a photographic way of seeing that is unique to photography
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
I don't think anyone has said more appeal = not real art. Every time any discussion along these lines comes up someone has to say it's all bullshit and not worth talking about. Easily accessible things can be just as meaningful or interesting as something that requires a slight knowledge of art or photo history, or even just the social context that it was made in. Kind of like how Twain is infinitely more interesting and entertaining if you know even just a little about American history. Pretty much all the photographers mentioned so far are known for their mass media editorial work anyways, and what could possibly be less ivory tower than the idea of the "democratic camera"? It's the opposite of pretentious. Anyways, more images. If you need a PhD to understand Martin Parr you might be blind:     
brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 23:28
|
|