|
Stregone posted:I agree. Just because it is made of photographs doesn't make it a photograph. I'm not gunna argue about it though. Good, because you'd be wrong, and most likely have no good reasoning for your viewpoint other than gut feeling. To me I don't like it because I feel like it's unsuccessful blending, the horses at least. Maybe it's because I get into retouching and compositing myself, but it just feels a bit off, mostly in the lighting of the center horse and the bottom right dog. It's a great photo, it just isn't as seamless to me as I'd like. And those Crewdson photos rule. 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.  
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Stregone posted:Wow you got all that without even knowing what my reasoning is. You are amazing. You should be on tv or something. There is no reasoning, that's why it's so easy. Twenties Superstar posted:A mixed composition or reconstruction in any other medium is referred to as such (ex. matte painting, collage, mixed media). And yet, we don't in photography. How many times to painters paint a subject in their studio into a background they made up, or a background from another location that wasn't present? How many painters paint things together that never occur, or make special changes outside reality? It's basically giant baby photographers who think there is some kind of photographic purism that try to make some kind of distinction when there isn't one. I find it's often people lacking content of their own, making up some kind of rule set that photographers with better bodies of work than their own somehow "don't count". Annie Leibovitz entertains and communicates to millions of people with her work, but my holga snaps of my hipster friends is more legit art because she composites. Also why does there even need to be a distinction? Why does it matter if it was captured in one shot on film and developed with no pushing/pulling or dodging and burning? Is it because that's arguably harder, and somehow worth more? Why can't the final image stand up for how well it communicates? If it's a crappy composite, that's ripping people out of the image, and sinks it in the same way that an all in one photo with bad composition or crappy subject matter will do. The photographers vision is what creates the content in the medium of photography, and that can be arrived at in any number of ways. Photographers, artists, and art historians far far more knowledgeable, well-read, and intelligent than anyone in this thread have already arrived at this conclusion. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
What separates this "good banality" from the thousands of banal and uninteresting shots you can find on flickr and in shoeboxes of amateur snaps of nothing the world over? I'm not saying you don't like it, clearly you do, and I'm aware there is a whole following and reverence in certain circles for these banal shots. I've even seen a few that appeal to me as well, but this one is not one. It's a shot of some foliage and a wire. What about it speaks to you? You mentioned earlier a cursory idea, but I could probably make a praising critique like that of any lovely shot on flickr. You said, "there is a lot to see there". Ok, elaborate. There is the wire leading in.. and?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:If it came across that way I'm sorry, I was honestly hoping to go for an attitude more along the lines of teach a man to fish. If I wrote you an essay, I'm sure similar essays already exist for that specific photo, then you could read it and you would know everything that I know and think about the picture but that's where it ends. I appreciated your essay, and I see what you are trying to say. Most banal photographs still don't appeal to me, but I realize that's a personal aesthetics thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 08:38
|
|
|
Technically they are good photos, but I can't look at them without shuddering from the pure evil emanating off my monitor. So much human suffering generated by these individuals.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2009 14:20
|
|
|
brad industry posted:This guy has so much awesome stuff on his site it's taken me 2 days to go through it all gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
His color palette and lighting is so cohesive, and his command of composition and leading your eye around. Dagone that is an amazing folio.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
brad industry posted: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. Question while we're on it. The first guy photo, the one in a fur coat (I'd link to it but it's flash) he really only has light on the front of his face, the sides already fall into shadow. What kind of light source is that? Is it actually only the size of the front of his face, or is it falloff or proximity keeping it from lighting the sides of the face? Or is it post processing brightening the center of the face?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 00:23
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:I'm not saying this just to be contrarian or because I think I'm great, but I'm not that wowed by most of the things in there. There are some shots with really great interesting lighting, but a lot of the shots look intentionally pretentious with overly contrived posing. If you took the "GUCCI" logo off that set of images, would they still be worth looking at? How much lit work have you done? His control of lighting alone is awe-worthy, and I challenge anyone who's done their own lighting so say this guy isn't in the top .001% of light control.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 10:28
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Sometimes I am honestly not sure Despite fairly often disagreeing with you, I appreciate your posts because you're not just an uneducated armchair artist come to give knee jerk responses, and as such there is often challenging ideas or opinions. 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. All the leading lines take you away from her directly after seeing her, and the bright of the top cement also forces you to take in the whole photo. If anything, it's about summer days, not her.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 12:10
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER 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)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 11:36
|
|
|
brad industry posted:The background and subject are lit separately, did not know this was so strenuous for so many people's poor eyes. Contrast is too broad of a word, and most photographs you want good contrast. Micro contrast is stuff that happens within a much smaller radius within the photo, like a cheek or nose vs the entire face. It's something that is impossible to have in real life, and it's used very oddly in most photos. It's not at all nitpicky to say you don't like over saturation to the point of clipping, or micro contrast upped to the point that every single fold, bulge, and volume in the image goes from pure 255,255,255 white to pure 0,0,0 black. Taste is subjective, and in my subjective taste, I hate when people take small scale contrast to this extreme, it's as grating as tone mapped images taken to 11, and adds literally nothing to the image aesthetically, they would be so much more pleasing and just as strong with more normal contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
Gorgeous work. http://www.guidomocafico.com/se17.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 13:15
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Neat idea but drat that's a lot of pictures that are very similar.. after 7 or 8 photos I started quoting Samuel L Jackson, angrily stating that them motherfuckin snakes need to get out of that motherfuckin box. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
First all digital issue of Vogue. I probably like this a lot more than most of you guys will, but it's interesting regardless of your model gender preference. http://www.vhjipad1.com/ My favorite: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 16:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
brad industry posted: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. I certainly was saying the opposite. I cannot stand the attitude that art that garners main stream appeal isn't "real art" or is inferior to the more esoteric stuff that requires nearly a phd to understand. There is a need for both and they feed of each other. But in my personal opinion, art that can entertain the masses is a lot more justifiable than ivory tower stuff. Being able to be a full time artist, or even dabble in it part time, is an awfully self indulgent life in comparison to the majority of the world's population. I think at some point there is a certain social contract aspect that comes into play. Plus I think you'll find that a lot more than just rich white westerners read, even though photography is more approachable than literature (ie illiteracy vs blindness). The better comparison would be to pick a hard read that no one just sits down with a cup of coffee with. (because most twain is incredibly entertaining) poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:How does digital vs film even begin to factor into whether it's 'art' or not? What does building sets have to do with photo vs non-photo? You are telling me you are absolutely befuddled at the idea some of us see (in others) a legitimacy enhancer whenever something was shot on film?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm sure there are people out there who would (wrongly) say that a photo taken with film is inherently better than a digital one but I don't really see what that has to do with this discussion whatsoever. Really love the first 3. I love symmetrical even lines. I always wonder how it can sometimes look so fresh (like in these 3) and other times look so trite.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Hot! http://www.behance.net/gallery/UnderNight/838617 Loving this guy's work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
So much intense cheese, but the production value is still incredible. Some interesting meta aspects too. http://www.chanel.com/de_DE/parfum-schonheit/Universe-Coco-Mademoiselle-122461
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 12:17
|
|
|
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11663-11769 I understand how he combines the images, but I am not 100% on how that ends up with a huge resolution final. I'm guessing he does an initial multi image panorama for the stadium, then uses a longer telephoto lens for the subjects. alternatively he uses a longish lens entirely, taking a huge number for the larger setting, but then just photographs the action portions after the event starts. With a panoramic head, that would be fairly easy to make sure everything aligns. Interesting photos, I bet large they are really fun to examine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I mean, shouldn't your subject be something a little bit more foreign and interesting than your own self? Wondering if you feel the same about Andy Warhol's self portraits? If that's different, why?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:
I want a print of that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Something makes me uncomfortable with having a corporate sponsors page on your website You all are insufferable. Heavens forbid a young artist figure a way to make a living off her art/hobby/passion. Of course the only real way is to apply for grants or sell the 50th banal shot off the side of a road using expired velvia. I literally want to shoot all of you, starting with Reichstag. You are the people (though I know very few of you actually studied art) that made art school completely horrible with your cliquish behavior of what is and isn't acceptable to admire. Santa is strapped posted:They all take each other's workshops and circle jerk about it on flickr. Artists?! forming a group with similar styles and talking about it? Never before in history has this occurred, and of course were it to, the art created would be worthless. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
It's especially hilarious because one can clearly see that you assume all 50,000 flickr followers these white teens have are ignorant buffoons, but of course your 3 admirers are serious artists who know what good photography is. I would literally get more out of looking through a 4th grader's notebook of Lisa Frank stickers than look through Reichstag's body of work, but he gets to piss over any photo that has even a modicum of joy or passion in it, and everyone else rushes to either fellate his opinions, or be the new cheerios pisser of the day. Oh unless it's a boring film shot, then we all are supposed to go gaga. Bonus if it's grainy or of 3rd world poverty porn.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Bruce Weber for Barny's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FL3cwdhFo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I saw him give a talk about this series in Toronto a few months back, the backstory behind these Mexican suburbs is insanely depressing. Is there a link about it where I can read more? (the mexican suburb topic)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 14:45
|
|