Saw these images...

On a somewhat similar theme I would prefer Martine Franck's style.

Of course her's are posed too because they are theater photos, but she gets plenty of movement and atmosphere which I found lacking in the three above.

Look out for her 'Theatre du Soliel: The Shakespeare Cycle' series.

[Edit: She's the official photographer for http://www.theatre-du-soleil.fr/ so look there if you're interested.]
 
Last edited:
Provocative, Ned. Gave me a "what were they thinking?" moment. The krinkles in the body paint were an interesting touch, as was the coarse hair coloring.

IMO poor choices because they are distracting. If the photographer said "oops! oh, well. I've paid for the model - let's shoot anyway." then it was an amateurish blunder. If it was deliberate, as an artistic statement it is trite and obvious and has been done before, and done better, or at least done more shockingly.

Technicaly the photos themselves are very average. The poses are contrived. The lighting is overly simple and unflattering. I agree with Eric's comment on the third one.

Just my opinion. This is not the kind of photo I shoot, so I would not have done better. Better, I would not have done them at all.

After your last critique thread these shots had me playing Where's Waldo. This time I don't see it :rolleyes:.
 
nb23, you linked these photos but there was no credit given to the photographer. Did you do them? Check Rule 6. I did the same once as I had never read the rules.
 
My opinion is that they are something I would not show to anyone else. I am not a great photographer, I'm average at best, but these are, in my opinion, dreadful.

The make-up, set, lighting, pose are all poor. However, I reckon if I spent some time in PS I could make them look a ton better.
 
charjohncarter said:
nb23, you linked these photos but there was no credit given to the photographer. Did you do them? Check Rule 6. I did the same once as I had never read the rules.
Click to expand...

Where are the rules? Can't find them...

I didn't shoot them but I don't see what's wrong; I'm just linking those images that are already posted on a public forum.

They we're shot by Joseph Wisniewski. A guy that gives courses on studio lighting, as increbdible as it is.
 
Rule #6 is vague and can be interpreted in any number of ways. Ned didn't claim the photos were his, and was not attempting to use them commercially (the intent of the "copyright" provision). He has credited the photographer, though it was probably not necessary.

Let's stop talking rules and talk photos. Move on.

Edit: My two cents only on the direction this is starting to go. :angel:
 
Last edited:
These images are suggestive of a certain type of genre of photography i see nothing wrong in the fact that they are staged. I also don't see the need to be so negative about them on a forum site which is supposed to have a strong sense of community and mutual respect for photographers.
 
Pitxu said:
"An amateurish blunder."
Click to expand...
_______________________________________________________________________
It may be honest but somewhat brutal and non-constructive IMHO.
 
Fair point Pitxu my page is loading slow so i have only just seen your follow up comment after i'd posted mine even though yours says 31 minutes ago.
 
I don't care for the first two, but I do get drawn back to the third one. Don't think it's upside down. The choice of model strikes me, her hands and the symbolism, among others.
 
The First two photos are lacking atmosphere. It just seems like he had the studio setup already and didn't do any test and put the model in the pic after painting her up, no thought went into creating an atmosphere, just a pose.

The third pic I'll give some credit to because of the alignment of the models body, hands and feet. I think maybe moving and dimming the light (maybe a 'candle light' effect ould be better) could've brought more atmosphere to the shot.
 
I find that they don't pose any photographic problems, which makes them lose my interest quickly. Kertez could make a fork look beautiful with light and shadow; Irving Penn could isolate figures in a void and succeed with beautiful form and organization. The single light source makes the subject look a little flat...it doesn't communicate a feeling for the subject. In all the pictures there is black surrounding the subject, and if the woman is going to be visually floating there needs to be really interesting shapes and modeling so that the background is more involved in the composition. The nudity, paint, mask and weaponry make me think the focus of the image is to make something shocking. I think it needs to be handled in a little more shocking way, to find some kind of surprise in the image. I hope this is helpful. I think my art background gave me a decent eye for reading images, but making my own photographs is another story ;)
 
The first 2 are not good. I think nzeeman nailed it when he said artsy-fartsy. They seem contrived as provocative, yet carefully staged to avoid being seen as erotic, which they are certainly not. I would say the first 2 are silly. Why the greek column? Why the sword, other than to hide behind? Why the ridiculous beak?

The third is much better-- I'd credit it as the kernal of a good idea, which failed in the execution. The body paint is amateurish, and the fact that it's in a studio, on a black drape, with a few dead leaves scattered about, does indeed look cheezy. Why didn't they shoot this outside? And the lighting is adequate, but nothing special.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
Perhaps telenous can answer that one.
Click to expand...

OK, you got me, Jon.

Obviously, I did not mean to slight telenous, or his avatar. I'm down with the whole Venetian Carnaval Beak fetish.

But those particular beaks? (in Ned's photos) They don't work for me.
 
crawdiddy said:
OK, you got me, Jon.

Obviously, I did not mean to slight telenous, or his avatar. I'm down with the whole Venetian Carnaval Beak fetish.

But those particular beaks? (in Ned's photos) They don't work for me.
Click to expand...

The Insult! Please don't mistake me for the photographer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom