Heat Wave! 100 Liters of water + model + sunshine....

[SandyP]

It's exposed how it's supposed to be. I'm not sure I understand the childish way you keep batting this around. If the choice was made before hand, during, and after, then it's a choice, not a mistake, which you are tying to imply. And your total condescending tone of saying that it was a mistake I "learnt" for next time, is just trying to be a total dick. Which, of course, is completely transparent. And hilarious. Better luck next time. It's exposed 100% properly. Haha.

Really... You get a little criticism and this is how you take it?? :'( :'( :'(

Are you kidding me? Intelligent criticism is when people take into account the intent of the person presenting the piece of work. Unintelligent criticism is the opposite.

If someone took a photo of a silhouette, and told me, this is a photo I took, of a silhouette, because that was the plan, then I would go and criticize the fact that it was chosen to be shot as a silhouette, that would be pretty stupid. Same thing. It's one thing to say "I think it's too bright", but it's a completely different story to suggest that it's an error.

How absurd.

 

[briansquibb]

Personally I like contre jour pictures and I think these are fine examples of the techniques that can be used.

Thank you for posting them

 

[Northstar]

It's exposed how it's supposed to be. I'm not sure I understand the childish way you keep batting this around. If the choice was made before hand, during, and after, then it's a choice, not a mistake, which you are tying to imply. And your total condescending tone of saying that it was a mistake I "learnt" for next time, is just trying to be a total dick. Which, of course, is completely transparent. And hilarious. Better luck next time. It's exposed 100% properly. Haha.

Really... You get a little criticism and this is how you take it?? :'( :'( :'(

Canon816... I think the OP was referring to murdy's two childish/rude comments.

 

[canon816]

Canon816... I think the OP was referring to murdy's two childish/rude comments.

I don't disagree that murdy's comments were childish/rude. But when the OP starts calling people a "dick".... that's when all credibility is lost. Obviously Sandyp is a top notch photographer, it's just too bad Sandyp doesn't act like one too. Who cares if someone doesn't like it... not everyone will. I am not drawn to it. As the OP alluded to his/her images are an artistic rendition of the scene and his/her target audience or client's opinion on it is really what matters.

If you are going to post images on a critique/sharing forum... expect opinions that may not always be in line with your own. Just because someone else comes off as rude/curt doesn't mean that subsequent posts need to deteriorate to childish name calling.

Be the bigger person here. You can defend your style without calling someone a "dick"... This sort of behavior is what really chips away at the quality and credibility of CR forums. Whatever... this is my last post. Call each other names if it makes you feel better.....

 

[Northstar]

Canon816... I think the OP was referring to murdy's two childish/rude comments.

I don't disagree that murdy's comments were childish/rude. But when the OP starts calling people a "dick".... that's when all credibility is lost. Obviously Sandyp is a top notch photographer, it's just too bad Sandyp doesn't act like one too. Who cares if someone doesn't like it... not everyone will. I am not drawn to it. As the OP alluded to his/her images are an artistic rendition of the scene and his/her target audience or client's opinion on it is really what matters.

If you are going to post images on a critique/sharing forum... expect opinions that may not always be in line with your own. Just because someone else comes off as rude/curt doesn't mean that subsequent posts need to deteriorate to childish name calling.

Be the bigger person here. You can defend your style without calling someone a "dick"... This sort of behavior is what really chips away at the quality and credibility of CR forums. Whatever... this is my last post. Call each other names if it makes you feel better.....

canon816....I noticed that murdy followed sandyp into a different post/subject that sandyp had started and continued "heckling" him in the same chidish fashion. This I suspect, is the reason why he reacted as he did to murdy. You can't let someone follow you around and pick on you without doing/saying something about it....totally justified in my opinion.

I think you got unknowingly caught up in their interaction.....just my two cents.

 

[Quasimodo]

I think sometimes that people forget that not all photography is the same and that some people use cameras to create art instead of "just" capturing a scene (don't be thrown off by the "just", capturing a scene perfectly is definitely art as well, but it should also be clear that there are uses of cameras beyond capturing all available detail in a subject).

just as an abstract artist might represent a mountain wIth two slashes of color on a blank canvas, photographers have the freedom to manipulate reality in order to achieve a desired emotional response.

This is a long way toward saying: Great photo! I appreciate you pushing the bounds of what can be done.... we all need to remember to be creative and use our imagination with our images instead of "just" capturing what we see... You never know what might be possible!

I think your point is valid. Photography threw the shackles of resemblance to suject away in art painting. One could actually argue that photography liberated painting. Today with photoshop and other programs (I do not know enough about the alterations that could be done in shooting and post-processing in analog times) has liberated photography from being a documentarian device. Although the latter exists and is important in its given task, photography is much more than this, and can rightfully be used for art representative of the ideas in the photographers mind. Look at Joe McNally and many of his images... they are not only representations of a defacto stasis. Photographers are social material constructivists, divided only by the degree in which they tamper with 'reality'.

 

[rcarca]

To get back to the photographs: I like them. I like the atmosphere they create. Who doesn't use exposure to create an effect they like. Good stuff!

 

[gary]

Turner a rather well know English painter when he produced a number of paintings studying light was also heavily critisized, they now sell for many millions. A prize is awarded annually in his name, many of the winners especially in recent years have been heavily critisized. Your photographs are what art is supposed to be, something to like or dislike or leave you ambivalent, but always make you think. In light of the responses its clear you have done your work well.

 

[agierke]

interesting thread....and a bit spicy too!

i'm drawn to the notion that photoshop has liberated photography from being a documentary device. the "liberation" actually happened well over 100 years ago with the work of Edward Steichen and Alfred Stieglitz as well as many of their contemporaries.

at that time, photography was widely criticized as too technical and precise to be considered a true artform by many in the fine art establishment. these men and many others vehemently disagreed with this notion and set out to prove photography's virtues as a valid form of expressive art. Stieglitz published many photographers works in a periodical called Camera Notes starting in 1902. the prevailing movement in art was Pictorialism and many of these photographers experimented with their techniques to mimic the look of Pictorialist paintings. there are some really phenomenal photographs that came out of these efforts.

painters were deviating from the establishment as well but were spurned on mostly by the expressionist movement and the efforts of Cezanne. Braque and Picasso essentially blew the wheels off the notions of the old standard in art with their Cubist style and paved the way for Futurism, Surrealism, and the Dadaist movements. by that point, photography was well represented in the Surrealist culture with the works of Man Ray and others.

i know that the digital age to many seems to be the pinnacle of photography's innovation but there is a very rich history in photography that includes experimentation, manipulation and efforts to express creatively from nearly its inception back in the 1840's.

as far as the OP's images go....i think they are successful in that they fulfill the intent of the photographer and the invoke emotion in the viewer.

to those who feel the "exposure is incorrect", please define what "correct" exposure is. and please don't say when the camera's meter is centered....because that is just foolish and narrow minded.

 

[kennephoto]

SandyP I love these photos! dont let people tell you otherwise! If the picture turned out the way you wanted it to then you did perfect! I think everyone has photos that friends and family love but the photographer doesnt enjoy and vice versa. To each their own right! So SandyP awesome photos well done and good show keep it up!

 

[7enderbender]

I'm a little sad to see some of the altercations above. Hope this is all based on misunderstandings since this is rather untypical for this specific forum. But hey, we're all sensitive artist types here and passionate on top of that - so things happen.

In any case, I was intrigued by the discussion in a way and checked out the flickr page. In context this makes sense now to me. There are some outstanding shots there in my opinion and to my taste. The OP obviously has excellent control over exposure and contrast. By itself, I personally thought also that the posted first photo was overexposed (that's not a bad thing) and low in contrast (not bad either). So that didn't work for me really either, which is again taste not criticism of skill set. But in context with a bunch of the other shots it started to make more sense to me and it actually creates a certain mood that is tangible.