OK, try to follow this: I was reading A Photo Editor’s recent “I.D.’s Executioners” post, which linked to a post by Julie Lasky on The Design Observatory’s site, which linked to a photo by David Wojnarowicz of buffalo being driven over a cliff.
OK, got all that? Take a look at that pic again (and soon, it may go away!).
I’m not sure why, but this picture really speaks to me. What does it say to you?
I normally don’t like making inflammatory comments, but I think that this story may just be worth it.
Summarizing from that link:
Uzbek photographer Umida Akhmedova is awaiting trial and is facing a potential sentence of six months in prison or three years forced labor. At issue is a 2007 work called Men and Women from Dawn to Dusk that contains approximately 100 of her photographs of life and customs in Uzbekistan.
I missed this when it was initially important, but fortunately Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer won’t let me forget. He posted a further link today, which has entertaining comments and a link to another 50 pictures from this lady.
Personally, I don’t see anything degrading. I suppose if I were raised in Uzbek society, I might have a different perception. But I wasn’t, and now I don’t think I’ll be going there any time soon.
I suppose they don’t want me there, either.
Joerg Colberg had an interesting post (and updates) last month about over-sharpening images. I apparently missed it – I blame having family around for the holidays and thus having more important things to do. I’m glad I found it again, though – there are excellent thoughts.
In particular, I note his update from 12/22/2009, where he highlights Joseph Holmes’ observation:
If you get close enough to start making out too much film grain, you naturally back off. If you move in and see sharpening artifacts, you feel like something has gone horribly wrong.
Go read the whole post. I’m still pondering it, but I think it’s great for perspective.
Warning: links on this post are not safe for work (denoted by “NSFW”).
I recently stumbled across Nadya Gorodetskaya’s work (NSFW). I can only describe it as fascinating – an inside look at life in Russia, from a perspective that few outside of there can see.
Having been there at one point, I see the character of what I loved in Russia – the warmth, the social aspect, the unity of family and life-long friends. I particularly like her bathhouse photos (all links NSFW). There’s an old-world feel to them, with an intimate and yet jovial feeling.
Her flickr photostream is also worth a good look.
I want to give an example of what I meant yesterday when I said that Yousef Karsh would catch the person in his portraits and amplify the person’s personality. Witness (follow the link, I don’t own it) his portrait of Audrey Hepburn:
There are several things about this photo. First, it is much, much better in print. It’s larger, there are better details, and it’s much more impressive. I believe that this is true of all of Karsh’s work. See it in print, or you lose much of the intent.
Now, the subject is Audrey Hepburn. Ms Hepburn is, of course, one of the most beautiful creatures to have lived on this planet. But she was much more than that, even in 1956. Go ahead, read the Wikipedia article on her. It’s worth it. When Karsh was doing her portrait, he captured a great deal of the suffering and sadness that went with her. He also captured her elegance and her subtle strength.
This image is on the back cover of Regarding Heroes
Read yesterday’s post to see what I’m talking about.
OK, so my first reaction was “geez, what’s wrong with that John Thomas guy?” His comment:
John Thomas Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@Nicole Morgenthau, who did he send in to re-shoot this disaster?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces14.html
or this failure?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces4.html
or this horrid frame?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/lifestyle5.html
I mean, really – was that called for? I mean, descriptions like “failure,” “horrid”, “disaster”: tastes in pictures are subjective, and I could easily call all three photos “fantastic” from a certain perspective. Perhaps that was his point? Nicole’s husband accusing others of outputting crap is his subjective call over their work, and it’s no more valid than John’s (maybe) tongue-in-cheek criticism of Nicole’s work.
But here’s the deal: two other photographers immediately agreed with him that Nicole’s work was crap. Again, they may have meant “fine, it’s crap – prove to us that you have the skills and taste to give it such a name.
Specific to this post: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/10/14/every-dumbass-with-a-camera/
I love reading these posts, especially the comments. This one had an interesting thread, though: starting with (at the time of this writing) comment #11. The text is roughly like this:
Nicole Morgenthau wrote:
My photographer husband wants his business slogan to be, “You can hire some jack ass to fuck it up, or hire me if you want the job done right.”
This is of course directed to the cheap skates, that come back to you to reshoot a disaster.
John Thomas Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@Nicole Morgenthau, who did he send in to re-shoot this disaster?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces14.html
or this failure?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces4.html
or this horrid frame?
http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/lifestyle5.html
Nicole Morgenthau Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@John Thomas,
Wow- you’re so kind. Thanks for your support.
Dean Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@John Thomas, Good eye John. Now let’s see yours!
Michael Schulz Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
@John Thomas, I agree with Dean. Nicole didn’t bother to put her URL in her comment. Looked through her work. She’s got a client list and is a working pro. Now let’s see what you have to offer and what your foundation is.
Mike
Digest that for a day or two. I have been. Then come back and think about your reactions.
That’s The Online Photographer for you, if you didn’t already know. These guys (mostly Mike Johnson & Ctein) have done a great deal of work at pathetically low pay (and even worse return, I’d bet), and all for people like us. Which is to say: people who are learning about photography.
Every now and then, he points out a deal, or has an offer that is just… extremely well done. Low price, good quality, etc. They’re doing that right now with a print offer for a Gordon Lewis print. Go ahead & check it out. This isn’t your typical Flickr job – it’s well composed, has plenty of white space, looks (from here) fantastic… And the prices listed are mighty low for a collector print.
So go ahead, check it out. The offer is only good until Wednesday (look at their site for details)…
Earlier this week I posted an outtake from a quick studio shoot. Over the course of this week, I’ve released a series of these pics on Flickr. The pics:
I’m debating as to whether I’ll post another pic tomorrow. But if I do, it’ll be the last one.
I remember many years ago thinking about how rediculous it was (well, seemed at the time) that people would pay good money for an ND filter. It seemed to me that everyone was trying to speed up their shots, not slow them down. The goal seemed to be taking good hand-held photos in dim light.
I think, for the majority, that is still true. However, ND filters are now something that I crave. Having seen so many slow, beautifully detailed shots of the sea, it’s now something I aspire to.
Take a look at this gentleman’s photostream (on flickr) to see some excellent examples!