good photographer or good subject?

varjag said:
Now, everyone, block her boobs with finger and look at the photo again. Did it become better or worse?
Click to expand...

Definitely worse, but my finger got very warm :)

Seriously, I think the posed female nude genre has been pretty much done to death. You have to be pretty clever to do any more with it than give male viewers a quick thrill. Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far.

As for the intention of the photographer, I don't think intent should matter. An image should stand alone.

Ian
 
Early on, onw of the old pros that were attempting to teach me the art of photography suggested that I start looking for the beauty in the ugly. He and I photographed at scrap yards, railroad yards (with permission) and the dump. It took a while, but I began to see interesting things where ever I went. I call it "found photography".

"Anyone can see the beautiful as beautiful. To see the beauty in the ugly is art." -Tony Mammola

"Learn To SEE. Use your eyes, yes, but learn to use all of your being to really SEE."
-Karl F Lang
 
Windwalker57, I joined to give Frank an answer to his question. I do not think you can separate the subject from the talent of the photographer. The subject and photograph are one in the same - unless there is a nude model randomizer in the world that plunks one down in a lit studio just before the shutter is released.

I do not like this type of photography personally. But in the context of what I see, I cannot fault the photograph. It seems well crafted. I assume the photographer selected the model and the lighting, and made a strong image - how can the model be separate from the creative process? BTW, I don't like Helmut Newton either and this style reminds me of him.

Had the question been, "do you like this photography?" Then it would be a simple "no" because I have no interest in this style. But it appeared Frank was asking a deeper question about whether the parts could be separated from the whole. I don't think so. Would the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel be the same if Michealangelo used Danny DiVito and Jim Carry? Isn't the skill of the photographer, like a director, in chosing who to photograph?
 
The photographer has indeed chosen a wonderful model. No, I don't like the execution of this image.

I agree that the parts of this image cannot be separated, but to me, there is no whole. Also, to me, the skill of the photographer is in choosing what to photograph and how to achieve the vision he/she has. The use of a handsome model is not the photographer's skill, but a better tool for the job.
 
FrankS said:
You are not going to impress me with sunset photos.

Finder, it wouldn't take a genius, or any extra-ordinary talent of a photographer, to select this particular model and to decide that shooting her nude, would be the best way to use her attribues to greatest effect - now would it?
Click to expand...

Frank, I think you are missing my point (you are certainly not answering my questions). Does the photographer have to be a genius? Selecting the model IS part of the talent of the photographer. Just as selecting props and locations. Ever seen a great movie where the director selected the wrong cast?

I am getting a feeling that you do not like the image and are somehow resentful that it was praised. I have seen a lot worse photography that was praised on internet forums - including here. Why is this one bugging you so much?
 
Finder said:
Frank, I think you are missing my point (you are certainly not answering my questions). Does the photographer have to be a genius? Selecting the model IS part of the talent of the photographer. Just as selecting props and locations. Ever seen a great movie where the director selected the wrong cast?

I am getting a feeling that you do not like the image and are somehow resentful that it was praised. I have seen a lot worse photography that was praised on internet forums - including here. Why is this one bugging you so much?
Click to expand...

Not at all resentful, Finder! Just thought it would be interesting to discuss the issue as stated in my first post. I felt that this was a perfect image to illustrate that point.
BTW, thank you very much for this discussion! Sincerely.
 
FrankS said:
Not at all resentful, Finder! Just thought it would be interesting to discuss the issue as stated in my first post. I felt that this was a perfect image to illustrate that point.
BTW, thank you very much for this discussion! Sincerely.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting topic, and I have enjoyed it. Thanks Frank.
 
In a way, this discussion is not fair to the photographer. The image in question is on another site and being discussed here without his knowledge. The subject matter is not something that I can find in the Critique Forum here on RFF. It is not what the general photo public would be creating.

Frank, your thread has been thought provoking, and I may just have learned something here. I would like to hear more from you about the image.

Finder, I may delight in trying to think outside the box, but you have at least shown me that I have just moved to a new box, albeit larger. Thanks for your comments.
Dave
 
Last edited:
"This shot is yet another example of dreary male gaze photography. There is nothing significantly artful about it at all. The light is flat and utterly boring; the pose is mundane, the expression vacant and uninteresting; even the framing is boring. The photographer got the exposure well enough, which might be enough to call him or her competent, but I don't think anything more is expressed by this photo- other than perhaps "oohh, big boobies!". "

Sounds like the Perfect Woman to me! :D

/T
 
I have just returned to this post after seeing it when there were two responses. My first thought then was along the lines of "defeat snatched from the jaws of victory" - but I didn't type that as I felt everyone else would say it is a wonderful image, even though it looks like a crappy 1980's camera-club "glamour" shoot in someones cramped garage.

We find from the posts here that the model is apparently well known and, therefore, likely expensive so what on earth was going on ? Presumably the awkwardness is deliberate - maybe it was originally a what-not-to-do sort of instructional picture ? Even the other linked picture by the same photog is poorly lit. Very odd.

I suppose that this means that I think the photographer, not the subject, makes the (studio) photograph.
 
FrankS said:
Here is a saying that I often think of with regards to photography:

It is the photographer's skill that makes an extra-ordinary photograph of an ordinary subject. With an exra-ordinary subject, the photographer simply needs to be competent to make an extra-ordinary photograph.

With that in mind, look at this photograph (nudity warning) and tell me what you think: is it an extra-ordinary photograph? If it is, is it because of the subject, or the photographer's skill (beyond competency)? Would the photograph still be as compelling if the model were more ordinary?

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6285636

(You're welcome, in advance.)
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, as my opinion goes, you are right in that It is the photographer's skill that makes an extra-ordinary photograph of an ordinary subject

But with that in mind, and since the pic didn't appeal to me too much, I went to see the full portfolios of the photographer at photo.net, and to my surprise ACCORDING TO MY TASTE, you have selected one of the few less appealing images of him.

This photographer has a high control of aesthetics, composition, lighting, imagination etc. In his several portfolios he addresses The Woman Nude in different styles, showing great originality. No doubt all his images are his absolute creation.

But this is also his aquilles talon. Beyond the formalistic aesthetics, the models are not present at the images, but for their bodies. And if you go this path you have to be a real genious of the height of Andre Kertecz for example, in order to have an image at your salon and look at it endlessly.

Yes the images of this guy go as far as he goes. And there they end.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
"Ordinary model" ? hmm this guy has not thought about it yet. Perhaps a good idea for him to try.
 
Sorry if I created that impression of her being well-known with my post, MartinP.
Yes, I have seen her before in other photos (if she indeed is who I think she is). But I doubt she has done widely published work.
 
Thanks, Frank, for bringing forth this discussion. The photo is obviously interesting enough to make the discussion interesting and educational. My own reaction is that the model is grotesque in being extraordinary. Perhaps this is part of the photographer's message.

But I'm not at all sure it's worthwhile to attempt analysis of the photographer's intent. Rather more useful to study our own reactions to the image OMHO.
 
Thank you for the clarification Mr.Flibble. Actually, I now read my post again and wonder why I assumed that a (probably) amateur photographer apparently having the spare cash to pay for an expensive model, should also mean that s/he is a photographic wizard and able to make the picture show what he wanted. after all, the financial ability to do so would come from his main employment, not his photography.

With a deep sigh, I admit that it is much easier "to criticise" than "to do". I would have no clue how to light a person. When working professionally I only ever used a 5x4 copy-camera making pictures of various flat things, mostly I was kept chained to the b+w enlarger in the darkroom.

I seem to be having an uncertain sort of evening where I am thinking even less sharply than usual...
 
Last edited:
personally, i don't think one can draw conclusions about the skill of a photographer (ie whether s/he is good or bad) based on viewing one image alone... nor do i think there's value in doing so... an image should be evaluated on its' own using whatever combination of criteria the viewer chooses to... lighting, the choice of subject, choice of colour vs black and white, etc...

i don't think you can separate the subject from the discussion any more than you can the choice of lighting etc... none of the elements taken on their own or in combination in a single photo can/should be used to drawn conclusions about the abilities of the photographer...

i'm inclined to believe that there are no 'good' or 'bad' photographers... only good or bad photos (high if not completely subjective)... i've produced a handful of images that i'm proud of and like very much... whether or not other like them is quite irrelevant to me... what they think of my photographic abilities and even less of a concern ...
 
Last edited:
I've always felt as far as street photography goes, where you live has a lot to do with the quality of your images. As a GENERAL rule, a photographer living in Europe, or NYC can capture much more interesting (and most likely better) images than a photographer spending all of his time in suburbia america.
 
Ywenz, it is certainly like that. Hard to imagine a street photographer flourish in Namibian desert. That said living in NYC alone doesn't warrant that you'll be any good at it...

You have to be also a tall, preferrably Jewish fellow, judging by all the videos at 2point8 blog :)
 
Gid said:
I'm not comfortable with this photograph. It almost looks as if the model is a composite, that is, she does not appear to be in proportion - not just the breasts, but also the leg. I think it is interesting more than extraordinary and it is certainly well executed. However, without that model I don't think it would be as striking. Also, I think there is too much space around the subject - a tighter crop would work better for me.
Click to expand...


I only read these comments but I have to agree about the proportion of the model...odd.
 
some water, a girl, and a white dress....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weeki_Wachee_spring_10079u.jpg

I mean, sometimes photography is not about the "decisive moment", but rather about "pre-visualizing". Posed pictures. Toni Frissell just knew how to do it well.

So, to the main question, do you call it:
extra-ordinary SUBJECT? (a swimming woman...)
extra-ordinary photographer...of an ordinary subject?

I'll go for the second one.

Please post examples of the other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom