some of my work
Mark Wolenski
> See:
>
> http://zd.csimultimedia.com/
I'd like to preface by saying that these are my opinions. I've been know
to be wrong.
Unfortunately, it's too easy to call one's self a photographer and just as
easy include either "professional" or "expert" in the description.
The difference between an amateur and professional is not a simple step
from one plateau to another, but consists of something that usually amounts
to a giant leap. In photography, a true professional exhibits a consistency
of quality and style for all of their work.
To claim to have reached a level of expertise to be considered a
professional is, by itself, untrue. The self described professional is not.
The label is only valid when it is applied by one's peers.
In the category of photojournalism, an example may be found in David Hume
Kennerly http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/, a Puliter Prize winning
photographer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, I prefer more of a tonal range in photos.
The inclusion of camera & lens information is reminiscent of photo magazines
which are interested in selling equipment. From any other point of view, any
photographer worth his/her salt could ascertain the information just by
looking at the photo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Vendor
"his hand on his chest" could also be heartburn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battleship Building
Probably the most interesting of the bunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
between buildigs & between buildigs cropped
Tutorial, maybe. Art, NOT!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bike1 & Bike2
Photo I course. Assignment #5, motion studies, blur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy adjusted sharpened
Move 14 inches to the right and 8 inches up. The
position of the white stripe is very distracting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
browns bengals
"Who says you need a motor drive?" Not me, not for the use implied.
Professional sports use the motor drive for advancing the film, not to
capture the moment. They know that there's a lot of action taking place
between frames even with the fastest motor drives.
The "true" moment may have been 1/60 of a second before this exposure, while
the ball was still in front of the leftmost player. Acceptable but not
brilliant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building
A Building. Overly Distorted. How unique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff & guitar
Reminiscent of the output of a Photo I course. Assignment #4,
backlight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conkles Hollow Oooh, ahhh. pretty colors. Not much more. Could have been
done in one's back yard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Domo
While it tends to capture a particular architectural aspect of the
buildings, this photo lacks any emotion that would qualify it as "art".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence teens
Travel brochure. Nothing more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen adjusted elements
At first glance, I wondered why her hand positions were so deformed. Only
closer examination of the larger image reveals the slender stalk in her
hands. Failure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen close adjusted
Swing the camera to the right about 2 inches. She
doesn't need that much leading space in front of her eyes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jackie
"She had ideas of being a model at one time. We took lots of shots." Just
the kind of photo a model wants in her portfolio. Can you distort her head
any more that you have?
"The subject is the shadow ...". There's nothing particularly interesting
about the shadow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie infrared
Without the infrared effect, the composition and pose are particularly
boring. Still, the IR effect does litle to hide the fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red-Haired Girl
Not flattering at all. Fails as a portrait, environmental or otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhino Head-on & Rhino Head close-up & Rhino Head side
Photo II, Assignment #2, first roll of color slide film.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
snow walker
Yawn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stadium window
Lack of sharpness is obvious in the larger version.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
vicki
The look on her face is that of disinterest. Fails as a portrait,
environmental or otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
waffle boy
Political Correctness: Some, especially those "of color", may find the title
less than acceptable. (Probably not shot at Denny's.)
Other than a demo of high-contrast lighting, it shows little of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellow Things
"Exposure was slow, about 1/4 sec". The motion is obvious in the larger
version. Putting a reflector (just a pizza box bottom) in the mix would have
helped greatly. It would have filled the shadows enough to decrease the
exposure time and allowed more detail to be rendered in the highlights. A
tripod or other support is definitely called for.
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > See:
> >
> > http://zd.csimultimedia.com/
>
> I'd like to preface by saying that these are my opinions. I've been know
> to be wrong.
> Unfortunately, it's too easy to call one's self a photographer and just as
> easy include either "professional" or "expert" in the description.
I agree. I have come into contact with many 'professionals' whose work
is far inferior to what I consider professional standards, and I might
add, far inferior to what I have produced.
> The difference between an amateur and professional is not a simple step
> from one plateau to another, but consists of something that usually amounts
> to a giant leap. In photography, a true professional exhibits a consistency
> of quality and style for all of their work.
> To claim to have reached a level of expertise to be considered a
> professional is, by itself, untrue.
As I stated above, one can be a succesful pro without having attained
the highest levels of expertise.
>The self described professional is not.
> The label is only valid when it is applied by one's peers.
> In the category of photojournalism, an example may be found in David Hume
> Kennerly http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/, a Puliter Prize winning
> photographer.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All in all, I prefer more of a tonal range in photos.
I don't always like any one approach, but generally I prefer
'harshish' light in B&W, with tons of modelling. Maybe it's because I
grew up in the 50's watching low-contrast live B&W TV (I Love Lucy and
The Honeymooners). I hated it. I loved old movies from the 30's and
40's, though, when they were on TV. Have you seen stuff like 'Blonde
Venus'? B&W demands modelling to have interest to me.
> The inclusion of camera & lens information is reminiscent of photo magazines
> which are interested in selling equipment. From any other point of view, any
> photographer worth his/her salt could ascertain the information just by
> looking at the photo.
This was of interest, I thought, to the people who requested the
pictures be displayed. I don't care one way or the other. I didn't
want to answer a million questions about the equipment on each, so I
included it for those who might want to know.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Art Vendor
> "his hand on his chest" could also be heartburn.
I've seen less interesting PJ, haven't you? Don't you think my
'reading' of his gesture is correct? The very subtlety of the gesture
and the expression are of interest to me. Maybe you just don't 'get
it'.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Battleship Building
> Probably the most interesting of the bunch.
Not for me, but hey, people's tastes vary.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> between buildigs & between buildigs cropped
> Tutorial, maybe. Art, NOT!
I've seen somewhat similar shots by the 'masters', haven't you? And as
I said, I was never completely satisfied with the photo, because of
the bright area at the top. The bottom area is underexposed. Guilty as
charged.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bike1 & Bike2
> Photo I course. Assignment #5, motion studies, blur
OK, but perfectly executed, right?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Boy adjusted sharpened
> Move 14 inches to the right and 8 inches up. The
> position of the white stripe is very distracting.
Agreed. Reason I took it: I thought he looked hilarious in that
over-sized shirt.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> browns bengals
> "Who says you need a motor drive?" Not me, not for the use implied.
> Professional sports use the motor drive for advancing the film, not to
> capture the moment. They know that there's a lot of action taking place
> between frames even with the fastest motor drives.
>
> The "true" moment may have been 1/60 of a second before this exposure, while
> the ball was still in front of the leftmost player. Acceptable but not
> brilliant.
Some people have raved about it. I think it's rather good, but not
exceptional.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Building
> A Building. Overly Distorted. How unique.
OK, but the point was the reflection in the window, to give it a
animal-like face. Maybe you don't get that.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff & guitar
> Reminiscent of the output of a Photo I course. Assignment #4,
> backlight.
Some people like it, some don't. I think it's about a 6 (1-10 scale)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Conkles Hollow Oooh, ahhh. pretty colors. Not much more. Could have been
> done in one's back yard.
Not the point. Point was 1/30th sec w 560mm lens hand-held. I've said
that explicitly.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Florence Domo
> While it tends to capture a particular architectural aspect of the
> buildings, this photo lacks any emotion that would qualify it as "art".
OK, the beginner wants to see the whole thing, which reduces the
impression of scale. This is artistic in the sense that by showing
only a part, the whole can be inferred. Its massiveness is also
implied by its over-flowing the frame.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Florence teens
> Travel brochure. Nothing more.
A charming moment. Would it be better if they were nudes?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Helen adjusted elements
> At first glance, I wondered why her hand positions were so deformed. Only
> closer examination of the larger image reveals the slender stalk in her
> hands. Failure.
Maybe. Some others don't think so. Her hands are not the main focus of
the image. Why do you think they're that important? I simply wanted
her do be doing 'something' with her hands.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Helen close adjusted
> Swing the camera to the right about 2 inches. She
> doesn't need that much leading space in front of her eyes.
I disagree. Maybe we'll just have to see this differently.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> jackie
> "She had ideas of being a model at one time. We took lots of shots." Just
> the kind of photo a model wants in her portfolio. Can you distort her head
> any more that you have?
> "The subject is the shadow ...". There's nothing particularly interesting
> about the shadow.
It's her body shape. The best prints have a beautiful shadow to them.
This was not the best print I have made of it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jackie infrared
> Without the infrared effect, the composition and pose are particularly
> boring. Still, the IR effect does litle to hide the fact.
Not a cliche, don't you agree?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Red-Haired Girl
> Not flattering at all. Fails as a portrait, environmental or otherwise.
Not a portrait. A girl sitting on the building with books in her hand,
obviously a student. Made in an instant, before she could become
self-conscious: THAT'S what's important. It's very easy to take 5
minutes to make a technically better photo, but by that time the
'magic moment' is gone. The subject either refuses to be photographed
and turns away, or gets impatient or bored. That's what's so nice
about this one. Stop thinking about the technical aspects of it for
just a moment and notice how spotaneous the photo is!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rhino Head-on & Rhino Head close-up & Rhino Head side
> Photo II, Assignment #2, first roll of color slide film.
Hardly.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> snow walker
> Yawn.
Brilliant composition and reduction of tones to essentials.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> stadium window
> Lack of sharpness is obvious in the larger version.
Picture is tack sharp. I have an 11x14 in which you can see the
fingerprints in the window glass.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> vicki
> The look on her face is that of disinterest. Fails as a portrait,
> environmental or otherwise.
That's the point. I liked the pose and sneering indifference.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> waffle boy
> Political Correctness: Some, especially those "of color", may find the title
> less than acceptable. (Probably not shot at Denny's.)
OK, give me a better title.
> Other than a demo of high-contrast lighting, it shows little of interest.
That's the point, of course.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yellow Things
> "Exposure was slow, about 1/4 sec". The motion is obvious in the larger
> version. Putting a reflector (just a pizza box bottom) in the mix would have
> helped greatly. It would have filled the shadows enough to decrease the
> exposure time and allowed more detail to be rendered in the highlights. A
> tripod or other support is definitely called for.
Agreed. It's just a study.
Mark: You keep wanting to shove these into categories, but many were
never intended as such. I practised 'free-form' photography, for many
years. this is a small sample.
Mark Wolenski
> "Mark Wolenski" <ma...@wolenski.com> wrote in message
news:<U9SdnV-N88K...@comcast.com>...
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > See:
> > >
> > > http://zd.csimultimedia.com/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Art Vendor
> > "his hand on his chest" could also be heartburn.
>
> I've seen less interesting PJ, haven't you? Don't you think my
> 'reading' of his gesture is correct? The very subtlety of the gesture
> and the expression are of interest to me. Maybe you just don't 'get
> it'.
Are you the only one that does? Without an explanation, that is.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Building
> > A Building. Overly Distorted. How unique.
>
> OK, but the point was the reflection in the window, to give it a
> animal-like face. Maybe you don't get that.
Are you the only one that does? Without an explanation, that is.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Conkles Hollow Oooh, ahhh. pretty colors. Not much more. Could have
been
> > done in one's back yard.
>
> Not the point. Point was 1/30th sec w 560mm lens hand-held. I've said
> that explicitly.
My critique stands. The point of the photo is the final viewable image, not
the
technique used.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Florence Domo
> > While it tends to capture a particular architectural aspect of the
> > buildings, this photo lacks any emotion that would qualify it as "art".
>
> OK, the beginner wants to see the whole thing, which reduces the
> impression of scale. This is artistic in the sense that by showing
> only a part, the whole can be inferred. Its massiveness is also
> implied by its over-flowing the frame.
I was not implying that I wanted to see the whole thing. As the photo
stands,
it lacks emotion.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Florence teens
> > Travel brochure. Nothing more.
>
> A charming moment. Would it be better if they were nudes?
No.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Helen adjusted elements
> > At first glance, I wondered why her hand positions were so deformed.
Only
> > closer examination of the larger image reveals the slender stalk in her
> > hands. Failure.
>
> Maybe. Some others don't think so. Her hands are not the main focus of
> the image. Why do you think they're that important? I simply wanted
> her do be doing 'something' with her hands.
ALL elements of a photograph are important. This is especially true when
the photographer "controls" the pose.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Rhino Head-on & Rhino Head close-up & Rhino Head side
> > Photo II, Assignment #2, first roll of color slide film.
>
> Hardly.
>
I stand by my assessment. Little or no artistic or commercial value.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > snow walker
> > Yawn.
>
> Brilliant composition and reduction of tones to essentials.
>
Yawn.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > waffle boy
> > Political Correctness: Some, especially those "of color", may find the
title
> > less than acceptable. (Probably not shot at Denny's.)
>
> OK, give me a better title.
Titling all photos is not necessary, unless for "Camera Club" competitions.
But if you insist: "Untitled No. 5"
> > Other than a demo of high-contrast lighting, it shows little of
interest.
>
> That's the point, of course.
>
My critique stands.
As "reportage" it would probably be accompanied by copy:
"The Wafflehous opened today at the corner of Main and Decator. Here,
James Kennedy enjoys a 'short stack', where harsh cross-lighting accents
the syrup."
Photojournalism and "reportage", in my opinion, act as a visual record of
the events that create that which we know of as history. They transcend
the written word, which can be colored and manipulated by the author.
"History is written by the victor".
This, again in my opinion, is a non-event.
>
>
> Mark: You keep wanting to shove these into categories, but many were
> never intended as such.
I note your objection. I wish to point out that in the relatively short
time that I have spend with this newsgroup, I have observed that you have
done the same.
All photographs that exhibit a full tonal range are not necessarily produced
by "Zonies".
>I practised 'free-form' photography, for many
> years. this is a small sample.
The series, as presented, do not (in my opinion) exhibit either a
consistency
of quality or style.
If presented in chronological order, one would perhaps get a feel for the
evolution of a style. As this presentation stands, the Jerassic period comes
to mind.
Keep on plugging away.
Michael Scarpitti
OK, Mark, but I don't have the time, or the desire, to go through
thousands of photographs I made between 1968 and 1975. The ones I
presented were not intended as 'representative' or 'my best work' or
'my portfolio'. I don't have a 'portfolio' as such. I don't because
I'm not concerned with trying to impress anybody or to get photo jobs.
This stuff is simply what I had available, and that's all. Many of
these were left-over prints. Better ones have been given away or lost
or whatever.
My life has gone beyond photography, and did so many years ago. At the
time many of these were taken, I was consumed with photography. That
changed a few years later, and I was not particularly interested in
maintaining a portfolio. That's why many of these were scanned from
the yearbooks. I quit taking pictures altogether in 1981, out of
digust with the photo business.
Why don't you show us some of your earliest stuff, from the age of 19?
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mark Wolenski" <ma...@wolenski.com> wrote in message
> news:<U9SdnV-N88K...@comcast.com>...
> > > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > See:
> > > >
> > > > http://zd.csimultimedia.com/
>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Art Vendor
> > > "his hand on his chest" could also be heartburn.
> >
> > I've seen less interesting PJ, haven't you? Don't you think my
> > 'reading' of his gesture is correct? The very subtlety of the gesture
> > and the expression are of interest to me. Maybe you just don't 'get
> > it'.
>
> Are you the only one that does? Without an explanation, that is.
Why don't we ask some of the others?
>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Building
> > > A Building. Overly Distorted. How unique.
> >
> > OK, but the point was the reflection in the window, to give it a
> > animal-like face. Maybe you don't get that.
>
> Are you the only one that does? Without an explanation, that is.
Several people have said they liked it. It's a matter of taste, I
suppose.
>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Conkles Hollow Oooh, ahhh. pretty colors. Not much more. Could have
> been
> > > done in one's back yard.
> >
> > Not the point. Point was 1/30th sec w 560mm lens hand-held. I've said
> > that explicitly.
>
> My critique stands. The point of the photo is the final viewable image, not
> the
> technique used.
Its inclusion HERE was simply to demonstrate the technical feat that
some denied could be done. Otherwise, I would not have included it. Is
every frame that you shoot spectacular?
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Florence Domo
> > > While it tends to capture a particular architectural aspect of the
> > > buildings, this photo lacks any emotion that would qualify it as "art".
> >
> > OK, the beginner wants to see the whole thing, which reduces the
> > impression of scale. This is artistic in the sense that by showing
> > only a part, the whole can be inferred. Its massiveness is also
> > implied by its over-flowing the frame.
>
> I was not implying that I wanted to see the whole thing. As the photo
> stands, it lacks emotion.
What emotion are you asking for from a building? I wanted to convey
MASSIVENESS, which uis not exactly an emotion. My intent was not what
you are apparently looking for. So be it.
>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Florence teens
> > > Travel brochure. Nothing more.
> >
> > A charming moment. Would it be better if they were nudes?
>
> No.
A charming 'slice of life' moment. That's all it was intended to be.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Helen adjusted elements
> > > At first glance, I wondered why her hand positions were so deformed.
> Only
> > > closer examination of the larger image reveals the slender stalk in her
> > > hands. Failure.
> >
> > Maybe. Some others don't think so. Her hands are not the main focus of
> > the image. Why do you think they're that important? I simply wanted
> > her do be doing 'something' with her hands.
>
> ALL elements of a photograph are important. This is especially true when
> the photographer "controls" the pose.
Uh....you don't understand. Not at all, This photo was a SATIRE on
glamour shots.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Rhino Head-on & Rhino Head close-up & Rhino Head side
> > > Photo II, Assignment #2, first roll of color slide film.
> >
> > Hardly.
> >
>
> I stand by my assessment. Little or no artistic or commercial value.
Show me better. Outstanding on all levels.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > snow walker
> > > Yawn.
> >
> > Brilliant composition and reduction of tones to essentials.
> >
>
> Yawn.
Brilliant composition and reduction of tones to essentials. seconded
by several others who have commented.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > waffle boy
> > > Political Correctness: Some, especially those "of color", may find the
> title
> > > less than acceptable. (Probably not shot at Denny's.)
> >
> > OK, give me a better title.
>
> Titling all photos is not necessary, unless for "Camera Club" competitions.
> But if you insist: "Untitled No. 5"
>
> > > Other than a demo of high-contrast lighting, it shows little of
> interest.
> >
> > That's the point, of course.
> >
> My critique stands.
My point stands. Have you seen much 'reportage' work? A lot of it,
even much published stuff, is dreadful, and inferior to this shot.
> As "reportage" it would probably be accompanied by copy:
> "The Wafflehous opened today at the corner of Main and Decator. Here,
> James Kennedy enjoys a 'short stack', where harsh cross-lighting accents
> the syrup."
>
> Photojournalism and "reportage", in my opinion, act as a visual record of
> the events that create that which we know of as history. They transcend
> the written word, which can be colored and manipulated by the author.
> "History is written by the victor".
> This, again in my opinion, is a non-event.
It's one of my favourites.
Michael Scarpitti
http://www.wolenski.com/photo/early.asp
'Leaves in back yard'
Is any comment necessary? No. Nothing of interest to me here.
--------------------------------------------------------------
'Ferns, Great Swamp, New Jersey'
Composition a little off. Branch from tree intrudes from right.
Non-fern weed does too. Photo taken from eye level instead of low to
the ground, which would have added some perspective. Nothing horrible,
but nothing to get excited about. A snapshot.
-------------------------------------------------------
'Ode to Edward, Mystic, CT'
Uh.....I don't get it. Not at all. Chrome?
-----------------------------------------------
'White Nude'
Over-exposed or under-printed. Flat lighting means no modelling to the
body. She looks therefore like a cut-out. She also looks uncomfortable
against the rocks. Angle of body all wrong. No appeal to me at all.
----------------------------------------------
'Rocks, Maine Coast'
Finally something that has some merit. Nice touches are the liquid and
specks of stuff clinging to the rocks.
---------------------------------------------------
'Julie Starr, Painter'
Back to dullsville. No modelling, no contrast, dull light and color.
Pose is uninteresting and awkward-looking. Looks like she had to hold
the pose for a long time. I'm good at spotting that.
----------------------------------------------------
'Primal Scream'
Sometimes the best thing to do is to keep silent, if one cannot say
anything positive. I won't say anything about this one Mark.
------------------------------------------------------
Now on to later stuff?
http://www.wolenski.com/photo/port1.asp
Of the 'gallery 1' photos, only 1 or 2 have any interest to me. For
the most part the posing is less than ideal in many of these.
On the pictures shown that I sent to you, very little 'posing' was
done. I just let Jackie or Helen walk around, or offered a hint or
suggestion of what to do.
Mark Wolenski
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > > Conkles Hollow Oooh, ahhh. pretty colors. Not much more. Could have
> > been
> > > > done in one's back yard.
> > >
> > > Not the point. Point was 1/30th sec w 560mm lens hand-held. I've said
> > > that explicitly.
> >
> > My critique stands. The point of the photo is the final viewable image,
not
> > the
> > technique used.
>
>
> Its inclusion HERE was simply to demonstrate the technical feat that
> some denied could be done. Otherwise, I would not have included it. Is
> every frame that you shoot spectacular?
From the web site introduction:
"Stating this presupposes that YOUR work does not lack in artistic content.
Perhaps it's time to 'put up or shut up' by publicly displaying YOUR work in
an appropriate forum where photographic peers and the public at large may
form their own opinions."
With this preamble, all photos presented are subject to artistic criticism.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > > Helen adjusted elements
> > > > At first glance, I wondered why her hand positions were so deformed.
> > Only
> > > > closer examination of the larger image reveals the slender stalk in
her
> > > > hands. Failure.
> > >
> > > Maybe. Some others don't think so. Her hands are not the main focus of
> > > the image. Why do you think they're that important? I simply wanted
> > > her do be doing 'something' with her hands.
> >
> > ALL elements of a photograph are important. This is especially true when
> > the photographer "controls" the pose.
>
> Uh....you don't understand. Not at all, This photo was a SATIRE on
> glamour shots.
>
Considering the photo was posted 8/16/03, the caption has no mention of
SATIRE (and the attempt is a poor example of satire at that), I cannot
accept your explanation at this late date.
It appears to me that your statement is an attempt to toss aside criticism
of a photograph that you submitted for critique, only to realize later that
the remarks, while somewhat stinging, were correct.
> OK, Mark, but I don't have the time, or the desire, to go through
> thousands of photographs I made between 1968 and 1975. The ones I
> presented were not intended as 'representative' or 'my best work' or
> 'my portfolio'. I don't have a 'portfolio' as such. I don't because
> I'm not concerned with trying to impress anybody or to get photo jobs.
> This stuff is simply what I had available, and that's all. Many of
> these were left-over prints. Better ones have been given away or lost
> or whatever.
> Why don't you show us some of your earliest stuff, from the age of 19?
At age 19, I was in my first year of college, majoring in Professional
Commercial Photography. The instructors were all working professionals.
Their basic philosophy was one of assuring that the next generation would be
adequately trained. The artistic use of photography, other than that which
was useful in the commercial world, was not a prime concern (as one could
expect). Most of my work from this period was focused on becoming
technically proficient for a career in Commercial Photography.
Directly out of college, I quickly found a job in the industry, thanks to
the commercial aspects of my training. All in all, I spent about 15 years
working as a photographer, with much of it focusing on Multimedia. I was no
"slouch" either, winning a few awards along the way.
It was not until my mid-20's when I rediscovered the use of photography as
an artistic tool. It took quite a number of years prodding in different
directions until I found a direction which was satisfying.
With this new direction, I decided to purge previous works, which I
actually do quite often. Some survive simply as examples of my "evolution".
Mark Wolenski
some early work survives simply as examples of my "evolution".
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> 'Ode to Edward, Mystic, CT'
>
> Uh.....I don't get it. Not at all. Chrome?
>
Edward Weston produced a photograph of a side view of a toilet.
When I first saw the drain trap I thought of his work and produced this
"Ode" (commode...)
> 'Julie Starr, Painter'
>
> Back to dullsville. No modelling, no contrast, dull light and color.
> Pose is uninteresting and awkward-looking. Looks like she had to hold
> the pose for a long time. I'm good at spotting that.
You've spotted WRONG! This was a quick photograph during a break. The film
was in the camera and the dark slide already pulled in anticipation of the
rest of the shoot. Her "Mona Lisa" smile made this one a keeper. I believe
the use of color and form transcends the need for contrasty lighting in this
case.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now on to later stuff?
>
> http://www.wolenski.com/photo/port1.asp
>
> Of the 'gallery 1' photos, only 1 or 2 have any interest to me. For
> the most part the posing is less than ideal in many of these.
>
>
> On the pictures shown that I sent to you, very little 'posing' was
> done. I just let Jackie or Helen walk around, or offered a hint or
> suggestion of what to do.
I choose to use control, rather that hap-hazardly shooting and hoping,
like so many others.
This particular series was critiqued by number of photographers (all
working professionals) who's opinion I value. They have been helpful in the
past, being extremely honest, including the occasional "This is crap!".
Isuppose that I value their opinion over yours.
Additionally, the "portfolio" was reviewed by a rather successful and art
photographer- turned profeddional-turned art photographer that I have worked
with in the past. Her opinion was a resounding "This is very good!".
Although unimportant to the presentation, none of the photos of Portfolio
I are wholly natural light.
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > OK, mark, let's look at your early work:
> >
> > http://www.wolenski.com/photo/early.asp
> >
> The introcuctory text is not yet written. It will eventually explain that
> some early work survives simply as examples of my "evolution".
>
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 'Ode to Edward, Mystic, CT'
> >
> > Uh.....I don't get it. Not at all. Chrome?
> >
> Edward Weston produced a photograph of a side view of a toilet.
> When I first saw the drain trap I thought of his work and produced this
> "Ode" (commode...)
That doesn't make it interesting, at least not to me.
>
> > 'Julie Starr, Painter'
> >
> > Back to dullsville. No modelling, no contrast, dull light and color.
> > Pose is uninteresting and awkward-looking. Looks like she had to hold
> > the pose for a long time. I'm good at spotting that.
>
> You've spotted WRONG! This was a quick photograph during a break. The film
> was in the camera and the dark slide already pulled in anticipation of the
> rest of the shoot. Her "Mona Lisa" smile made this one a keeper. I believe
> the use of color and form transcends the need for contrasty lighting in this
> case.
It just doesn't do anything for me. Yur 'people' shots seems too
stagey for my taste. It;s the same problem I have with Annie
Liebewitz's work.
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Now on to later stuff?
> >
> > http://www.wolenski.com/photo/port1.asp
> >
> > Of the 'gallery 1' photos, only 1 or 2 have any interest to me. For
> > the most part the posing is less than ideal in many of these.
> >
> >
> > On the pictures shown that I sent to you, very little 'posing' was
> > done. I just let Jackie or Helen walk around, or offered a hint or
> > suggestion of what to do.
>
> I choose to use control, rather that hap-hazardly shooting and hoping,
> like so many others.
That ruins spontaneity. You get stiff, awkward poses. I prefer
naturalness.
> This particular series was critiqued by number of photographers (all
> working professionals) who's opinion I value. They have been helpful in the
> past, being extremely honest, including the occasional "This is crap!".
> I suppose that I value their opinion over yours.
I didn't say 'this is crap'. Do you want me to? I don't think they
are, but they're all very similar, and aside from being nudes, have
little visual photographic impact. You have to separate your
***personal*** interest in someone from photographic interest.
> Additionally, the "portfolio" was reviewed by a rather successful and art
> photographer- turned profeddional-turned art photographer that I have worked
> with in the past. Her opinion was a resounding "This is very good!".
> Although unimportant to the presentation, none of the photos of Portfolio
> I are wholly natural light.
Missing some text here?
John
> I was not implying that I wanted to see the whole thing. As the photo
> stands, it lacks emotion.
What emotions are you looking for, Mark? And why is emotion such an
important thing in a photograph?
Michael Scarpitti
The term I have seen used is 'impact'. A photo can have 'impact' from
a variety of its qualities, including emotion, design, contrast,
lighting, etc. The photo in question was intended to have 'impact'
through its cropping and composition. The cathedral was supposed to
look impressive by 'spilling out' of the frame. It's not intended to
display 'emotion'. It's a building, after all....
John
There is another emotion - the kind that is evinced by "AHA!" , the feeling
of the intellect. Sometimes it is subtle, or simply puzzling, and not always
pretty.
Mark Wolenski
question were to be presented specifically within the context of artistic
content (http://zd.csimultimedia.com/).
The arts as a whole exist in our society not because they are important to
the physical continuity of our civilization, but instead support the
emotional needs of the individual.
Why does one listen to music? Does it feed us, keep us warm or quench our
thirsts? The same holds true for literature, the performing arts and the
visual arts, including sculpture, painting, and (arguably by some)
photography.
More can be said about the need for art in society and civilization, but
that is best left to someone else.
First you must ask yourself the reason you produce photographs. Is it
simply because of the craft that is involved or is it to somehow effect
the viewer? If it is the latter, then you must concentrate your efforts on
doing just that.
The photo in question is neither a record of the structure or its beauty
as a manmade structure (artchictural photography), a recording of an event
or involved in an event ("reportage"), or in a form which evokes a change in
the present emotional state of the viewer.
"John" <nos...@please.xxx> wrote in message
news:volb4dn...@news.supernews.com...
>
JJS
> It is important to understand the context of the statement. The photos
in
> question were to be presented specifically within the context of artistic
> content (http://zd.csimultimedia.com/).
> The arts as a whole exist in our society not because they are important
to
> the physical continuity of our civilization, but instead support the
> emotional needs of the individual.
I think you belittle the arts if you think they only serve as emotional
embalmers. There are intellectual aspects, too.
Mark Wolenski
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > working professionals) who's opinion I value. They have been helpful in
the
> > past, being extremely honest, including the occasional "This is crap!".
> > I suppose that I value their opinion over yours.
>
> I didn't say 'this is crap'. Do you want me to? I don't think they
> are, but they're all very similar, and aside from being nudes, have
> little visual photographic impact.
No. IF I were asking your opinion, I'd expect honesty.
> You have to separate your
> ***personal*** interest in someone from photographic interest.
>
In fact, only photographic interest was involved. Any "personal" interest
you percieve from the photos shows just how successful they were, just as
they were meant to be.
> > Additionally, the "portfolio" was reviewed by a rather successful and
art
> > photographer- turned profeddional-turned art photographer that I have
worked
> > with in the past. Her opinion was a resounding "This is very good!".
> > Although unimportant to the presentation, none of the photos of
Portfolio
> > I are wholly natural light.
>
> Missing some text here?
Yes.
Mark Wolenski
the photos in question fail within that context as well.
"JJS" <nos...@please.xxx> wrote in message
news:volq8r3...@news.supernews.com...
Mark Wolenski
> "Any 'personal' interest
> you percieve from the photos shows just how successful they were, just as
> they were meant to be.
To all readers, please be assured that I am not "full of myself". I'm simply
answering a specific objection.
Michael Scarpitti
Michael Scarpitti
> It is important to understand the context of the statement. The photos in
> question were to be presented specifically within the context of artistic
> content (http://zd.csimultimedia.com/).
> The arts as a whole exist in our society not because they are important to
> the physical continuity of our civilization, but instead support the
> emotional needs of the individual.
> Why does one listen to music? Does it feed us, keep us warm or quench our
> thirsts? The same holds true for literature, the performing arts and the
> visual arts, including sculpture, painting, and (arguably by some)
> photography.
> More can be said about the need for art in society and civilization, but
> that is best left to someone else.
> First you must ask yourself the reason you produce photographs. Is it
> simply because of the craft that is involved or is it to somehow effect
> the viewer? If it is the latter, then you must concentrate your efforts on
> doing just that.
> The photo in question is neither a record of the structure or its beauty
> as a manmade structure (artchictural photography), a recording of an event
> or involved in an event ("reportage"), or in a form which evokes a change in
> the present emotional state of the viewer.
>
The question ultimately becomes: is this picture interesting to look
at?
I thought it to be a novel way of presenting this cathedral: with a
180mm cropped view. It would have been all to easy to show the whole
thing. What imnpressed me when I was there was how close the
surrounding buildings wer to it. There's no big empty space around it.
I tried to 're-create' that in this photo. I don't think the term
'emotion' is the proper word to discuss the effect of every successful
pghotograph, and I believe that's why some of mine don't seem to
impress you.
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > > This particular series was critiqued by number of photographers (all
> > > working professionals) who's opinion I value. They have been helpful in
> the
> > > past, being extremely honest, including the occasional "This is crap!".
> > > I suppose that I value their opinion over yours.
> >
> > I didn't say 'this is crap'. Do you want me to? I don't think they
> > are, but they're all very similar, and aside from being nudes, have
> > little visual photographic impact.
>
> No. IF I were asking your opinion, I'd expect honesty.
>
> > You have to separate your
> > ***personal*** interest in someone from photographic interest.
> >
>
> In fact, only photographic interest was involved. Any "personal" interest
> you percieve from the photos shows just how successful they were, just as
> they were meant to be.
That's not what I meant at all, in fact just the reverse. 'Personal'
means have some personal association for YOU, the maker. You may have
(or have had) had some personal relationship with the person (or
place) in the photograph, and for you, that photo may bring back fond
memories (or perhaps bad ones). Most people's photographs are made for
personal reasons. I do not think you are justified in calling them
'successful' if that's what you mean. It's very hard to transfer your
personal feelings from yourself to an audience. Many of your photos
don't do anything for me. They're not BAD, mind you, but they're not
'special' in any way, for the most part, meaning something that
impresses me, and that's what I want to see: something 'special'. That
ability is indeed very difficult to master. I would say indeed that
PURGING personal associations from your work and seeing the image on
the ground glass AS AN IMAGE ITSELF is the first step in this process,
and one that I learned long ago to do. When I photograph, I photograph
the image I see on the ground glass, not the subject. I 'take a
picture of the picture', if you can follow what I'm saying. I don't
see your work exhibiting this....yet. When it happens, when you begin
to see your images as images FIRST, then I think the breakthrough will
come, from merely 'not bad' to something 'positive'.
I hope that this explains perhaps why you and I see our photographs
differently. I try NOT to rely upon personal associations in them, but
rather something that will interest someone else.
This goes beyond evaluations of work on a technical level.
Whatever one may say about the technical flaws in some of my early
work, they all have a certain 'specialness' about them (not counting
'Conkle's Hollow' which was not placed here for artistic evaluation
purposes). That 'specialness' is perhaps different in every one, but
even so, there's a certain style that's clearly mine: tightly-cropped,
generally shallow depth of field (isolating the subject severely),
etc.
Michael Scarpitti
I did discuss it here, several times, but I thought the choice of a
girl with bad complexion, no make-up, etc, was obvious. It was more of
a 'rejection' of the traditional glamour shot than a 'satire' as such.
> It appears to me that your statement is an attempt to toss aside criticism
> of a photograph that you submitted for critique, only to realize later that
> the remarks, while somewhat stinging, were correct.
Many other people love it. Yours is but one of many opinions, and
perhaps since your background (as you explain below) is in
commercially-oriented work, its charms may excape you.
> > OK, Mark, but I don't have the time, or the desire, to go through
> > thousands of photographs I made between 1968 and 1975. The ones I
> > presented were not intended as 'representative' or 'my best work' or
> > 'my portfolio'. I don't have a 'portfolio' as such. I don't because
> > I'm not concerned with trying to impress anybody or to get photo jobs.
> > This stuff is simply what I had available, and that's all. Many of
> > these were left-over prints. Better ones have been given away or lost
> > or whatever.
>
> > Why don't you show us some of your earliest stuff, from the age of 19?
>
> At age 19, I was in my first year of college, majoring in Professional
> Commercial Photography. The instructors were all working professionals.
> Their basic philosophy was one of assuring that the next generation would be
> adequately trained. The artistic use of photography, other than that which
> was useful in the commercial world, was not a prime concern (as one could
> expect). Most of my work from this period was focused on becoming
> technically proficient for a career in Commercial Photography.
This explains a lot.
> Directly out of college, I quickly found a job in the industry, thanks to
> the commercial aspects of my training. All in all, I spent about 15 years
> working as a photographer, with much of it focusing on Multimedia. I was no
> "slouch" either, winning a few awards along the way.
I did this too. I don't have that stuff to show, unfortunately.
Mark Wolenski
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com...
> That's not what I meant at all, in fact just the reverse. 'Personal'
> means have some personal association for YOU, the maker. You may have
> (or have had) had some personal relationship with the person (or
> place) in the photograph, and for you, that photo may bring back fond
> memories (or perhaps bad ones). Most people's photographs are made for
> personal reasons. I do not think you are justified in calling them
> 'successful' if that's what you mean.
> It's very hard to transfer your
> personal feelings from yourself to an audience.
...as you are trying to achieve with "Waffle Boy" (among others)?
> Many of your photos
> don't do anything for me.
Ditto.
>They're not BAD, mind you, but they're not
> 'special' in any way, for the most part, meaning something that
> impresses me, and that's what I want to see: something 'special'. That
> ability is indeed very difficult to master. I would say indeed that
> PURGING personal associations from your work and seeing the image on
> the ground glass AS AN IMAGE ITSELF is the first step in this process,
> and one that I learned long ago to do. When I photograph, I photograph
> the image I see on the ground glass, not the subject. I 'take a
> picture of the picture',
From my perspective, your attempts at artistic photography lack both windows
AND mirrors.
> if you can follow what I'm saying. I don't
> see your work exhibiting this....yet. When it happens, when you begin
> to see your images as images FIRST, then I think the breakthrough will
> come, from merely 'not bad' to something 'positive'.
Your comments here are are quite close to fighting words, but not in this
forum.
> I hope that this explains perhaps why you and I see our photographs
> differently. I try NOT to rely upon personal associations in them, but
> rather something that will interest someone else.
Certainly you have failed in this respect.
As for my commercial experience, I can say that working within the field had
certainly honed my technical skills to the point when it becomes automatic.
However, I haven't given up thinking.
As I am on the cusp of a rather time-consuming project, we will have to end
this thrust and parry. I just won't have the time.
Jytzel
Mark, is this gonna go forever? It seems so. He can keep it going
forever. He is a loser and a troll, enough....IGNORE HIM!
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > That's not what I meant at all, in fact just the reverse. 'Personal'
> > means have some personal association for YOU, the maker. You may have
> > (or have had) had some personal relationship with the person (or
> > place) in the photograph, and for you, that photo may bring back fond
> > memories (or perhaps bad ones). Most people's photographs are made for
> > personal reasons. I do not think you are justified in calling them
> > 'successful' if that's what you mean.
>
> > It's very hard to transfer your
> > personal feelings from yourself to an audience.
>
> ...as you are trying to achieve with "Waffle Boy" (among others)?
I wasn't. Not at all. That was, I thought, the obvious point. You try
to. I don't try to. I know better. You may succeed with that where I
have not (though I'm not optimistic). My point was that it's very
difficult to do, to transfer your affection for someone into a picture
of that someone so that it resonates with someone else ***in the same
way***. You have to disassociate yourself from that affection to make
that happen. That's the hard part. You have to discover and touch the
'universal', not the particular.
> > Many of your photos
> > don't do anything for me.
>
> Ditto.
The point is trying to undertsand WHY that's so, don't you agree? I
think I know, and this is discussed below. The fact that many people
DO like many of the pictures I have shown here speaks for itself,
however. It means I have connected with them on some level. When I
said many of yours don't do anything for me, I meant 'NOT as a
photographer'. Speaking 'as a photographer', they're just fine. The
point of view you're taking with my photos is different from the one
I'm taking of yours. So, when I say some of them don't do anything for
me, I mean 'as a person', not 'as a photographer'.
> >They're not BAD, mind you, but they're not
> > 'special' in any way, for the most part, meaning something that
> > impresses me, and that's what I want to see: something 'special'. That
> > ability is indeed very difficult to master. I would say indeed that
> > PURGING personal associations from your work and seeing the image on
> > the ground glass AS AN IMAGE ITSELF is the first step in this process,
> > and one that I learned long ago to do. When I photograph, I photograph
> > the image I see on the ground glass, not the subject. I 'take a
> > picture of the picture',
>
> From my perspective, your attempts at artistic photography lack both windows
> AND mirrors.
Because you've been comparing them to a 'commercial' standard. They're
generally not intended to be that. There are many PJ photos taken of
what may be termed 'everyday' activities that are regarded highly and
published with great fanfare.
Take, for example, 'Italian Summer' by Claude Nori. You'll find dozens
of photos of everyday Italian summer activities and people on the
beach, etc.
Some are in color, some in B&W. I ask you to take a look at this sort
of work before criticizing mine ***because of**** what the person in
my photo is doing. It's irrelevant to the merits of the photo. It's a
study in light, shadow, and tone. Period. I can show you virtually
identical photos published by photojournalists of great renown (not
that I was deliberately copying them.) I found one just last month
that has a great deal of similarity. It's of a man smoking a
cigarette. I'll scan it and send it to you.
If it's any consolation, my tenure in commercial photography was
short-lived. I'm just not a commercial photographer. I did VERY well
in AV, though. There were rave reviews by the clients. The money just
was insufficient for me to continue.
> > if you can follow what I'm saying. I don't
> > see your work exhibiting this....yet. When it happens, when you begin
> > to see your images as images FIRST, then I think the breakthrough will
> > come, from merely 'not bad' to something 'positive'.
>
> Your comments here are are quite close to fighting words, but not in this
> forum.
There is a difference, a fundamental one, between the way we (you and
I) see and make images. I have cultivated my way of making images for
40 years. I make them ***exactly*** the way I want. There are no
'mistakes', though there are 'failures'.
> > I hope that this explains perhaps why you and I see our photographs
> > differently. I try NOT to rely upon personal associations in them, but
> > rather something that will interest someone else.
>
> Certainly you have failed in this respect.
Maybe with you. Not with many others. You'll note that that photo was
singled out by someone in a headphone forum who like it a lot:
"Wow, those pictures are beautiful, Mike. You really do have a soul.
Try to express it more here and don't be so damned analytical. BTW, #1
(pouring syrup) is my favorite.
Peace and nighty night,
Bob"
That doesn't make you 'wrong'. I think your training has just made it
difficult. You have to take that into consideration.
Now, perhaps I'm better at 'reaching' people ***other than
photographers***. They are, after all, MY target audience. I think
sometime photographers who try to impress other photographers are
missing the point of their enterprise. It's kind of like film-makers
who put into their movies oblique references to seldom-seen, obscure
films that only ***other*** film-makers have seen since 1954. It's
kind of like an 'inside joke'. It's supposed to impress us, I guess,
that you've seen the first version of 'Razor's Edge' (the one with
Tyrone Power) and can quote from 'Sunset Boulevard', 'Nosferatu', or
'The Cabinet of Dr Cagilgari'.
Am I making any sense here? What I'm saying is that it matters as much
or more to me that some of my pictures resonate more with
non-photographers than with photographers. Other film-makers don't buy
millions of tickets to any film, so trying to impress them is reaching
for the wrong audience (at least in one sense). Of course I would be
delighted if other photographers like them too.
Michael Scarpitti
That's not your place to say.
JJS
Maybe you could move this conversation to rec.photo.technique.arts.