Mega Leaps
Lewis Lang
improving your photography. Here are some of mine:
- "You've made some beautiful images, now go make some images that
meaningsomething": this is what Duane Michals (surrealistic black and white
fine art photographer who's work I appreciated) said to me in 1988 (after
viewing my work (which consisted of at that point PJ, fashion and lots of
personal work that is hard to classify) up till then as part of a slide show of
the class's portfolios at a seminar I took w/ him) and after hearing that my
mind and vision opened up and "just beautiful" wasn't enough for me (in my own
or other's photography) I saw that I wanted to make meaningful statements w/ my
photography.
- The (full frame) fisheye lens: from the moment I saw through one I knew this
was "home" and not just a gimmick for me. Also, I instantaneously (or
thereabouts) knew how to compose with it (see next item)...
- Learning how to compose by "seeing in shapes": whether negative or positive
shapes/space this has helped me compose first easily, regardless of lens in use
but its an especially useful "technique" for wide angle photography (and even
more so for fisheye photography).
- "Test Drive A Leica": back about 1983?, whilst I was living in Canada
Henry's? camera store I believe had a test program that allowed you to borrow a
Leica M4-P and various M lenses (also in the same program I believe I tested
the R4 and 28 Elmarit, 50mm Summilux and 135mm Elmarit). Since then "good
quality" was never good enough. It gave me an appreciation not only for fine
equipment but more importantly for extremely high quality 35mm lenses and the
3D subtle higher format tonality of Leica/Zeiss/Schneider/etc. lenses
- Nikon F3HP viewfinder: finally a viewfinder where I didn't have to scrunch my
eye and/or move my head to see the edges/corners. Everything right in front of
me like seeing a canvas at a distance. Finaly I could compose like a painting
by seeing the entire image _easily_ at once. This viewfinder is one of the
reasons I ping ponged between Nikon and Leica M during the 1980's and early
'90s - the former had good to excellent lenses and very sharp zooms that could
make it to 16x20" enlargements whilst the latter had a lousy viewfinder
eyepoint, especially for wide angle lenses and those who wore glasses like me,
but had lenses literally from another realm when it came to
tonality/micro-contrast w/ results that could easily be blown up to 30x40" (I
have, from both Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25) and larger (I've seen enlargement
up to about 4x6', that's right _feet_ or larger w/ superlative results from I
believ ethe 35mm f/2 Summicron w/ Leica M and flash shot on Ektar 25 by someone
else, it used to hang in a photo store called Conklings in Oregon in the early
'90's)) w/o falling apart. It was a difficult decision but in the end I ended
up w/ sort of a "non-compromise compromise" - a Contax 167MT that had a long
eyepoint w/ extremely high quality Zeiss lenses. But occaisionally I do pine
for a Leica M or an F3T again ;-)
- Bokeh: (I can alread hear the laughing... here come the bad bokeh jokes/puns
;-))... there was an article (actually several) in the May/June '97 issue on
this subject that turned me onto the oof characteristics of various lenses and
made me not only more aware of this but skewed my photography from an f/16
large depth of field aproach to an f/4 and below selective focus approach
(though I still do the f/16 bit when I need to/want to).
- An art show in 1987 on surrealism, my photography has not been "normal" since
;-). Another example of finding "home" :-). I still have the catalog from
it/the show "THE LEGACY OF SURREALISM IN CONTEMPORARY ART." (Sorry I don't lend
this out or make copies ;-()
- Meeting Roger Hicks (author of The 35mm Panorama and numerous other photo
books and author at Shutterbug/etc.). I believe I met him at Dels' camera. Told
him I read and appreciated his book (it was sort of a photographic bible of how
to get quality/what quality you could get w/ 35mm equipment) and ended up
showing him my work (smaller portfolio plus some 30x40" prints that blew him
away). This led to some of my work being published in "Successful Black and
White Photogrpahy" (now out of print I believe) by Roger as well as being
included in several of the Pro-Lighting books on lighting techniques (both him
and his wife, Frances Schultz were editors towards the beginning of the book
series and both continue to write for Shutterbug I believe). This association
also led me to write a couple of articles that were published in Shutterbug.
Not bad for "one 'chance' meeting" hanging out in a camera shop, eh? :-)
- Digital.... NOT! Well at least not at the moment and not for right now. Too
expensive to get into for me and then there's the whole longevity
"archivalness" bit - don't get me started on another counter to the "FILM IS
DEAD" thread ;-) *Though I will have to say, I used my friends' D30 and it was
fun, especially when I didn't have to pay a cent to use it. Unfortunately he
lives in Scottland and th commute is a killer one from New Jersey ;-).
- Santa Barbara, California: I taught myself how to do fine art photography by
taking out up to 80? some odd books from the Brooks Institute (a photo
school/boot camp whose style of photography at the time consisted of commercial
work, theme assemblages and a style of portraiture that seemed dated when
Mortensen was doing it in the 1940's) Library (which became my own school w/i a
school when I realised that I wanted to do fine art/personal photography and
Brooks had nothing to teach me but a lot of techniques that I already knew and
how to bracket on three films and Polaroids in 4x5" in 1/3 stops and how to go
broke doing it... but that's another story/nightmare the length of Lawrence of
Arabia w/o intermission ;-) - this is not really a leap so much as I miss the
place very much (I consider it a second if not first home) - boy do I miss it!
:-) :-)
There are probably many others I'm leaving out but I'd like to hear the
responses of others too (even if your mega leaps are only semi-mega leaps or
frosted mini-leaps ;-)).
This post:
Š 2002 Lewis Lang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (Hmmm, yes, I do love my copyrights, yum,
yum ,yum...)
Regards,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
McLeod
Bulldog!" I don't remember the exact wording used but didn't they call it
the biggest pile of Lewiscrap they had ever seen?
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020204085457...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Erika Jonsson
> I was just curious what equipment and/or ideas are responsible for massively
> improving your photography.
Digital camera with many pixels.
--
Best wishes,
ERIKA
Charo
quite a bit of thought (damn you!) ;-) In no particular order... (except
the order in which they "came to me"):
~ Oversized eye cup for EOS 3. Wow, what a huge difference that made! Not
only am I now able to view the *whole* viewfinder without smudging my
glasses, but I can also cut out (nearly) all stray light... this enabled me
to compose more aesthetically, more the way I envisioned the image, rather
than the way it turned out because of a big smudge mark in the way.
~ Developing/printing my own b&w. This put me more "in touch" with my
photography, gave it a personal tone, made it ALL MINE... and, in doing so,
made me more aware of what I was doing, more aware of the final step, the
outcome, rather than just the instant capture of an image... in other words,
doing my own developing/printing enabled me to "see" the entire *process*
rather than just the shot. This gives my b&w images, imo, more depth....
there's more of me in the pictures now. That's what I strive for.
~ Fixed focal length lenses. Forcing myself to use a 50mm, when I ached for
a zoom. A perfect study in composition, in "zooming with your feet", in
fitting the moment, or the image, into the viewfinder without sacrificing a
crucial element (or at least trying to do that!). There are all kinds of
reasons ffl lenses helped me, but composition is probably the most
important.
~ Inheriting that old Petri FTEE with its 55mm lens. I force myself to use
the old manual stuff from time to time, and I find that the images I make
with the Petri seem to be better executed than the ones I make with a
whizz-bang autofocus gizmo. I guess there's more planning that goes into
manually focusing, stopping down, exposing... so I try to bring the
'psychology' of using the Petri over to using the Canons.
~ The Kiev 60 - I still haven't bought a battery for the prism light meter,
probably because a) I know it won't work well anyway; and b) I'm having a
blast guessing exposure.... sure, it's expensive to mess up, but it's SO
rewarding to get one correctly exposed, it makes up for all the failures!
Naturally, I use a starting point (one of the Canons), but I guess from
there. The square format gives me endless compositional possibilities. I
don't use this camera often enough, but I can see its limitations giving me
a HUGE learning opportunity.
~ Ansel Adams The Print & The Negative. Once I started with my home
darkroom, and began understanding my own exposures with better depth of
process/thought, I could appreciate fully those two books by Adams. If I
had picked up either one of those books prior to building my darkroom, I
probably would have left them on a shelf somewhere, covered in dust. Not
that his methods apply to what I do entirely, but I think the best lesson
learned from Adams is the thought process, the psychology - not so much the
method. At least, that's where I'm at this week.
~ 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5. A challenging lens to shoot with, and a pure pleasure
to look through. Images I make with this lens are usually quite bad - I am
either trying too hard, or not seeing well enough. But I am still *very*
much "in love" with this lens, despite my own shortcomings! This lens has
taught me more about dof and perspective than I could have ever learned with
the other lenses in my collection, combined.
~ I've not started using it yet, but I just purchased a Vivitar 285 flash,
for my Kiev & other manual cameras (and as a back-up to the 550EX). I am a
real dunce when it comes to artificial lighting, and try as I may, I can't
seem to learn anything with the E-TTL flash features... something's not
clicking. I don't have many flash photography opportunities, either, or I
don't _make_ any opportunities, and this keeps my knowledge at nil. So, I
plan to start using the all-manual cameras along with this mostly-manual
flash to "force" myself to learn lighting the hard way. At least, I hope
that will be the outcome! For some reason, flash photography has been the
hardest, most incomprehensible part of learning for me. I believe acquiring
a more user-UNfriendly flash to pair with my decidedly user-unfriendly
bodies will be a good first step toward learning the fundamentals that I can
build on with technology.
That's all I can come up with for now, but I may be back later to add on to
my list! Thanks for asking, Lewis -- this has given me an opportunity to
look back at what I've done, and what steps really helped me mature, versus
the steps that just made me look cooler, or made my life easier (vertical
grips, monopods, etc). I hope you get some really insightful responses to
your question!
~Charo
Gordon Moat
getting my art degree. Improving my drawing and painting skills has greatly
improved the level of my photographic images.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Robert Monaghan
yes, I've added over 600 art books to my library in the last 3+ years (and
many more photo books too, over a book a day..). Taking many seminars on
art and programs has helped develop a more artistic eye IMHO. Adding many
photo books and nature photo books has helped develop my photo composition
too.
panoramics such as my horizon 202s and veriwide 100 provide a new
dimension in composition and challenges in dealing with these optics...
I just picked up 260 b/w polaroid 667 film sheets for some LF work I want
to do; this will probably be a growing interest once I get a darkroom
space access, but for now, I'll have to use pos/neg polaroids and develop
the negative in 18% sulfite for archival use...
most liberating event has been my blind lens test series, discovering that
with good technique modern medium format lenses were so good on most pro
level cameras that even I couldn't tell which lens took which photo ;-)
(see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/blind.html etc.).
I will probably refurbish my photoshop skills, with a class coming up. I
have older versions on both macs and PCs. The lack of campus accessible
film scanners (esp med fmt) makes it hard to transition to full digital,
but at least I can build up the software skills area and experiment in
digital image manipulation more...
grins bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html *
Lewis Lang
>From: "McLeod" cer...@mb.sympatico.ca
>Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002 3:09 PM
>Message-id: <Wqx78.17897$qN3.1...@news1.mts.net>
>
>Hey, Lewis! The only photograph I've seen of yours published was "Hey
>Bulldog!" I don't remember the exact wording used but didn't they call
>it
>the biggest pile of Lewiscrap they had ever seen?
No, they didn't. Besides some rather inane remarks they said:
"Surreal corner again. It's truly amazing what people get up to with their
cameras behind closed doors."…
WILLIAM CHEUNG (Writing about my photograph "HEY BULLDOG!") -
PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHY (A British Publication)
…"Lewis, I think it's time for another visit to your analyst.
Mind you, I'm sure they said the same thing about Picasso and Dali.
Genius or deranged lunatic? You decide. I haven't got a
bloody clue."
JOHN SOOTHERAN (Writing about my photograph "HEY BULLDOG!") -
PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHY (A British Publication)
You obviously haven't seen many Pro-Lighting books as my work is in several of
these.
Just exactly what is your point/intentions here except perhaps to be rude and
idiotic? Are you trolling here?
McLeod
that's possible.
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020204203008...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
> >From: "McLeod" cer...@mb.sympatico.ca
> >Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002 3:09 PM
> >Message-id: <Wqx78.17897$qN3.1...@news1.mts.net>
> >
> >Hey, Lewis! The only photograph I've seen of yours published was "Hey
> >Bulldog!" I don't remember the exact wording used but didn't they call
> >it
> >the biggest pile of Lewiscrap they had ever seen?
>
> No, they didn't. Besides some rather inane remarks they said:
>
> "Surreal corner again. It's truly amazing what people get up to with their
> cameras behind closed doors.".
>
> WILLIAM CHEUNG (Writing about my photograph "HEY BULLDOG!") -
> PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHY (A British Publication)
>
> ."Lewis, I think it's time for another visit to your analyst.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <ZRH78.17971$qN3.1...@news1.mts.net>
>
>Nope.
Yep.
Just trying to let a little air out of the Lewisego but I don't think
>that's possible.
Let some air out of your own ego McLeod you trouble- making troll.
What's my ego to you? Why should you care one way or the other? You just want
to put me down. Your "noble intentions" are just a camouflage for you
being/acting like a jerk. Maybe I have a right to be proud of what I've
accomplished. Who are you to try to take that away from me? And again, why
should that matter to you? You can detract my work, but that still doesn't
affectits quality or value. It just shows you for what you are, a jealous moron
who craves attention and is envious when others justifiably receive attention
for their work and therfore must try to tear it/them down. Still, what's my ego
to you? Who died and left you psychiatrist? Are you afraid of other's
achievements? Must you put other's work or ego down to inflate your own pitiful
ego? What difference should it make to you what I _truthfully_ claim to have
accomplished? What I said wasn't boasting, it was the truth - they were
verifiable facts. Facts I am proud of. Why should the rightful pride of
accomplishment of others incite you to want to rip them and their work apart? I
have the right to be satisfied w//proud of my accomplishments. If you can't
stand that then let some air out of your own inflated head/ego and find some
other thread/posters to annoy w/ your off topic slaggings.
You're just a troll who has added _nothing_ of value to this thread but the
self- gratification you get from ribbing/ripping on other's
work/accomplishments which is, I might add, also not the topic of this thread
but mega leaps in photography, so you are not only being a jerk but an off
topic jerk and so yes, being an off topic jerk makes you a troll. Those are
also not only opinions but facts too. You've tried to put down me because you
don't like it when someone else gets or claims positive attention. Then you
hide behind the halo of actually trying to help me by letting a little air out
from my "ego." Well, leggo my eg(g)o and tend to your own "problems" which you
seem to have more than you realise.
I could go on explaining to you why I think you're acting like a jerk in hopes
you'd understand but, to use your own spiteful words... I "don't think that's
possible."
You obviously have nothing to contribute to this thread so please accept my
invitation to get lost. Permanently.
****P*L*O*N*K*****!!!
Have a nice day :-) What? I can't hear you...
Lewis Lang
Comments follow in-line...
>Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
>From: "Charo" ch...@ec.rr.com
>Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002 6:05 PM
>Message-id: <u5tjfql...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Good question Lewis... and, as usual for your questions, this one requires
>quite a bit of thought (damn you!) ;-)
Uh, thanks? ;-)
In no particular order... (except
>the order in which they "came to me"):
>
>~ Oversized eye cup for EOS 3. Wow, what a huge difference that made!
>Not
>only am I now able to view the *whole* viewfinder without smudging my
>glasses, but I can also cut out (nearly) all stray light... this enabled
>me
>to compose more aesthetically, more the way I envisioned the image, rather
>than the way it turned out because of a big smudge mark in the way.
>
Why? Does the eyecup allow your eye/eyeglasses to come even closer to the
eye-piece than the regular eye cup and therefor allow yout to see more of the
screen?
Does the oversized eyecup present a problem/get in the way of the film door
swinging open or closed during film changes too?
Do you mean by "smudging your glasses" actually "squishing your glasses flat
against the eye cup" instead or do you mean by"smudging your glasses" that
somehow w/ the old eyecup you got nose grease or some other type of residue on
the eyecup by perhaps trying to press your face/eyeglasses to close tothe eye
cup?
>~ Developing/printing my own b&w. This put me more "in touch" with my
>photography, gave it a personal tone, made it ALL MINE... and, in doing
>so,
>made me more aware of what I was doing, more aware of the final step, the
>outcome, rather than just the instant capture of an image... in other words,
>doing my own developing/printing enabled me to "see" the entire *process*
>rather than just the shot. This gives my b&w images, imo, more depth....
>there's more of me in the pictures now. That's what I strive for.
>
Sometimes in order to speed ahead you've got to slow down ;-)
>~ Fixed focal length lenses. Forcing myself to use a 50mm, when I ached
>for
>a zoom. A perfect study in composition, in "zooming with your feet", in
>fitting the moment, or the image, into the viewfinder without sacrificing
>a
>crucial element (or at least trying to do that!). There are all kinds of
>reasons ffl lenses helped me, but composition is probably the most
>important.
>
I remebered this too just after I sent my first post to this thread. I too have
been using my 50mm lens more as a compositional aid focuser (in the sense of it
forces me to focus on making the composition much less than any qualities
inherent in the lens). I started out w/ a 50mm and I've been thinking for quite
a while how I'm using it again as one of if not my main lens and how after
almost 20 years of photography everything is coming full circle again, not only
in the choice to use the 50mm lens to improve my compositional abilities but my
preference for manual focus (when time/situation allows) which forces me to
slow down and deepen my thinking for different compositional possibilities
(frames, angles, etc.) much as using a cropping easel in the enlarger to come
out w/ the best final composition w/i the image also makes your eye/mind more
aware of all the compositional possiblities besides the one chosen in the
viewfinder at the time you took the shot.
>~ Inheriting that old Petri FTEE with its 55mm lens. I force myself to
>use
>the old manual stuff from time to time, and I find that the images I make
>with the Petri seem to be better executed than the ones I make with a
>whizz-bang autofocus gizmo.
My equivalent of your manual exposure is aperture priority w/ AE lock but I
know what you mean, you take time to consider why you are choosing to use the a
particular aperture/shutterspeed and depth of field vs. motion/freeze frame
effects possible w/ these expsoure controls.
I guess there's more planning that goes into
>manually focusing, stopping down, exposing... so I try to bring the
>'psychology' of using the Petri over to using the Canons.
>
Same deal, but going from Maxxums to Contax MF (manual focus not medium
format).
>~ The Kiev 60 - I still haven't bought a battery for the prism light meter,
>probably because a) I know it won't work well anyway; and b) I'm having
>a
>blast guessing exposure.... sure, it's expensive to mess up, but it's SO
>rewarding to get one correctly exposed, it makes up for all the failures!
>Naturally, I use a starting point (one of the Canons), but I guess from
>there. The square format gives me endless compositional possibilities.
Have you considered using the film box's table and going from there (I know
35mm has this but I wonder if there is an instruction sheet in your 120 film
box that does the same)? Also, you can use the sunny f/16 rule (1 over the
IS.O. speed of the film at f/16 on a sunny day as your base expsoure, adjusting
from there for different lighting conditions such as back lighting, shade,
etc.).
> I
>don't use this camera often enough, but I can see its limitations giving
>me
>a HUGE learning opportunity.
>
If you really want to be "limited" try a Holga (120 almost toy-like plastic
fantastic low tech camera) which I believe has only sunny and cloudy positions
for its "exposure settings" and a fixed shutter speed :-). I've heard LOMOs are
fun too (35mm equivalents of the Holga but slightly more advanced
technologically).
>~ Ansel Adams The Print & The Negative. Once I started with my home
>darkroom, and began understanding my own exposures with better depth of
>process/thought, I could appreciate fully those two books by Adams. If
>I
>had picked up either one of those books prior to building my darkroom, I
>probably would have left them on a shelf somewhere, covered in dust. Not
>that his methods apply to what I do entirely, but I think the best lesson
>learned from Adams is the thought process, the psychology - not so much
>the
>method. At least, that's where I'm at this week.
>
Could you be more specific on this "thought process"? :-)
>~ 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5. A challenging lens to shoot with, and a pure pleasure
>to look through. Images I make with this lens are usually quite bad - I
>am
>either trying too hard, or not seeing well enough. But I am still *very*
>much "in love" with this lens, despite my own shortcomings! This lens has
>taught me more about dof and perspective than I could have ever learned
>with
>the other lenses in my collection, combined.
>
Keep practicing w/ it, you'll learn not only those situations it works best for
but how to compose despite its/your limitations w/ it (ie. finding signficant
subjects to place in the foreground, framing, leading lines, composing in
shapes (my favorite), etc.).
>~ I've not started using it yet, but I just purchased a Vivitar 285 flash,
>for my Kiev & other manual cameras (and as a back-up to the 550EX). I am
>a
>real dunce when it comes to artificial lighting, and try as I may, I can't
>seem to learn anything with the E-TTL flash features... something's not
>clicking. I don't have many flash photography opportunities, either, or
>I
>don't _make_ any opportunities, and this keeps my knowledge at nil. So,
>I
>plan to start using the all-manual cameras along with this mostly-manual
>flash to "force" myself to learn lighting the hard way. At least, I hope
>that will be the outcome! For some reason, flash photography has been the
>hardest, most incomprehensible part of learning for me. I believe acquiring
>a more user-UNfriendly flash to pair with my decidedly user-unfriendly
>bodies will be a good first step toward learning the fundamentals that I
>can
>build on with technology.
>
Yes, definitely. Also you might want to ask/order Canon to send you some of its
brochures that go into detail on how to work w/ their EOS speedlight system.
The first brochure is called "Flash Work Taking Great Pictures with Canon
Speedlites." The second brochure is called "Canon EOS-3 The Triumph. A victory
for photography" (their titles not mine - I particularly reccommend pgs. 16-21
of this EOS-3 brochure).
Also try Canon's website, yahoo e-groups! and for really complicated questions
perhaps Chuck Westfall himself (Canon tech rep I believe). And of course keep
shooting/testing and taking notes, not only w/ the Vivitar flash but w/ your
Canon Speedlite (you've gotta learn it someday, better now thne when you might
really need it for an event or somesuch).
>That's all I can come up with for now, but I may be back later to add on
>to
>my list! Thanks for asking, Lewis -- this has given me an opportunity to
>look back at what I've done, and what steps really helped me mature, versus
>the steps that just made me look cooler, or made my life easier (vertical
>grips, monopods, etc). I hope you get some really insightful responses
>to
>your question!
>
>~Charo
Thanks and double thanks Charo. :-)
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>From: Gordon Moat mo...@attglobal.net
>Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002 6:42 PM
>Message-id: <3C5ED5F7...@attglobal.net>
>
>My biggest improvement came from becoming formally trained as an artist,
>and
>getting my art degree. Improving my drawing and painting skills has greatly
>improved the level of my photographic images.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
Gordon:
Did you receive your art training befor or after you started doing photography?
How has your drawing/painting skills affected your photography (do you do
sketches of compositions beforehand, have a more trained eye about
compositional possibilities, something else)? Was it difficult making the
transition from sketching to seeing w/ a camera since photography already (for
the most part unless you do staged work and/or still lifes) has the elements in
front of your camera usually as opposed to a sketch pad where you might be
starting w/ a tabla rasa/blank pad?
TIA
Lewis Lang
Comments follow in-line...
>Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
>From: rmon...@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
>Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002 11:27 PM
>Message-id: <a3n5ch$shs$1...@post.cis.smu.edu>
>
>
>yes, I've added over 600 art books to my library in the last 3+ years (and
>
>many more photo books too, over a book a day..).
You sound like your own branch of the public library (or a starter Barnes &
Nobles' super store) :-)
Taking many seminars on
>
>art and programs has helped develop a more artistic eye IMHO. Adding many
>
>photo books and nature photo books has helped develop my photo composition
>
>too.
>
>panoramics such as my horizon 202s and veriwide 100 provide a new
>dimension in composition and challenges in dealing with these optics...
>
>I just picked up 260 b/w polaroid 667 film sheets for some LF work I want
>
>to do; this will probably be a growing interest once I get a darkroom
>space access, but for now, I'll have to use pos/neg polaroids and develop
>
>the negative in 18% sulfite for archival use...
>
>most liberating event has been my blind lens test series, discovering that
>
>with good technique modern medium format lenses were so good on most pro
>
>level cameras that even I couldn't tell which lens took which photo ;-)
>(see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/blind.html etc.).
>
I could tell the difference between Bronic and Carl Zeiss medium format lenses
(a friend showed me his double blind test back in my photo school days) but I
may be one of those exceptions that proves the rule (also, having spent years
w/ various 35mm systems I know what to look for in a lens's "signature"). But
if you can't tell the difference then that certainly saves you a lot of money!
:-). But in all fairness, past a certain point your talking about degrees of
excellence rather than excellent vs. very good vs. good vs. fair vs. poor image
quality. Format/larger square inches is a great leveler of picture quality and
at smaller sizes you'd have to have a pretty poor medium format lens to notice
anything being awry or even care. At least to the average/casual person, when
you are comparing the flaws of two quality diamonds (medium format lens vs/
medium format lens) you're still looking at diamonds (not blackened opaque
lumps of coal) no matter what brands of lenses you're looking at.
>I will probably refurbish my photoshop skills, with a class coming up. I
>
>have older versions on both macs and PCs. The lack of campus accessible
>
>film scanners (esp med fmt) makes it hard to transition to full digital,
>
>but at least I can build up the software skills area and experiment in
>digital image manipulation more...
>
>grins bobm
>--
Gordon Moat
scanning.
Since you try so many varying formats, I would imagine you sometimes use
cropping. Creative cropping can provide very interesting results. Also, cropping
and compositing in PhotoShop can yield interesting digital results.
Check the latest PDN (with Picasso on the cover) for some great articles about
famous cropped images. Also, check out Dan Burckholder, and his techniques of
digitally manipulated platinum prints.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http:/www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
> Did you receive your art training befor or after you started doing photography?
Actually, the formal training was after several years of photography, including
paid professional shooting. Most of my early shooting was at race tracks. My first
start in photography was when I was very little, and was given a camera to play
with. I took to it quickly, and was handed a very old Rollei TLR, and a Leica IIIf
(with small circular shaped light meter) to learn a bit more. My grandmother
taught me to take my time with composing a shot, and gave me my basic ideas of
framing.
>
> How has your drawing/painting skills affected your photography (do you do
> sketches of compositions beforehand, have a more trained eye about
> compositional possibilities, something else)?
I have been drawing my entire life, so the skills were already there. I badly
broke my left hand, and gave up for a couple years, but still used a camera. Then
I taught myself to draw with my right hand, and went to college. My early drawing
was influenced by the ways I had been composing photos.
After a couple semesters, my drawing/painting skills led me to explore various
aspect ratios in my images (often cropped). I tended to see the entire composition
prior to using the camera. Much of my photography at that time was studies for
paintings, or images used as composites for paintings. A few of my paintings
started to incorporate my photos as part of the composition, in the form of photos
pasted onto the canvas.
I was doing much more drawing and illustration work than photography. I added some
design work, and occasionally shot music events. I also had formal photography
classes, though these were structured a bit more than my other art classes.
> Was it difficult making the
> transition from sketching to seeing w/ a camera since photography already (for
> the most part unless you do staged work and/or still lifes) has the elements in
> front of your camera usually as opposed to a sketch pad where you might be
> starting w/ a tabla rasa/blank pad?
The most frustrating aspect is the limitations of format, ratio and composition. I
staged shots anyway, though they never look like they are staged. I do not do any
nature morte, since I find them boring. I try to tell stories with my images, both
painted and photographed. The stories are up to the viewer to imagine, and I hope
they are stories that do not end, and provoke thought.
Painting allows you to alter the canvas and composition as you go. Photography
tends to be much more rigid, but it does not need to be that way. I like to use
unnatural scale (sometimes larger than life) and crop to unbalance and lead the
eye of the viewer. These explorations of visual storytelling are much easier with
painting than photography. Ideally, I would just have one continuous, borderless
canvas to work on for the rest of my life, but instead I have small pieces of
stories of life.
I explored the influence of movies on culture, both western and non-western. That
resulted in a series of paintings about the movies. All of those paintings are a
bit large, and involve lots of variable scale compositions.
I had thought the variable scale and compositions were not as flexible in
photography, but print making allows some similar experimenting. I learned some
techniques that allow scanned images to come together as new images, without the
technique being visible as differentiated from a normal photograph. To paraphrase
Cindy Sherman, the camera lies.
The sketch pad and canvas both have a discernible edge, but this should not be
seen as a limitation. It is possible to lead the eye off the canvas/print and
thereby extend the boundaries of the format. Besides, the images are in front of
you, and the painting/drawing/photo is just a way to share that story with others.
Images can be boundless and limitless, though it is just as valid to confine them,
or perhaps only partially confine them.
Hope that does not seem too odd an explanation. Being an artist is a way of
looking at the world. It is not just a day job, or for a given moment. My every
waking hour involves looking at the world and experiencing as much as I can. I
wish I had more time to produce more, and then have more to share. To me it is a
way of life, and only recently has it been financially possible to only make a
living from my creativity.
Lewis Lang
Comments follow in-line...
VARIOUS SNIPS
>I was doing much more drawing and illustration work than photography. I
>added some
>design work, and occasionally shot music events. I also had formal photography
>classes, though these were structured a bit more than my other art classes.
>
How has this ratio of drawing to photography changed now vs. your earlier days?
>The most frustrating aspect is the limitations of format, ratio and
composition.
>I
>staged shots anyway, though they never look like they are staged. I do not
>do any
>nature morte, since I find them boring. I try to tell stories with my images,
>both
>painted and photographed. The stories are up to the viewer to imagine, and
>I hope
>they are stories that do not end, and provoke thought.
>
You sound like me :-) Even my still lifes have to be narrative (and/or have
narrative/situational elements to them). I think all still lifes/"nature morte"
(particularly w/ various friuts arranged in bowls on a table like
pseudo-Cezannes) should be shot, but not w/ a camera!
>Painting allows you to alter the canvas and composition as you go. Photography
>tends to be much more rigid, but it does not need to be that way. I like
>to use
>unnatural scale (sometimes larger than life) and crop to unbalance and lead
>the
>eye of the viewer. These explorations of visual storytelling are much easier
>with
>painting than photography. Ideally, I would just have one continuous,
borderless
>canvas to work on for the rest of my life, but instead I have small pieces
>of
>stories of life.
>
Why the personal preference for the borderless images?
>I explored the influence of movies on culture, both western and non-western.
>That
>resulted in a series of paintings about the movies. All of those paintings
>are a
>bit large, and involve lots of variable scale compositions.
>
Sounds interesting.
>I had thought the variable scale and compositions were not as flexible in
>photography, but print making allows some similar experimenting. I learned
>some
>techniques that allow scanned images to come together as new images, without
>the
>technique being visible as differentiated from a normal photograph. To
paraphrase
>Cindy Sherman, the camera lies.
>
Techniques... shadows, matching lighting directions between elements,
coloring/toning disparate elements w/ same/similar colors, etc.?
>The sketch pad and canvas both have a discernible edge, but this should
>not be
>seen as a limitation. It is possible to lead the eye off the canvas/print
>and
>thereby extend the boundaries of the format.
Do you mean by this cropping into people/objects at the edges and/or divergent
lines that lead the eye out of the composition?
Besides, the images are in
>front of
>you, and the painting/drawing/photo is just a way to share that story with
>others.
>Images can be boundless and limitless, though it is just as valid to confine
>them,
>or perhaps only partially confine them.
>
I've heard of some artists who continue the painting beyond the canvas and onto
the frame, is that what you do or do you mean something else by "partially
confine them"?
>Hope that does not seem too odd an explanation. Being an artist is a way
>of
>looking at the world. It is not just a day job, or for a given moment. My
>every
>waking hour involves looking at the world and experiencing as much as I
>can. I
>wish I had more time to produce more, and then have more to share. To me
>it is a
>way of life, and only recently has it been financially possible to only
>make a
>living from my creativity.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
><http://www.allgstudio.com>
What is the majority of your living made by, design/illustration, painting, or
photography?
Thanks and TIA
Regards,
McLeod
(insert famous photographer's name here) and then bought my mega bucks
camera (like the Fabulous EOS 1-V!) and then got my friends to publish me in
their books. It wasn't all that hard though, since I was born with an
artistes eye and with a wide angle lens attached to my eye socket.
(insert signature block with link to my website)
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020205013733...@mb-fs.aol.com...
Charo
Snipped for (clarity? bandwidth?):
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020205021307...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Hi Charo:
>
> Comments follow in-line...
>
<SNIP>
> >~ Oversized eye cup for EOS 3. (snip)> >
>
> Why? Does the eyecup allow your eye/eyeglasses to come even closer to the
> eye-piece than the regular eye cup and therefor allow yout to see more of
the
> screen?
Yes. The eyecup allows me to get even closer to the eye-piece, without
smushing my glasses against my eyes, causing mascara smudges -- sure, I
could get away with NOT wearing mascara, but what fun would that be? :)
Plus, the eyecup blocks most of the stray light, giving me an even
better/easier view of the entire viewfinder.
>
> Does the oversized eyecup present a problem/get in the way of the film
door
> swinging open or closed during film changes too?
Yes it does. You must remove the eyecup to change film. This is pretty
cumbersome; thus, I wouldn't use the oversized eyecup in a rush-type
environment (like a wedding). For almost any other shooting activity, the
extra few seconds it takes to remove eyecup - change film - replace eyecup
doesn't hinder the shooting.
>
> Do you mean by "smudging your glasses" actually "squishing your glasses
flat
> against the eye cup" instead or do you mean by"smudging your glasses" that
> somehow w/ the old eyecup you got nose grease or some other type of
residue on
> the eyecup by perhaps trying to press your face/eyeglasses to close tothe
eye
> cup?
Yes. ;-)
On both counts: the glasses would get smushed against the eyepiece (not the
new eyecup), and on particularly hot and sweaty days (fairly common in the
South), stray perspiration smudges the outside of my glasses as it gets
caught between the eyepiece and my glasses lens. Additionally, the eyepiece
would tend to fog up, as my glasses were too close to the eyepiece,
especially on the hottest of days. I also ended up with smudges on the
inside of my glasses lens, due to mascara/sweat/oil from my face/eye
pressing right up against my glasses to get as close to the viewfinder as
possible. The eyecup allows me to stay far enough away from the viewfinder
to completely avoid these problems, thus giving me a _cleaner_ photographic
experience!
<SNIP>
> >~ The Kiev 60 - (snip).
>
> Have you considered using the film box's table and going from there (I
know
> 35mm has this but I wonder if there is an instruction sheet in your 120
film
> box that does the same)? Also, you can use the sunny f/16 rule (1 over the
> IS.O. speed of the film at f/16 on a sunny day as your base expsoure,
adjusting
> from there for different lighting conditions such as back lighting, shade,
> etc.).
>
I usually buy my 120 film from the fridge at my local shop, and it typically
comes right out of a pro-pack, so I don't get the pleasure of having the box
to look at. Last time I did check one out, I don't think it had the table
printed inside, but I could be wrong. I'll definitely remember this next
time, thanks for the tip!
<SNIP>>
> If you really want to be "limited" try a Holga (120 almost toy-like
plastic
> fantastic low tech camera) which I believe has only sunny and cloudy
positions
> for its "exposure settings" and a fixed shutter speed :-). I've heard
LOMOs are
> fun too (35mm equivalents of the Holga but slightly more advanced
> technologically).
I am probably going to buy a Holga w/in the next couple weeks, I've been
dying to give it a shot! I am also building a few pinhole cameras (my new
project - I've got several dozen projects going on at any given time, so I'm
a bit scattered and flighty!), and I'm going to start taking little pinhole
excursions this spring as the weather starts to get nice again (nice =
predictable; not too hot; not too cold; but juuuuuuuuuuuust right).
>
> >~ Ansel Adams The Print & The Negative. (snip)> >
>
> Could you be more specific on this "thought process"? :-)
Well, okay, but this may be long and confusing and disconnected :)
Prior to reading (and comprehending) both The Negative and The Print, I paid
very little attention to the ... the ... the RELATIVITY of the subject(s)
within the frame. Does this make sense? Wrong word, but "the way the
subjects relate to one another" with regard to reflectivity, color,
brightness, size, etc. It was a big surprise when I got my prints back -
"Oh, that is NOT the picture I thought it would be!" Sometimes I'd have a
"hit" - most times, I'd have a "miss". I was capturing a moment, without
regard to the way the moment would be translated on film. IOW, who cares
what TMAX sees, I see a pretty tree and a neat house, and I'm gonna snap the
picture... meter? Well, fully evaluative metering oughtta take care of
that! And I'd end up with a properly exposed, boring, neutral image of a
tree and a house (example). What The Negative and The Print taught me to do
is to evaluate the final composition on paper - before the image was
exposed. I can now envision where I want the tones, the shades of gray, the
whites, the blacks... but, because I work in 35mm primarily, I spot meter
off a known subject (i.e.: the subject I see as "middle gray", or the
subject I see as "pure white, no detail"), and compensate from there.
Without adjusting ISO speed, naturally. Kind of a butchered Zone system.
There was a wonderful website I read a while back that explained the Zone
System in 35mm terms, and taking the information from that website, combined
with Adams' books, I can honestly imagine the final scene in my head before
I take the picture, and I can give the image tonal balance by selective
metering. In cases where my tonal range is too broad, I can envision how I
might correct that in the darkroom, and I'll purposely overexpose the
portion that was 'off the charts', then dodge in the darkroom. But I
actually see the process before exposure. I'm still very new at this, and
there is an awful lot I don't understand, but I've got a basic understanding
of exposure, and a _strong_ desire to learn, so I think I'm off to a decent
start.
Of course, my mind doesn't see color the same way, and I'm having a very
hard time bringing the thought process over to color films. I don't develop
my own color, and I don't understand the process the way I understand b&w.
I plan to start developing my own color this year sometime, JUST to gain the
basic understanding of the way color film/paper/chemicals work, and the way
the adjustments of filtration work in the printing process. In order for me
to master anything, I must know it inside and out. I know that there are
many very talented and successful photographers who "never" set foot in a
darkroom, and that's wonderful, but I'm a different animal -- I must touch,
feel, see, smell the process... I must be in control, and in order for me to
be in control, I must know the process. I don't plan to develop my own
color forever, mind you -- once I get a handle on the process, the steps,
the layers of information (once I feel as though I know how it works)...
then, I can hand my work back to the lab, and I'll only do my own color
printing for fun. It's kind of like driving (for me). Once I understood
how a car worked (I took auto mechanics in highschool, and I always
volunteered to help friends/family change brakes, clutches, carburetors,
etc), I became a better driver. Because I control the car, and I know what
to expect. In order for me to become a better photographer, I must control
the camera and the exposure, and I must know what to expect. So, the
thought process is pretty complex, for me, and it's something I'm determined
to master... and maybe twenty years from now, I'll have complete control!!!
Hey, nothing happens overnight, and the learning process is the fun part, so
I don't mind being a sponge for a while!
>
> >~ 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5. (snip)> >
>
> Keep practicing w/ it, you'll learn not only those situations it works
best for
> but how to compose despite its/your limitations w/ it (ie. finding
signficant
> subjects to place in the foreground, framing, leading lines, composing in
> shapes (my favorite), etc.).
Oh, it's my favorite lens to work with, because the perspective is
absolutely intoxicating! I will keep practicing with it... again, I don't
mind learning (it's the fun part), and I definitely don't mind making
mistakes (the basis for learning).
>
> >~ I've not started using it yet, but I just purchased a Vivitar 285
flash,
> >for my Kiev & other manual cameras (and as a back-up to the 550EX).
(snip)> >
>
> Yes, definitely. Also you might want to ask/order Canon to send you some
of its
> brochures that go into detail on how to work w/ their EOS speedlight
system.
>
> The first brochure is called "Flash Work Taking Great Pictures with Canon
> Speedlites." The second brochure is called "Canon EOS-3 The Triumph. A
victory
> for photography" (their titles not mine - I particularly reccommend pgs.
16-21
> of this EOS-3 brochure).
Hey, thanks for the tip - I'll definitely follow up on that...
>
> Also try Canon's website, yahoo e-groups! and for really complicated
questions
> perhaps Chuck Westfall himself (Canon tech rep I believe). And of course
keep
> shooting/testing and taking notes, not only w/ the Vivitar flash but w/
your
> Canon Speedlite (you've gotta learn it someday, better now thne when you
might
> really need it for an event or somesuch).
Yeah, I know... and I will/do keep practicing with the Canon, but I must
force myself to step backwards and work with the more difficult equipment.
The Canon Speedlight is really just a dumb flash with a lot of smart
features. If I can learn how to control a dumb flash with no smart
features, I can build on that knowledge. I'm a backwards learner (or maybe
a forwards learner?)... I start big, then I instantly "dumb down to the
basics" so I can go full circle, back to the big stuff. Make sense?
>
> >>
> Thanks and double thanks Charo. :-)
You're doubly welcome, Lewis!
:)
~Charo
Tim H.
>Let's see. My photography took mega leaps after I did a workshop with
>(insert famous photographer's name here) and then bought my mega bucks
>camera (like the Fabulous EOS 1-V!) and then got my friends to publish me in
>their books. It wasn't all that hard though, since I was born with an
>artistes eye and with a wide angle lens attached to my eye socket.
>
>(insert signature block with link to my website)
Jealousy is an ugly thing.
Tim
Tim H.
>Yes. The eyecup allows me to get even closer to the eye-piece, without
>smushing my glasses against my eyes, causing mascara smudges -- sure, I
>could get away with NOT wearing mascara, but what fun would that be? :)
Charo, my mental image of you is ever evolving, now including mascara.
>> Have you considered using the film box's table and going from there (I know
>> 35mm has this but I wonder if there is an instruction sheet in your 120 film
>> box that does the same)?
The same type table is in most 120 film boxes I have seen. Even in
the Konica Impresa 50 box, Lewis. <grin>
>> Also, you can use the sunny f/16 rule (1 over the
>> IS.O. speed of the film at f/16 on a sunny day as your base expsoure, adjusting
>> from there for different lighting conditions such as back lighting, shade, etc.).
Since both my medium format TLR's have no light meters, I have been
using the "sunny f/16" rule with good results. Sometimes I do cheat
and ask the A-1 for it's opinion. <wink/grin>
>and I'm going to start taking little pinhole
>excursions this spring as the weather starts to get nice again (nice =
>predictable; not too hot; not too cold; but juuuuuuuuuuuust right).
Ohhh no, now Goldilocks is added to my mental image of you, Charo.
You two take care
Tim
Tomy Medlcine
(and
> >many more photo books too, over a book a day..).
>
> You sound like your own branch of the public library (or a starter Barnes
&
> Nobles' super store) :-)
My best friend :-) Bob and my friend :o(( Lewis,
That sounds like me! I have 100+ art/photography books, more than double my
photo gear and brushes par monetary value. I predict soon I'll have 200+ or
even 400+, but definitely wont have 600+ due to my I.Q. level ;-)
Through the best minds my perception of art is the deep respect of life,
including animals and nature. Without such atitude, rule of thirds or such,
or flaming others blindly (even because of high sugar level :-) wont help (a
bit).
If you are telling a happy story (with any art media), you are enjoying and
sharing happiness and quality of life. If you are telling a sad story, you
are pushing a turnaround. Both of them have highly aesthetic and practical
value.
My present personal photographic project is 'Life behind the trees'. Who
rules? TREES! Without trees we all will die by lacking oxygen. I include the
beautiful trees (Oh, I love trees!) as the foreground and photogragh people,
street scenes, buildings, animals and nature. How many stories can I tell?
Billions! Every house, family, person, creature ... is a uniqe and glorious
story. The key is your atitude. Once you have the key, you are bound to have
a maga and quantum leap.
Of course techniqes are important (why I am buying so many books?). But I am
a newbie. You've said a lot here and before.
Hope this will contribute a bit or two :-) to this thread.
Copyleft 2002 (free to copy) by
Dan
P.S. looks like politics is inevitable, even in this thread. So I still
insist Bob you should quit your job, now :-D
Gordon Moat
> How has this ratio of drawing to photography changed now vs. your earlier days?
>
Originally about 50 - 50, then mostly photography, then 80 % drawing/painting
while in college. Even while taking photography classes, there were not that many
rolls of film shot. The final results, and time limitations limited how much could
be shot. Also, we had to process and print everything ourselves, and lab/darkroom
access was a bit of an issue. By contrast, the painting studio had a listing, and
it was possible to get security to unlock it for us any day, and any time
(unlimited access).
Currently, I do much more photography than drawing/illustration. I also have only
done one painting in the last year and a half.
>
> Why the personal preference for the borderless images?
I never liked the idea of any limits, or limitations. Similarly, I never saw a
need for countries, or borders. Also, I enjoy painting, and I never really want it
to end while I am working on a painting. Unfortunately, borders and limitations
are part of life.
>
>
> >I explored the influence of movies on culture, both western and non-western.
> >That
> >resulted in a series of paintings about the movies. All of those paintings
> >are a
> >bit large, and involve lots of variable scale compositions.
> >
>
> Sounds interesting.
There are some samples at <http://www.allgstudio.com/painting.html> You may find
the "Ciné" series interesting. I guess you could call some "contrast of
proportions". I still have a few more that I need to photograph, then scan and
post, including one that has a life sized woman on the main canvas holding a
rather large pistol. It is in two parts, and includes pasted in photos to tell
more of a story, though it is not entirely finished . . . perhaps soon.
>
>
> Techniques... shadows, matching lighting directions between elements,
> coloring/toning disparate elements w/ same/similar colors, etc.?
The toughest thing about lighting is making sure there appears to be only one
light source. I did a couple pieces that have two obvious light sources, and are
somewhat disconcerting to most viewers. I thought it was an interesting experiment
in unexpected images. Tough to really pull that off, but it helps to be obvious. I
still have a few ideas to explore in that direction.
Contrast, symmetry, asymmetry, juxtaposition, rhythm, etc., and many other
compositional forms are there to explore. Most of my ideas can be expressed well
in black and white. All my paintings were derived from studies that began as
pencil (or pen) on white paper. I think that if you can express visual harmony (or
discord) in black and white (greyscale), then it will work better in colour.
Colour selections are more situational, and somewhat psychological in their
implications. Choices are made on an individual image basis, though there are no
absolutes. I get a listing each year of the current "big" colours projected as the
ones to use. These become effective in photography and design, but have little to
no influence on painting (since paintings are intended to be more timeless).
Design lasts longer than advertising, so colour choices tend to be more
conservative. B/W done properly can assume timeless, and contemporary qualities in
the same image, or series of images.
>
>
> >The sketch pad and canvas both have a discernible edge, but this should
> >not be
> >seen as a limitation. It is possible to lead the eye off the canvas/print
> >and
> >thereby extend the boundaries of the format.
>
> Do you mean by this cropping into people/objects at the edges and/or divergent
> lines that lead the eye out of the composition?
Absolutely . . . try cropping to create discord, and unbalance an image. Visually
weight the image in an unexpected direction, create balance were it is not
expected . . . expect the unexpected . . . .
There is also cropping to confine an image, which can create stability were there
was none. Some of this is done in camera (or on paper/canvas), though it can be
later refined further. Creating rhythm is one of the fun things to explore in
camera, and can sometimes be enhanced by cropping.
All these are much easier to explore with faces, though face like shapes can serve
as well. ANything that is somewhat directional by nature, or design, could also be
used this way. I think that confined convergent lines can be more interesting than
divergent lines, though this can be tougher to pull off. A suggestion of motion
can also serve the same purpose.
> I've heard of some artists who continue the painting beyond the canvas and onto
> the frame, is that what you do or do you mean something else by "partially
> confine them"?
>
Sure . . . most of my canvases are painted on the edges. A few of them are just a
single colour on the edge. None of them are really intended to have true frames,
and I use thick wood bars to make a fairly good sized edge. I have seen too many
people stop the composition as they get closer to the edge, and really without a
good reason IMHO.
>
> What is the majority of your living made by, design/illustration, painting, or
> photography?
Currently about 60 to 70 % photography. Most of the rest is design/illustration. I
would just about give up all that if I could make a living from my paintings,
though I would keep some camera equipment to use for studying ideas. Paintings are
tough to get displayed, and even tougher to sell. Paintings also take quite a bit
of time, and some money, for each (30 to 80 hours for each piece, not including
conceptual studies).
Design/illustration is also not an easy choice for a career. Lately, my
photography has been taking off more, and I may find that there will be even more
of a bias in my work in that direction. January was a very good month, and I hope
that level of work will continue for the rest of this year.
Hope you are doing well this year, so far. Best of luck to you.
Lewis Lang
>From: model...@nospam.yahoo.com (Tim H.)
>Date: Tue, Feb 5, 2002 1:55 PM
>Message-id: <3c5fe3fd....@nntp.sprynet.com>
Tim:
You hit the McCleod troll nail right on its head, Tim :-) - jealousy. I would
like to say that McCleod is a jealous idiot but that would be insulting most
idiots that I respect a great deal more than him. Rather than waste more time
on this McCleod baffoon Tim/others, the best thing to do would be to ignore
him, don't quote him (so I don't have to read his little baby rants secondhand)
and let slink into the virtual abyss by letting him go on his unmerry way. Now
to get back on topic... :-)
Lewis Lang
>From: model...@nospam.yahoo.com (Tim H.)
>Date: Tue, Feb 5, 2002 1:55 PM
>Message-id: <3c5fe3fd....@nntp.sprynet.com>
>
Little does the McCleod doofus above know that it was my friends who asked me
to be in the books and it took me _years_ of studying art and making my own art
to get up to that level where I was worthy of being asked. And these people he
refers to as my friends didn't know me from Adam in the beginning but they did
see and like my work. I wish I was born w/ an artist's eye, I had to develop
one on my own by teaching myself and I wished a wide angle lens was attached to
my eye socket, it would have been a lot less costly than bying that fisheye or
Nikon 25-50 or Maxxum 24-50. McCleod doesn't seem to have any art unless its
the art of throwing (d)arts into the accomplishments of others. He seems to be
a real pitiful ugly chap.
Robert Monaghan
"it's not a job, it's an adventure..." ;-) ;-)
and "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us" ;-)
Just out of a seminar this evening at Dallas Museum of Art with Mike
Edwards, asst' editor at National Geographic, at Boshell Archeology and
Art Lecture series on Marco Polo and the Silk Road (3 issues in last 12
months including cover issue May 2001). Lots of nice slides by national
geo photographers of note, in their style. Worth going out in the
snowstorm! ;-) But again, the point is that you can accumulate a lot of
artistic and "vision" experience by carefully examining what makes other
pros photos either good or bad, or both... ;-)
re: books - we have the world's largest used bookstore chain a mile from
campus (Half Price Books), which is where the books from most of the
national book fairs end up, along with a lot of remaindered stock. There
are probably 1,000+ photobooks in the store at 20-50% of cover price, with
scores of new books every week (3-5 boxes worth) - and that's just one of
their stores in the area. The nice part about used book stores is so many
of the best photobooks seem to be out of print nowadays, so it is a chance
to buy at a discount. Ebay is good too, but by the time you work out the
time and the shipping fees the books are rather less of a bargain. I have
to carry about 25 pages double sided printouts of my photo and art books,
though, as so many authors use the same shots in different books (should I
add, slightly different books and titles? ;-) (e.g., Langford,
Busselle..). But even if you don't have access to such resources, most
libraries have interlibrary loan services that can request photobooks
not on their shelves, greatly expanding what readers can access and see.
worth checking into if you aren't familiar with it!...
hope this helps bobm
Argusman
rate and you buy what is there. No bidding - just pay what is asked,
which is usually quite low. You can also arrange to be notified when a
new item is posted for sale. Not as good as rummaging through a book
store, but not bad if you are looking for a specific title.
Dennis
Lewis Lang
Comments follow in-line...
>> >I explored the influence of movies on culture, both western and
non-western.
>> >That
>> >resulted in a series of paintings about the movies. All of those paintings
>> >are a
>> >bit large, and involve lots of variable scale compositions.
>> >
>>
>> Sounds interesting.
>
>There are some samples at <http://www.allgstudio.com/painting.html> You
>may find
>the "Ciné" series interesting.
Actually I've gone there and enjoyed it. There are elements of your style that
remind me of Phillip Guston, Rosenquist (I'm probably getting the name wrong
here) and perhaps Cindy Sherman (though she tends to use herself mostly as the
main actress (or at least has in the past).
I guess you could call some "contrast of
>proportions". I still have a few more that I need to photograph, then scan
>and
>post, including one that has a life sized woman on the main canvas holding
>a
>rather large pistol. It is in two parts, and includes pasted in photos to
>tell
>more of a story, though it is not entirely finished . . . perhaps soon.
>
You seem to have a strange fascination w/ pistols, besides the fact that they
are very glamourous/cinematic (at least as represented in older films and on
your canvas) do they have any special meanings for you or do you just like the
way they look and/or the emotional effect/associations/connotations? they have?
>>
>>
>> Techniques... shadows, matching lighting directions between elements,
>> coloring/toning disparate elements w/ same/similar colors, etc.?
>
>The toughest thing about lighting is making sure there appears to be only
>one
>light source. I did a couple pieces that have two obvious light sources,
>and are
>somewhat disconcerting to most viewers. I thought it was an interesting
>experiment
>in unexpected images.
A mistake (the two light sources) that you ended up using anyway because it
worked or did you plan it this way fromthe beginning in these experiments?
Tough to really pull that off, but it helps to be
>obvious. I
>still have a few ideas to explore in that direction.
>
>Contrast, symmetry, asymmetry, juxtaposition, rhythm, etc., and many other
>compositional forms are there to explore. Most of my ideas can be expressed
>well
>in black and white. All my paintings were derived from studies that began
>as
>pencil (or pen) on white paper. I think that if you can express visual harmony
>(or
>discord) in black and white (greyscale), then it will work better in colour.
>
Perhaps for more of the bare bones structure but I find for myself that color
is another layer of "life" in the image that has a life of its own beyond the
elements of tonal symmetry, juxtapositions, rhythms, etc. I guess that while I
sometimes sketch out things (in images or words) I basically have to edit right
before my eyes as to which color schemes work best and why. Since I see mostly
shapes then color which is intregal yet secondary in execution but primary
along w/ shapes in consideration/usefulness I guess that despite my preference
for shapes that most of my works work better as color than black and white
because I tend to see the world mainly in color (but it is a highly stylized
relaistic if not an in your face color scheme). Basically I treat color as any
other element of composition, I use whatever mode from the realistic/subdued to
the surrelaistic (in your face or pastel/almost monochromatic) mode of colro
depending on what a shot needs. I love and do black and white, when necessary,
but it is rare that I'll actually envision an image as black and white before
shooting it. Usually I'll just envision the image as an image and the subject
matter and the theme(s) I try to convey and treatment I wish to give it will
help me determine which if any color/schemes are needed.
>Colour selections are more situational, and somewhat psychological in their
>implications. Choices are made on an individual image basis, though there
>are no
>absolutes. I get a listing each year of the current "big" colours projected
>as the
>ones to use. These become effective in photography and design, but have
>little to
>no influence on painting (since paintings are intended to be more timeless).
Color can be/is timeless too depending on how its used. I can't imagine anyone
ever telling me what colors to use much less "what's in" because it would be
like telling me when to inhale/exhale, then I'm not into design and when people
tell me what they want (at least for the rare amount of paid
portraits/editorial I do) my mind usually grows fuzzy and I end up doing what I
want anyways. They usually like it :-)
>Design lasts longer than advertising, so colour choices tend to be more
>conservative.
That makes sense. But by design you mean what exactly? Must it match the color
scheme of the couch (like decor) or some kind of industrial design or what
exactly?
B/W done properly can assume timeless, and contemporary qualities
>in
>the same image, or series of images.
>
You're right but to me timelessness is more dependent on the image/emotional
thrust of its contents/approach rather than black and white or color
considerations. I have seen black and white images that look dated (tied to a
specific time) as well as timeless and the same thing for color, it really
depnds on the image and the photographer (that is if we are still ralking about
photgraphy at this point ;-)).
>>
>>
>> >The sketch pad and canvas both have a discernible edge, but this should
>> >not be
>> >seen as a limitation. It is possible to lead the eye off the canvas/print
>> >and
>> >thereby extend the boundaries of the format.
>>
>> Do you mean by this cropping into people/objects at the edges and/or
divergent
>> lines that lead the eye out of the composition?
>
>Absolutely . . . try cropping to create discord, and unbalance an image.
>Visually
>weight the image in an unexpected direction, create balance were it is not
>expected . . . expect the unexpected . . . .
>
In more recent photographs (not on my website) I tend to balance more asymmetry
(subjects cropped at edges of frame) w/ symmetry (subject posed in the center
or bisymmetrical subject at either side of center) all in the same shot. I find
this whole lot fun and a quite a bit "spooky" - for lack of a better term :-).
Part of me prefers the classicism of bisymmetrical and/or centrally placed
compositions while the other part of me loves a sort of
"Winograndesque"?/Degas? snapshot compositions of letting the subject(s)
diverge at/towards the edges/corners of the frame - w/i the past 5? years I
have begun to incorporate both approaches successfully into single shots rather
than doing one or the other compositional approaches in different shots.
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st3.htm">"YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK UP
THE NUMBER)/TALK'S C…</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st2.htm">"HOME IMPROVEMENT"</A>
There are also more recent shots (not on the website) that successfully
incorporate both compsoitional approaches into single shots...
>There is also cropping to confine an image, which can create stability were
>there
>was none. Some of this is done in camera (or on paper/canvas), though it
>can be
>later refined further. Creating rhythm is one of the fun things to explore
>in
>camera, and can sometimes be enhanced by cropping.
>
:-)
>All these are much easier to explore with faces, though face like shapes
>can serve
>as well.
...because faces are usually looking in a certain direction?
ANything that is somewhat directional by nature, or design, could
>also be
>used this way. I think that confined convergent lines can be more interesting
>than
>divergent lines, though this can be tougher to pull off.
Why do you find confined convergenet lines more interesting?
A suggestion of
>motion
>can also serve the same purpose.
>
Motion usually contains direction as an element of it but what purpose are you
actually referring to here that it serves?
>> I've heard of some artists who continue the painting beyond the canvas
>and onto
>> the frame, is that what you do or do you mean something else by "partially
>> confine them"?
>>
>
>Sure . . . most of my canvases are painted on the edges.
You're losing me here, do you mean by painted on the edges that you paint
beyond where you think a frame might cut them off or do you continue painting
onto the frames themselves after the image is framed or something else
entirely, I'm trying topicture this in my mind...
A few of them are
>just a
>single colour on the edge. None of them are really intended to have true
>frames,
Huh? Is the edge you are referring to painting on on the canvas or on the frame
or both?
>and I use thick wood bars to make a fairly good sized edge. I have seen
>too many
>people stop the composition as they get closer to the edge, and really without
>a
>good reason IMHO.
>
So you continue to paint/the painting onto the frame itself? Its hard for me to
picture exactly what you're doing from your written/verbal description.
>>
>> What is the majority of your living made by, design/illustration, painting,
>or
>> photography?
>
>Currently about 60 to 70 % photography. Most of the rest is
design/illustration.
>I
>would just about give up all that if I could make a living from my paintings,
:-)
>though I would keep some camera equipment to use for studying ideas.
:-) :-)
Paintings
>are
>tough to get displayed, and even tougher to sell.
Getting (fine art) photographs (not decor photographs that match the couch) in
galleries sold doesn't seem that much easier, so I think I understand what boat
(or at least what paint pot) you're in ;-)
Paintings also take quite
>a bit
>of time, and some money, for each (30 to 80 hours for each piece, not
including
>conceptual studies).
>
I understand, some of my conceptual still lifes have taken months too (my
kitchen/dining room floor was turned into a beach (and so was a part of my
living room) but that's another story(s))...
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll14.htm">"JUST SAY NO…"</A>
>Design/illustration is also not an easy choice for a career.
Would you say its easier, tougher, or the same as photography as a career and
why?
Lately, my
>photography has been taking off more, and I may find that there will be
>even more
>of a bias in my work in that direction. January was a very good month, and
>I hope
>that level of work will continue for the rest of this year.
>
From your lips to God's ears :-)
>Hope you are doing well this year, so far. Best of luck to you.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
I wish you the same and an even better rest of 2002.
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>From: Argusman dor...@attglobal.net
>Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2002 4:21 AM
>Message-id: <3C60AF35...@attglobal.net>
>
>Folks, try half.com, an Ebay subsidiary. Books ship at the media mail
>rate and you buy what is there. No bidding - just pay what is asked,
>which is usually quite low. You can also arrange to be notified when a
>new item is posted for sale. Not as good as rummaging through a book
>store, but not bad if you are looking for a specific title.
>
>Dennis
>
>Robert Monaghan wrote:
>>
>> re: quitting jobs - no problem, I'm a grad student,
>> "it's not a job, it's an adventure..." ;-) ;-)
>> and "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us" ;-)
>>
>> Just out of a seminar this evening at Dallas Museum of Art with Mike
>> Edwards, asst' editor at National Geographic, at Boshell Archeology and
>> Art Lecture series on Marco Polo and the Silk Road (3 issues in last 12
>> months including cover issue May 2001). Lots of nice slides by national
>> geo photographers of note, in their style. Worth going out in the
>> snowstorm! ;-) But again, the point is that you can accumulate a lot of
>> artistic and "vision" experience by carefully examining what makes other
>> pros photos either good or bad, or both... ;-)
>>
>> re: books - we have the world's largest used bookstore chain a mile from
>> campus (Half Price Books)
SNIP
Thanks Argusman and Bob :-)
Gordon Moat
> Hi Gordon:
Good afternoon Lewis,
> Actually I've gone there and enjoyed it.
Thank you.
> There are elements of your style that
> remind me of Phillip Guston, Rosenquist (I'm probably getting the name wrong
> here) and perhaps Cindy Sherman (though she tends to use herself mostly as the
> main actress (or at least has in the past).
More inspiration than exploring a style. Guston is an interesting character.
Lately, I have found the images of Christian Boltanski (spelling?) very
interesting. Rosenquist seems too much like 1960s advertising influenced, but just
my opinion . . . judging from the colour choices.
>
> You seem to have a strange fascination w/ pistols, besides the fact that they
> are very glamourous/cinematic (at least as represented in older films and on
> your canvas) do they have any special meanings for you or do you just like the
> way they look and/or the emotional effect/associations/connotations? they have?
>
LOL . . . actually they are used mostly for a reaction from the viewer. I have
noticed that Americans tend to notice these first, while most Europeans that have
seen my paintings notice the faces first. I guess the cultural associations, and
emotional effect (reactions), were the choices. Movies quite often portray
violence, and clichés, in a hyper realistic manner. Movies do influence life, and
become a part of life, so that series of paintings was an exploration.
By the way, I do not own any guns at all. I am glad I do not have a need to do so.
I am not against those who wish to own guns, and I prefer not to get involved in
the politics of guns.
>
> A mistake (the two light sources) that you ended up using anyway because it
> worked or did you plan it this way fromthe beginning in these experiments?
No . . . it was intentional, which was why I made it obvious. Really just another
way to change focal points and create eye movement. I had not seen any examples of
what I wanted to try, so I just did a few to see what stories could be told from
that technique. So far, I have found that it has very limited use.
>
> Perhaps for more of the bare bones structure but I find for myself that color
> is another layer of "life" in the image that has a life of its own beyond the
> elements of tonal symmetry, juxtapositions, rhythms, etc. I guess that while I
> sometimes sketch out things (in images or words) I basically have to edit right
> before my eyes as to which color schemes work best and why. Since I see mostly
> shapes then color which is intregal yet secondary in execution but primary
> along w/ shapes in consideration/usefulness I guess that despite my preference
> for shapes that most of my works work better as color than black and white
> because I tend to see the world mainly in color (but it is a highly stylized
> relaistic if not an in your face color scheme).
I guess I am probably quite a bit different in the way I create. Most of the
creative individuals that I know constantly think directly in colour from the very
beginning, similar to the way you work. Really just a technique that has worked
well for me, though obviously nothing is done the same all the time. The use of
that technique in painting allows me to focus on composition first. My
photographic studies used for my paintings are all B/W shots.
> Basically I treat color as any
> other element of composition, I use whatever mode from the realistic/subdued to
> the surrelaistic (in your face or pastel/almost monochromatic) mode of colro
> depending on what a shot needs. I love and do black and white, when necessary,
> but it is rare that I'll actually envision an image as black and white before
> shooting it. Usually I'll just envision the image as an image and the subject
> matter and the theme(s) I try to convey and treatment I wish to give it will
> help me determine which if any color/schemes are needed.
In my design work, there is much more of a focus on colour selection. Since these
will be going to print, the colour associations are all very carefully considered
and studied.
Another aspect of colour strictly applies to my oil paintings. There are
undercoats of paint comprising different tones. These cause a change in the
topmost layers of colour, which altered the warmness/coolness (push/pull) of the
colours. Since oil paints blend so well, it makes this possible. Unfortunately,
film images of the paintings lose this quality. The colour gamut of oil paintings
is much beyond the maximum gamut of colour films. :-(
>
> Color can be/is timeless too depending on how its used. I can't imagine anyone
> ever telling me what colors to use much less "what's in" because it would be
> like telling me when to inhale/exhale, then I'm not into design and when people
> tell me what they want (at least for the rare amount of paid
> portraits/editorial I do) my mind usually grows fuzzy and I end up doing what I
> want anyways. They usually like it :-)
Design is a very different animal indeed. Design for advertising needs to consider
the current colour choices. There is an entire industry built on this. Studies are
done each year, for the next year, to determine the direction that popular items
will take. Seems quite manufactured, since the companies that forecast, also
control the processing of those colours. Pantone is probably the one company that
most on this NG may be familiar. These colour choices are often based on
psychological, environmental, situational, and political influences in western
culture. Of course, on the surface, it seems to be self perpetuating: The colours
are identified, they get used in print, on clothes, and for products; thus
fulfilling the predictions of their popular usage . . . funny . . . .
This is all not nearly as limiting as it may seem. The current list has 82
colours, and covers the entire gamut (or colour wheel). The reasons for particular
choices still are dependant on the designer.
>
>
> >Design lasts longer than advertising, so colour choices tend to be more
> >conservative.
>
> That makes sense. But by design you mean what exactly? Must it match the color
> scheme of the couch (like decor) or some kind of industrial design or what
> exactly?
Think branding and corporate identity. Look at logos for financial companies and
large corporations . . . notice how they are very limited in their colour choices.
That is probably the most noticeable difference between design and advertising.
Advertising has a short life span, and is more for the moment.
One of my latest projects involved colour explorations for a restaurant chain.
These are concepts that will need to remain unchanged for five (or ten) years.
Obviously, this would not necessarily involve any of the colours on the list I
previously mentioned, but it could. It is likely that none of the ideas I
presented may be used, since these were studies to be used in meetings with a
larger design team. I did all the photography and image manipulation for the
project. Quite a lot of work, and it archives to seven CD-R and five boxes of
transparencies.
>
>
> B/W done properly can assume timeless, and contemporary qualities
> >in
> >the same image, or series of images.
> >
>
> You're right but to me timelessness is more dependent on the image/emotional
> thrust of its contents/approach rather than black and white or color
> considerations.
I suppose you mean content and subject matter? Basically, just because it is B/W
photography does not make it dated, or nostalgic, but the subject matter (or
content) could (or not).
> I have seen black and white images that look dated (tied to a
> specific time) as well as timeless and the same thing for color, it really
> depnds on the image and the photographer (that is if we are still ralking about
> photgraphy at this point ;-)).
Absolutely.
> In more recent photographs (not on my website) I tend to balance more asymmetry
> (subjects cropped at edges of frame) w/ symmetry (subject posed in the center
> or bisymmetrical subject at either side of center) all in the same shot. I find
> this whole lot fun and a quite a bit "spooky" - for lack of a better term :-).
> Part of me prefers the classicism of bisymmetrical and/or centrally placed
> compositions while the other part of me loves a sort of
> "Winograndesque"?/Degas? snapshot compositions of letting the subject(s)
> diverge at/towards the edges/corners of the frame - w/i the past 5? years I
> have begun to incorporate both approaches successfully into single shots rather
> than doing one or the other compositional approaches in different shots.
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st3.htm">"YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK UP
> THE NUMBER)/TALK'S C…</A>
Not so sure about the Dutched angle, but the strong diagonal does make this
interesting. Cropping the bottom a bit to change the aspect ratio could reinforce
that more. Nice shot.
>
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st2.htm">"HOME IMPROVEMENT"</A>
A bit surreal. Was that a fisheye, or PhotoShop Bloat filter? Here is an example
of where a symmetrical composition can give stability to an image. The curve lines
(window frames?) and sky contrast give a top weighted feel, but the symmetrical
crop makes the bottom centre images take on more visual weight. Perhaps a concept
to explore further. More contrast may be another direction, which could create
more apparent motion.
>
>
> There are also more recent shots (not on the website) that successfully
> incorporate both compsoitional approaches into single shots...
>
> >There is also cropping to confine an image, which can create stability were
> >there
> >was none. Some of this is done in camera (or on paper/canvas), though it
> >can be
> >later refined further. Creating rhythm is one of the fun things to explore
> >in
> >camera, and can sometimes be enhanced by cropping.
> >
>
> :-)
>
> >All these are much easier to explore with faces, though face like shapes
> >can serve
> >as well.
>
> ...because faces are usually looking in a certain direction?
Because people can associate with faces, and it is an easy to understand element
of proportion. There is an element of direction, but the indication of proportion
will be more influential. Draw a horse slightly out of proportion, and many people
would not notice, but draw a person out of proportion, and it becomes obvious even
to non artists. The directional aspect is less of a consideration, and usually
more effective using whole body positioning, or arms/hands, or legs/feet.
>
>
> ANything that is somewhat directional by nature, or design, could
> >also be
> >used this way. I think that confined convergent lines can be more interesting
> >than
> >divergent lines, though this can be tougher to pull off.
>
> Why do you find confined convergenet lines more interesting?
Creates a sense of closed in, confined, or pointing towards an unknown direction.
Cliché for this would be the railroad tracks converging on the horizon in the
centre of an image, but there are subtler ways to use this. Basically, I try to
use them to stir the imagination of the viewer, provoke more thought, and let the
viewer discover their own story within the image. The story is guided by my
images, but the story I envisioned, or intended, is less important to me than the
ability of the viewer to generate their own story. Convergent lines just work
better for me when I tell stories.
>
>
> A suggestion of
> >motion
> >can also serve the same purpose.
> >
>
> Motion usually contains direction as an element of it but what purpose are you
> actually referring to here that it serves?
Same as the convergent lines . . . to stir the imagination (story) in a direction
of the viewers thoughts. A sense of motion creates a feeling of anticipation . . .
what comes next, etc.; the suggestion of direction, or lack of direction with
motion, can reinforce, or confuse, the story. Hopefully, the viewer is able to
make up their own story to bring order, or interest, to the image.
>
>
> >> I've heard of some artists who continue the painting beyond the canvas
> >and onto
> >> the frame, is that what you do or do you mean something else by "partially
> >> confine them"?
> >>
> >
> >Sure . . . most of my canvases are painted on the edges.
>
> You're losing me here, do you mean by painted on the edges that you paint
> beyond where you think a frame might cut them off or do you continue painting
> onto the frames themselves after the image is framed or something else
> entirely, I'm trying topicture this in my mind...
The canvas is rolled around the edge of the stretcher bars. Those edges are
painted, sometimes with the images rolled around the edge, other times with a
complimentary (or contrasting) colour. If you view the canvas at an angle, you see
no frame, or edge, just image. The stretcher bars are rectangular. The paintings
do not have any actual frame at all, just canvas over stretcher bars. Nothing is
added later, and the stretchers bars are large enough, and strong enough to hang
the painting.
>
>
> A few of them are
> >just a
> >single colour on the edge. None of them are really intended to have true
> >frames,
>
> Huh? Is the edge you are referring to painting on on the canvas or on the frame
> or both?
The canvas is rolled around the edge, and stapled to the back side of the
stretcher bars.
>
>
> >and I use thick wood bars to make a fairly good sized edge. I have seen
> >too many
> >people stop the composition as they get closer to the edge, and really without
> >a
> >good reason IMHO.
> >
>
> So you continue to paint/the painting onto the frame itself? Its hard for me to
> picture exactly what you're doing from your written/verbal description.
I wish I had some detail photos. Perhaps that is something I can add to my site. I
consider the side of the canvas just as much a part of the story as the front,
since it is also visible. This is not an add-on wood frame that goes over the
canvas, like most paintings you might see. The wood is underneath the canvas,
since it merely needs to hold (stretch) the canvas. Since it is fairly thick
sided, I consider it part of the composition, and always paint that part.
> Getting (fine art) photographs (not decor photographs that match the couch) in
> galleries sold doesn't seem that much easier, so I think I understand what boat
> (or at least what paint pot) you're in ;-)
>
> Paintings also take quite
> >a bit
> >of time, and some money, for each (30 to 80 hours for each piece, not
> including
> >conceptual studies).
> >
>
> I understand, some of my conceptual still lifes have taken months too (my
> kitchen/dining room floor was turned into a beach (and so was a part of my
> living room) but that's another story(s))...
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll14.htm">"JUST SAY NO…"</A>
Funny . . . and surrealism again. It might be interesting to have a symmetrical
crop to this, and create a very tall and narrow aspect ratio. Could be some fun
crops in this as well.
>
>
> >Design/illustration is also not an easy choice for a career.
>
> Would you say its easier, tougher, or the same as photography as a career and
> why?
Tougher since it is less understandable by the average individual/client. Too many
people think it is just computer software, clip art, and stock images (low end),
much like the term "desktop publishing". It is all around us, but not that
noticeable, nor understandable in the aspect of what it took to develop an idea.
The computer is just a tool to achieve a desired result . . . the creativity must
come from the individual.
Another issue is that for a while, nearly half the people you met were web
designers. Most of these people were programmers, and coders. Few had any formal
training in art, or artist (aesthetic) capabilities, at least not much beyond what
an average individual would. That is not to say that a certain amount of
creativity was not involved, but aesthetic considerations were often the least
focused aspects of the end results. This proliferation cheapened the use of the
word design, which is also sadly overused in many other professions as well.
Perhaps the Home Depot "Design Centre" approach would be an example; people are
invited to come in and choose how to "design" the interiors of their house. This
gives the notion that anyone can do design. While I am certain that many good, and
satisfying, results occur from this, it also makes the perception of a need for an
actual "interior designer" less important.
So at the low end, you compete with lots of do-it-yourself people, and find many
clients happy with mediocre results. Small businesses can rarely afford good
design, so the cost is more of an issue than the results. Getting into the high
end, and corporate work that pays well, is tough. Once you get a few connections,
and do a few large jobs, then things go much smoother.
Illustration is a different matter. It often involves more time than the income it
generates. Few clients are willing to pay near what it costs to create, and
changes can take quite a bit of time. It is also important to develop a
distinctive style, though this can be a trap.
Photography is much more direct, though not necessarily easier. It involves a
particular way of seeing. I can develop a more distinct style of imagery, yet not
fall into the typecasting that illustration can suffer. On the down side, the work
is not yet as consistent as I would like, but it has been getting better lately.
The combination of photography, design, and illustration makes me more valuable to
my clients. There is a growing awareness of fine art in the general population,
and having those abilities enhances my ability to get more work, and more clients.
I do not see my work strictly going to just one aspect, though photography is
becoming the biggest part.
>
> I wish you the same and an even better rest of 2002.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis
Thanks Lewis . . . great discussion here.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Charo" ch...@ec.rr.com
>Date: Tue, Feb 5, 2002 1:49 PM
>Message-id: <u5vos48...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Hey there, Lewis!
Hi Charo:
SNIP
>On both counts: the glasses would get smushed against the eyepiece (not
>the
>new eyecup), and on particularly hot and sweaty days (fairly common in the
>South), stray perspiration smudges the outside of my glasses as it gets
>caught between the eyepiece and my glasses lens. Additionally, the eyepiece
>would tend to fog up, as my glasses were too close to the eyepiece,
>especially on the hottest of days.
You also might want to consider Canon's "Anti-fog Eyepiece ED"... to quote the
EOS 3 brochure, pg. 27: ..."The new anti-fog technology developed by Canon uses
a thin, water-absorbent polymer coating. This polymer coating is placed on
glass surfaces where it prevents fogging by absorbing moisture"... and ..."The
polymer coating also allows the moisture to evaporate naturally. The cycle of
moisture absorption and evaporationis repetitive, and the polymer coating can
thereby remain effective for a long time.
*The polymer coating will ose its effectiveness if it already contains
moiisture. Careful handling is required. The Anti-fog Eyepiece should never be
touched unless it is dry."...
I also ended up with smudges on the
>inside of my glasses lens, due to mascara/sweat/oil from my face/eye
>pressing right up against my glasses to get as close to the viewfinder as
>possible. The eyecup allows me to stay far enough away from the viewfinder
>to completely avoid these problems, thus giving me a _cleaner_ photographic
>experience!
You also might want to consider some anti-fog formaula for teating your
eye-glasses on hot days. This and the above eyepiece might be just the thing
for events on hot days where you need quick film changes (which the larger
eyepiece doesn't allow you to do).
SNIP
>I usually buy my 120 film from the fridge at my local shop, and it typically
>comes right out of a pro-pack, so I don't get the pleasure of having the
>box
>to look at. Last time I did check one out, I don't think it had the table
>printed inside, but I could be wrong. I'll definitely remember this next
>time, thanks for the tip!
>
Your welcome :-)
><SNIP>>
>> If you really want to be "limited" try a Holga (120 almost toy-like
>plastic
>> fantastic low tech camera) which I believe has only sunny and cloudy
>positions
>> for its "exposure settings" and a fixed shutter speed :-). I've heard
>LOMOs are
>> fun too (35mm equivalents of the Holga but slightly more advanced
>> technologically).
>
>I am probably going to buy a Holga w/in the next couple weeks, I've been
>dying to give it a shot! I am also building a few pinhole cameras (my new
>project - I've got several dozen projects going on at any given time, so
>I'm
>a bit scattered and flighty!), and I'm going to start taking little pinhole
>excursions this spring as the weather starts to get nice again (nice =
>predictable; not too hot; not too cold; but juuuuuuuuuuuust right).
>
:-)
>>
>> >~ Ansel Adams The Print & The Negative. (snip)> >
>>
>> Could you be more specific on this "thought process"? :-)
>
>Well, okay, but this may be long and confusing and disconnected :)
>
>Prior to reading (and comprehending) both The Negative and The Print, I
>paid
>very little attention to the ... the ... the RELATIVITY of the subject(s)
>within the frame. Does this make sense?
Yes.
Wrong word, but "the way the
>subjects relate to one another" with regard to reflectivity, color,
>brightness, size, etc.
"the relation of the formal elements of the subjects to each other w/i the
frame"... or something like that...
It was a big surprise when I got my prints back
>-
>"Oh, that is NOT the picture I thought it would be!" Sometimes I'd have
>a
>"hit" - most times, I'd have a "miss". I was capturing a moment, without
>regard to the way the moment would be translated on film. IOW, who cares
>what TMAX sees, I see a pretty tree and a neat house, and I'm gonna snap
>the
>picture... meter?
By if "meter" you mean "capish"/"understand", I do.
Well, fully evaluative metering oughtta take care of
>that!
Ah so you do mean metering! :-)
And I'd end up with a properly exposed, boring, neutral image of
>a
>tree and a house (example). What The Negative and The Print taught me to
>do
>is to evaluate the final composition on paper - before the image was
>exposed. I can now envision where I want the tones, the shades of gray,
>the
>whites, the blacks... but, because I work in 35mm primarily, I spot meter
>off a known subject (i.e.: the subject I see as "middle gray", or the
>subject I see as "pure white, no detail"), and compensate from there.
Exposur eis more than turning on alight switch and setting the camera to
evaluative, w/ selectivity (in exposure setting and filtration) comes the
beigining of art (and crafts, but usually not arts and crafts unless you add
some Elmer's glue and some popsicl sticks ;-)).
>Without adjusting ISO speed, naturally. Kind of a butchered Zone system.
I buried AA film at 11... LOL
>There was a wonderful website I read a while back that explained the Zone
>System in 35mm terms, and taking the information from that website,
Do you remember the URL? TIA
combined
>with Adams' books, I can honestly imagine the final scene in my head before
>I take the picture, and I can give the image tonal balance by selective
>metering. In cases where my tonal range is too broad, I can envision how
>I
>might correct that in the darkroom, and I'll purposely overexpose the
>portion that was 'off the charts', then dodge in the darkroom.
If you over-expose (on negative film) usually you have to burn, not dodge to
bring it down/make it darker...
But I
>actually see the process before exposure. I'm still very new at this, and
>there is an awful lot I don't understand, but I've got a basic understanding
>of exposure, and a _strong_ desire to learn, so I think I'm off to a decent
>start.
>
A desire/openness to learn and action/experimentation, that's what counts.
>Of course, my mind doesn't see color the same way, and I'm having a very
>hard time bringing the thought process over to color films. I don't develop
>my own color, and I don't understand the process the way I understand b&w.
>I plan to start developing my own color this year sometime, JUST to gain
>the
>basic understanding of the way color film/paper/chemicals work, and the
>way
>the adjustments of filtration work in the printing process.
Color negative or color slide developing?
In order for
>me
>to master anything, I must know it inside and out. I know that there are
>many very talented and successful photographers who "never" set foot in
>a
>darkroom, and that's wonderful, but I'm a different animal -- I must touch,
>feel, see, smell the process...
"Please don't eat the daisies"... or drink the fixer LOL :-)
I must be in control, and in order for me
>to
>be in control, I must know the process. I don't plan to develop my own
>color forever, mind you -- once I get a handle on the process, the steps,
>the layers of information (once I feel as though I know how it works)...
>then, I can hand my work back to the lab, and I'll only do my own color
>printing for fun. It's kind of like driving (for me). Once I understood
>how a car worked (I took auto mechanics in highschool, and I always
>volunteered to help friends/family change brakes, clutches, carburetors,
>etc), I became a better driver. Because I control the car, and I know what
>to expect. In order for me to become a better photographer, I must control
>the camera and the exposure, and I must know what to expect. So, the
>thought process is pretty complex, for me, and it's something I'm determined
>to master... and maybe twenty years from now, I'll have complete control!!!
You will learn it, though youmay be surprised if it takes you a lot less than
20 years to know most of the basics. From there on its experimenting to find
out what films/developing/camera techniques suit your subjects and style of
working, that's the part that might take 20 years or more. I envy the people
who can settle on one film and one way of working (like HCB and Tri-X and a
50mm lens (mainly)) because it focuses me more on what I am trying to convey
once the technicals/materials are a given but there's a part of me that just
loves to try out a new film or technical idea (in addition to my regular shot
ideas/themes)...
>Hey, nothing happens overnight, and the learning process is the fun part,
>so
>I don't mind being a sponge for a while!
>
If the learning process doesn't stop, neither does the fun ;-)
Your welcome.
>>
>> Also try Canon's website, yahoo e-groups! and for really complicated
>questions
>> perhaps Chuck Westfall himself (Canon tech rep I believe). And of course
>keep
>> shooting/testing and taking notes, not only w/ the Vivitar flash but w/
>your
>> Canon Speedlite (you've gotta learn it someday, better now thne when you
>might
>> really need it for an event or somesuch).
>
>Yeah, I know... and I will/do keep practicing with the Canon, but I must
>force myself to step backwards and work with the more difficult equipment.
>The Canon Speedlight is really just a dumb flash with a lot of smart
>features. If I can learn how to control a dumb flash with no smart
>features, I can build on that knowledge.
Were back to the cars again aren't we? ;-)
I'm a backwards learner (or maybe
>a forwards learner?)... I start big, then I instantly "dumb down to the
>basics" so I can go full circle, back to the big stuff. Make sense?
>
(-: oot redaer sdrawkcab a m'I .peY
>>
>> >>
>> Thanks and double thanks Charo. :-)
>
>You're doubly welcome, Lewis!
>
>:)
>
>~Charo
I must be Lewis2 (Lewis squared) then LOL
Charo
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020206192608...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
> >From: "Charo" ch...@ec.rr.com
> >Date: Tue, Feb 5, 2002 1:49 PM
> >Message-id: <u5vos48...@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >Hey there, Lewis!
>
> Hi Charo:
>
Hi Lewis:
(deja vu)
> SNIP
>
> You also might want to consider Canon's "Anti-fog Eyepiece ED"...
Thought about this recently, actually.... I have it on my "wish list" at
B&H, and I'm preparing to make a pretty big order next week (bunches of
little things adding up to lots 'o money), so I may just give the anti-fog
eyepiece a whirl. Thanks for the info!
>
SNIP
>
> You also might want to consider some anti-fog formaula for teating your
> eye-glasses on hot days. This and the above eyepiece might be just the
thing
> for events on hot days where you need quick film changes (which the larger
> eyepiece doesn't allow you to do).
Is there such an animal? I've never heard of an anti-fog formula for
eyeglasses, but I'll definitely research further. Thanks!
>
> SNIP
>
> >Without adjusting ISO speed, naturally. Kind of a butchered Zone system.
>
> I buried AA film at 11... LOL
:-)
SNIP>
> >There was a wonderful website I read a while back that explained the Zone
> >System in 35mm terms, and taking the information from that website,
>
> Do you remember the URL? TIA
You know, I just re-visited that site, and it doesn't really even talk about
35/120 vs. sheet film... but somehow, the way they explain the zone system
gave me the impression it was written for 35mm shooters. Anyway, the index
is at:
http://photography.cicada.com/zs/toc.html. This URL was posted either here
a while back, or perhaps at r.p.darkroom (I didn't find it on my own!)
SNIP
>
> >and I'll purposely overexpose the
> >portion that was 'off the charts', then dodge in the darkroom.
>
> If you over-expose (on negative film) usually you have to burn, not dodge
to
> bring it down/make it darker...
Yup. My bad. My intentions were correct, but my fingers didn't communicate
them properly! ;-)
SNIP
> >I plan to start developing my own color this year sometime, JUST to gain
> >the
> >basic understanding of the way color film/paper/chemicals work, and the
> >way
> >the adjustments of filtration work in the printing process.
>
> Color negative or color slide developing?
Color negative is the goal. I may start with slide developing. Of course,
to do that I'd have to start shooting slides. I have only shot maybe a
dozen rolls of slide film so far, and only for experimentation. I have a
roll of Velvia that's screaming to be used, but so far I haven't had the
desire(!). Anyway, slide development requires less in the way of initial
investment (equipment, etc), so I'll prolly start there.
SNIP
>>I must touch,
> >feel, see, smell the process...
>
> "Please don't eat the daisies"... or drink the fixer LOL :-)
Is that bad for you? ;-)
SNIP
>
> You will learn it, though youmay be surprised if it takes you a lot less
than
> 20 years to know most of the basics.
Yay!
>From there on its experimenting to find
> out what films/developing/camera techniques suit your subjects and style
of
> working, that's the part that might take 20 years or more. I envy the
people
> who can settle on one film and one way of working (like HCB and Tri-X and
a
> 50mm lens (mainly)) because it focuses me more on what I am trying to
convey
> once the technicals/materials are a given but there's a part of me that
just
> loves to try out a new film or technical idea (in addition to my regular
shot
> ideas/themes)...
I'm kind of flighty by nature, as far as interests go... I dabble in
calligraphy, oil/acrylic painting, charcoal/graphite drawing, desktop
publishing, poetry, wedding coordination... well, anything that catches my
eye, I'll start messing around with for a while, especially if there's a
possibility of *creating* something out of nothing. I've always (since
grade school) been a calligrapher, painter and writer, so photography was
the natural succession. I'm a decent calligrapher, and my drawings have
made it on to peoples' walls, but I can't paint worth a damn, and my poetry
is too deep/emotional/gut wrenching for public consumption (for the most
part - there are some moody coffee shops that have loved my writing, but
that's about the limit!) To me, photography takes the best of all worlds
that I love - photography is like painting a picture and writing a story all
at the same time.
Hold on a sec, why did I write all that?....... Oh, yeah! Film choices! My
flighty-ness ensures that I'll never be "satisfied" settling on one film...
I mean, what if something else is out there that I haven't tried??? I have
preferred film(s), but I don't think I could sleep at night knowing there
were other options available to me! Sorta like lenses... Sure, I have a
preferred focal length... but I haven't walked around with an 85mm yet, so I
*have* to try that one out so that I know for sure. And even when I know
for sure, I'll still wonder. Camera bodies... I chose Canon originally
because it was the cheapest entry-level kit I could find. Since then, I've
been satisfied with Canon, but curious about Nikon, Contax, Pentax. I mean,
what if I'm missing out on something? This is why I bought the Kiev, this
is why I'm building a series of pinholes... and I've got the Holga in my
cart at B&H, btw! I can't wait to get my hands on that baby!
I do hope to settle eventually (life's a lot easier that way), but I'm one
of those people who rearranges the furniture every season... hell, I have a
new hair color every season, so there's no way I can possibly start buying
Delta 100 in bulk and never use another film. Although if I had to choose
RIGHT THIS SECOND, it would probably be Delta 100.
Whew!
>
> >Hey, nothing happens overnight, and the learning process is the fun part,
> >so
> >I don't mind being a sponge for a while!
> >
>
> If the learning process doesn't stop, neither does the fun ;-)
Abso-freaking-lutely! :-)
SNIP
> >
> >Yeah, I know... and I will/do keep practicing with the Canon, but I must
> >force myself to step backwards and work with the more difficult
equipment.
> >The Canon Speedlight is really just a dumb flash with a lot of smart
> >features. If I can learn how to control a dumb flash with no smart
> >features, I can build on that knowledge.
>
> Were back to the cars again aren't we? ;-)
Of course! Hey, once I find an analogy that works, I stick with it!!! (I
used to use pizza-making as an analogy to everything in the world, but it's
been a while since my highschool job at Little Caesar's, and I've forgotten
the important stuff, so I'm stuck with either 'financial statements' (yawn)
or 'driving a car')
>
> I'm a backwards learner (or maybe
> >a forwards learner?)... I start big, then I instantly "dumb down to the
> >basics" so I can go full circle, back to the big stuff. Make sense?
> >
>
> (-: oot redaer sdrawkcab a m'I .peY
:-) kniht uoy yaw eht ekil I
SNIP
> I must be Lewis2 (Lewis squared) then LOL
Well, triple thanks, Lewis! Consider yourself cubed!
~Charo
Rod
You seem to stimulate many interesting discussions in this newsgroup. I will
try to respond with my "Mega Leaps" which are more like baby steps in
comparison to your experiences. I can think of only a hand full of real
leaps in my photography.
First and most importantly, the gift of a new Mamiya/Sekor 500TL on my 15th
birthday in 1969. Even though I paid my family back for the camera, this was
a princely gift for our modest income household. To put this gift into
perspective, the camera cost was equivalent to the cost of over six weeks of
groceries for my family of five in 1969. The new camera replaced what some
would call a "toy" camera which had a limed number of f-stops and shutter
speeds and suspect lens quality (I have no idea who made this camera). The
Mamiya allowed many more options for learning and really began my journey
into photography. Sadly, this camera was stolen about 10 years later. The
Mamiya wasn't a great instrument but I had a real attachment to that piece
and was became adept at being able to focus, set exposure and fire very
quickly.
The next leap would be the stints I had as a school newspaper and yearbook
photographer. I learned how to fix my poor compositions in the darkroom. It
never occurred to me that if I took more time in composition of the original
image, I could mitigate much of these compositional issues. Thirty plus
years later, I still stink at composition. Also, the experience of working
under pressure and delivering a "quality" product for use in publications
was really a good learning experience and a heck of a lot of hard work.
Another leap happened quite recently, as I had really been uninterested in
photography for many years but still took the occasional photo here and
there. What happen was a friend started getting me interested again and as a
result, I decided to enter the world of auto focus 35mm. I purchased an EOS
Elan IIe and the 28-135mm IS lens. The technology of this combination really
got me interested in photography. The image stabilization is a marvel in
certain situations and the eye control focus allows a quicker composition
(when it occurs to me). Since then I have added to my EOS kit a 50mm prime
lens (used), an EOS RT, the Tokina 19-33mm zoom and most recently a used EOS
80-200 f/2.8 zoom.
Perhaps the biggest leap to my photography experience is the capability of
scanning my negatives. Since I shoot exclusively print film, the scanner
does something that I rarely do with my prints. Viewing the scanning forces
me to look at the image, critically. The scanner shows me in unforgiving
detail my poor exposures and composition. Since getting the scanner, I have
paid much more attention to these aspects of my shooting. I still stink but
perhaps I will improve in these areas. One last thing with the scanner, I
have been scanning all of my old negatives and having fun discovering some
(not many) old treasures.
Sorry for the long post but you asked for it. Good shooting to all.
Rod
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020204085457...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> I was just curious what equipment and/or ideas are responsible for
massively
> improving your photography. Here are some of mine:
>
> - "You've made some beautiful images, now go make some images that
> meaningsomething": this is what Duane Michals (surrealistic black and
white
> fine art photographer who's work I appreciated) said to me in 1988 (after
> viewing my work (which consisted of at that point PJ, fashion and lots of
> personal work that is hard to classify) up till then as part of a slide
show of
> the class's portfolios at a seminar I took w/ him) and after hearing that
my
> mind and vision opened up and "just beautiful" wasn't enough for me (in my
own
> or other's photography) I saw that I wanted to make meaningful statements
w/ my
> photography.
>
> - The (full frame) fisheye lens: from the moment I saw through one I knew
this
> was "home" and not just a gimmick for me. Also, I instantaneously (or
> thereabouts) knew how to compose with it (see next item)...
>
> - Learning how to compose by "seeing in shapes": whether negative or
positive
> shapes/space this has helped me compose first easily, regardless of lens
in use
> but its an especially useful "technique" for wide angle photography (and
even
> more so for fisheye photography).
>
> - "Test Drive A Leica": back about 1983?, whilst I was living in Canada
> Henry's? camera store I believe had a test program that allowed you to
borrow a
> Leica M4-P and various M lenses (also in the same program I believe I
tested
> the R4 and 28 Elmarit, 50mm Summilux and 135mm Elmarit). Since then "good
> quality" was never good enough. It gave me an appreciation not only for
fine
> equipment but more importantly for extremely high quality 35mm lenses and
the
> 3D subtle higher format tonality of Leica/Zeiss/Schneider/etc. lenses
>
> - Nikon F3HP viewfinder: finally a viewfinder where I didn't have to
scrunch my
> eye and/or move my head to see the edges/corners. Everything right in
front of
> me like seeing a canvas at a distance. Finaly I could compose like a
painting
> by seeing the entire image _easily_ at once. This viewfinder is one of the
> reasons I ping ponged between Nikon and Leica M during the 1980's and
early
> '90s - the former had good to excellent lenses and very sharp zooms that
could
> make it to 16x20" enlargements whilst the latter had a lousy viewfinder
> eyepoint, especially for wide angle lenses and those who wore glasses like
me,
> but had lenses literally from another realm when it came to
> tonality/micro-contrast w/ results that could easily be blown up to 30x40"
(I
> have, from both Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25) and larger (I've seen
enlargement
> up to about 4x6', that's right _feet_ or larger w/ superlative results
from I
> believ ethe 35mm f/2 Summicron w/ Leica M and flash shot on Ektar 25 by
someone
> else, it used to hang in a photo store called Conklings in Oregon in the
early
> '90's)) w/o falling apart. It was a difficult decision but in the end I
ended
> up w/ sort of a "non-compromise compromise" - a Contax 167MT that had a
long
> eyepoint w/ extremely high quality Zeiss lenses. But occaisionally I do
pine
> for a Leica M or an F3T again ;-)
>
> - Bokeh: (I can alread hear the laughing... here come the bad bokeh
jokes/puns
> ;-))... there was an article (actually several) in the May/June '97 issue
on
> this subject that turned me onto the oof characteristics of various lenses
and
> made me not only more aware of this but skewed my photography from an f/16
> large depth of field aproach to an f/4 and below selective focus approach
> (though I still do the f/16 bit when I need to/want to).
>
> - An art show in 1987 on surrealism, my photography has not been "normal"
since
> ;-). Another example of finding "home" :-). I still have the catalog from
> it/the show "THE LEGACY OF SURREALISM IN CONTEMPORARY ART." (Sorry I don't
lend
> this out or make copies ;-()
>
> - Meeting Roger Hicks (author of The 35mm Panorama and numerous other
photo
> books and author at Shutterbug/etc.). I believe I met him at Dels' camera.
Told
> him I read and appreciated his book (it was sort of a photographic bible
of how
> to get quality/what quality you could get w/ 35mm equipment) and ended up
> showing him my work (smaller portfolio plus some 30x40" prints that blew
him
> away). This led to some of my work being published in "Successful Black
and
> White Photogrpahy" (now out of print I believe) by Roger as well as being
> included in several of the Pro-Lighting books on lighting techniques (both
him
> and his wife, Frances Schultz were editors towards the beginning of the
book
> series and both continue to write for Shutterbug I believe). This
association
> also led me to write a couple of articles that were published in
Shutterbug.
> Not bad for "one 'chance' meeting" hanging out in a camera shop, eh? :-)
>
> - Digital.... NOT! Well at least not at the moment and not for right now.
Too
> expensive to get into for me and then there's the whole longevity
> "archivalness" bit - don't get me started on another counter to the "FILM
IS
> DEAD" thread ;-) *Though I will have to say, I used my friends' D30 and it
was
> fun, especially when I didn't have to pay a cent to use it. Unfortunately
he
> lives in Scottland and th commute is a killer one from New Jersey ;-).
>
> - Santa Barbara, California: I taught myself how to do fine art
photography by
> taking out up to 80? some odd books from the Brooks Institute (a photo
> school/boot camp whose style of photography at the time consisted of
commercial
> work, theme assemblages and a style of portraiture that seemed dated when
> Mortensen was doing it in the 1940's) Library (which became my own school
w/i a
> school when I realised that I wanted to do fine art/personal photography
and
> Brooks had nothing to teach me but a lot of techniques that I already knew
and
> how to bracket on three films and Polaroids in 4x5" in 1/3 stops and how
to go
> broke doing it... but that's another story/nightmare the length of
Lawrence of
> Arabia w/o intermission ;-) - this is not really a leap so much as I miss
the
> place very much (I consider it a second if not first home) - boy do I miss
it!
> :-) :-)
>
> There are probably many others I'm leaving out but I'd like to hear the
> responses of others too (even if your mega leaps are only semi-mega leaps
or
> frosted mini-leaps ;-)).
>
> This post:
>
> Š 2002 Lewis Lang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (Hmmm, yes, I do love my copyrights,
yum,
> yum ,yum...)
Chris Torek
>news:20020206192608...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>> eye-glasses on hot days. ...
In article <u651jvp...@corp.supernews.com> Charo <ch...@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>Is there such an animal? I've never heard of an anti-fog formula for
>eyeglasses, but I'll definitely research further. Thanks!
Go to any scuba-diving shop and they will have bottles of "anti fog"
stuff you can apply to your scuba mask; it works on eyeglasses too.
(Of course, ask any old-hand scuba diver and he will tell you that
you can just spit into your mask. You may still want to go with
the anti-fog bottle. :-) )
Your eyeglasses place may have the same stuff in a convenient spray
bottle (and microfiber cloths to use with it). As I recall, you can
make the stuff at home from water, isopropyl alcohol, and a very very
tiny bit of dish-type detergent, but the spray bottle is certainly
more convenient.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com +1 510 234 3167
http://63.193.109.35/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
"nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com" *is* my address (one of many actually).
Charo
news:a3u5ot$cb6$1...@elf.eng.bsdi.com...
> >"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >news:20020206192608...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >> You also might want to consider some anti-fog formaula for treating
your
> >> eye-glasses on hot days. ...
>
> In article <u651jvp...@corp.supernews.com> Charo <ch...@ec.rr.com>
wrote:
> >Is there such an animal? I've never heard of an anti-fog formula for
> >eyeglasses, but I'll definitely research further. Thanks!
>
> Go to any scuba-diving shop and they will have bottles of "anti fog"
> stuff you can apply to your scuba mask; it works on eyeglasses too.
>
> (Of course, ask any old-hand scuba diver and he will tell you that
> you can just spit into your mask. You may still want to go with
> the anti-fog bottle. :-) )
>
> Your eyeglasses place may have the same stuff in a convenient spray
> bottle (and microfiber cloths to use with it). As I recall, you can
> make the stuff at home from water, isopropyl alcohol, and a very very
> tiny bit of dish-type detergent, but the spray bottle is certainly
> more convenient.
> --
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the tip(s)!!! I don't think I wanna spit on my glasses, but the
ready-made stuff sounds perfect! :-)
~Charo
Lewis Lang
Comments follow in-line...
>Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
>From: "Rod" nob...@nowhere.net
>Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2002 3:30 PM
>Message-id: <c4x88.27921$p5.45...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>
>
>Lewis,
>
>You seem to stimulate many interesting discussions in this newsgroup.
Thanks :-).
I
>will
>try to respond with my "Mega Leaps" which are more like baby steps in
>comparison to your experiences. I can think of only a hand full of real
>leaps in my photography.
>
That's OK, even though the thread is entitled "Mega Leaps" its quality/depth of
its affecting you that counts more than quantity (how many you've had) - at
least in my mind anyway ;-).
>First and most importantly, the gift of a new Mamiya/Sekor 500TL on my 15th
>birthday in 1969.
I remember the camera well (played w/ a friends' same camera I believe in the
early 90's. I remeber their 35mm lens was pretty darn sharp too ;-).
Even though I paid my family back for the camera, this
>was
>a princely gift for our modest income household. To put this gift into
>perspective, the camera cost was equivalent to the cost of over six weeks
>of
>groceries for my family of five in 1969.
Wow, that's alot of tuna and spaghetti! I respect your hard work/dedication in
wanting, getting and paying back your family for the camera at the young age of
15.
The new camera replaced what some
>would call a "toy" camera which had a limed number of f-stops and shutter
>speeds and suspect lens quality (I have no idea who made this camera).
Could it be the proto-type for the "Fabulous EOS-1v" LOL (sorry, had to get
that one in there...) :-).
The
>Mamiya allowed many more options for learning and really began my journey
>into photography. Sadly, this camera was stolen about 10 years later.
:-(
The
>Mamiya wasn't a great instrument but I had a real attachment to that piece
>and was became adept at being able to focus, set exposure and fire very
>quickly.
>
If it did what you wanted it to and you were adept at using it then it was a
great piece, but I know what you mean regardless. First (real) cameras are like
first loves, the rest that follow never seem to compare despite their
(possibly) better attributes... :-)
>The next leap would be the stints I had as a school newspaper and yearbook
>photographer. I learned how to fix my poor compositions in the darkroom.
>It
>never occurred to me that if I took more time in composition of the original
>image, I could mitigate much of these compositional issues. Thirty plus
>years later, I still stink at composition. Also, the experience of working
>under pressure and delivering a "quality" product for use in publications
>was really a good learning experience and a heck of a lot of hard work.
>
Why do you say you stink at composition still? What qualities do you find
lacking in your compositions/what needs improvement (subject placement,
cropping still?, rhythm, using leading/other lines, generating excitement
and/or a specific emotional mood w/ the elements?, lack of
practice/shooting/treating different subjects w/ different compositions as time
went by?)? Have you read any books or practiced any excersises that might help
you to improve?
>Another leap happened quite recently, as I had really been uninterested
>in
>photography for many years but still took the occasional photo here and
>there.
Practicing composition (w/ or w/o film in the camera, the second which I call
"dry running it") can help your eye probably more than anything... "Practie
makes 'prefect'" ;-)
What happen was a friend started getting me interested again and
>as a
>result, I decided to enter the world of auto focus 35mm. I purchased an
>EOS
>Elan IIe and the 28-135mm IS lens. The technology of this combination really
>got me interested in photography. The image stabilization is a marvel in
>certain situations and the eye control focus allows a quicker composition
>(when it occurs to me). Since then I have added to my EOS kit a 50mm prime
>lens (used), an EOS RT, the Tokina 19-33mm zoom and most recently a used
>EOS
>80-200 f/2.8 zoom.
>
Sounds "tasty" :-). Good equipment can be a great motivator.
>Perhaps the biggest leap to my photography experience is the capability
>of
>scanning my negatives. Since I shoot exclusively print film, the scanner
>does something that I rarely do with my prints. Viewing the scanning forces
>me to look at the image, critically. The scanner shows me in unforgiving
>detail my poor exposures and composition. Since getting the scanner, I have
>paid much more attention to these aspects of my shooting. I still stink
>but
>perhaps I will improve in these areas.
Just give it time and practice (to develop a keen eye/photographic skills), you
already have the motivation, with alittle effort the rest will follow...
One last thing with the scanner,
>I
>have been scanning all of my old negatives and having fun discovering some
>(not many) old treasures.
>
:-). That's real fun. Also all this scanning helps you to see what worked and
what didin't work in your images and why, that's the other half of the
"formula," besides looking for great images w/ your camera, looking at great
and not so great images you (and others) have taken really helps to develop the
eye. And as you know/have said, practicing more cropping and exposure controls
w/ your images to try to improve them and/or see the many compositions/images
within the main image also helps...
>Sorry for the long post but you asked for it. Good shooting to all.
>
>Rod
Yes, I did ask for it, and thanks for giving it/sharing your experiences w/ us
all, this is another part of what makes photography so exciting (besides camera
equipment ;-)).
Lewis Lang
>From: Chris Torek nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com
>Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2002 3:16 PM
>Message-id: <a3u5ot$cb6$1...@elf.eng.bsdi.com>
>
>>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>>news:20020206192608...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>>> You also might want to consider some anti-fog formaula for treating your
>>> eye-glasses on hot days. ...
>
>In article <u651jvp...@corp.supernews.com> Charo <ch...@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>>Is there such an animal? I've never heard of an anti-fog formula for
>>eyeglasses, but I'll definitely research further. Thanks!
>
>Go to any scuba-diving shop and they will have bottles of "anti fog"
>stuff you can apply to your scuba mask; it works on eyeglasses too.
>
>(Of course, ask any old-hand scuba diver and he will tell you that
>you can just spit into your mask. You may still want to go with
>the anti-fog bottle. :-) )
>
>Your eyeglasses place may have the same stuff in a convenient spray
>bottle (and microfiber cloths to use with it). As I recall, you can
>make the stuff at home from water, isopropyl alcohol, and a very very
>tiny bit of dish-type detergent, but the spray bottle is certainly
>more convenient.
Thanks for all the info Chris :-).
Rod
I believe my skills as a photographer are impaired in that I am not in any
way artistic (I am a physicist by education and an unemployed
telecommunications engineer by trade). Composition does not come easy to me.
However, in all fairness, I have never consciously done much to try to
improve in this area. I have not read books on this subject and probably
won't because I am too lazy. I also feel that since I am unartistic, it
won't do much good to study up on it anyway. I have tried to practice as you
suggested and try to be more conscious of composition but it just doesn't
seem to matter. Once I get a good look at the scans, I realize that I am
just not as adept as most of you all.
Because of these limitations and my background (photographic upbringing as
it were) as an event photographer, I have always concentrated on catching
moments in my images and therefore composition is the last thing that gets
attention. I rarely try to be artistic but more so now than in the past.
One thing I am working on is exposure. I am making an effort to improve my
exposure technique and it shows in the scans. Sometimes I correct the
exposure to bad effect but mostly, I seem to be getting the hang of the EOS
metering systems.
Also, when I say I stink, I am being perhaps (and debatably) overly modest
since friends accuse of being modest to a fault. I recently shot a friend
and his son at a football game and I thought is was a real keeper. When my
friend saw the shot he said he would always treasure the picture. It is nice
to get some positive feedback occasionally. But mostly my pictures are good
for me and my subjects but of little interest to others. This is what I
understand makes the difference between artist and hack. I am a hack.
The bottom line is I am having fun shooting again and as long as the wife
lets me spend the money for film and processing, I do enjoy my hobby.
Rod
Dan
I think you are artistic. Although you are not 'implementing' some ideas,
but a 'quiet observer' can also catch the great images. You and your
subjects like the photos. That's what counts. If you don't like, seldom
others will do.
Because of your insight, your photos will be logically more complete (or
incomplete deliberately), better paintingly if self-contain, so composition.
Pros are way ahead of us in this adventure, but not all commecial art works
are 'good'. Also they have defined viewers or audiences too. You still need
to know what they really expect (the market :-), and better if you present
something new.
Perhaps artist or not is distinguished by the emotion or passion. Is that
what your friends accuse of you? :-)
I am not an artist, but you've got my praise :-)
Dan
Lewis Lang
>From: "Dan" marke...@email.com
>Date: Sat, Feb 9, 2002 3:36 PM
>Message-id: <3mb98.289$Ap6.11...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>
Dan:
Was this message meant for me, Gordon Moat or someone else?
TIA
Dan
Good Question. Unfortunately I forgot :o(
If you could, a comment is always welcomed. And 'praise' only please :-)
TIA
Dan
Lewis Lang
ID clothing ;-)):
>Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
>From: "Dan" marke...@email.com
>Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 1:50 AM
>Message-id: <Flk98.361$%56.144...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>
>
>Lewis,
>
>Good Question. Unfortunately I forgot :o(
>
Um, ok...
>If you could, a comment is always welcomed. And 'praise' only please :-)
>
>TIA
>
>Dan
Dan I'd be happy to comment on anything, but I need you to mention something
specific (quotes) for me to comment on. :-)
Ok, assuming you meant me to comment on the entire post, even though I don't
even know if you had meant the post for me, I'll give you my impressions
anyway...
"I think you are artistic.
Thanks... I think... :-) ...But... We may be just arguing over semantics
(different definitions of the same word) but I consider what I do art, not
"artistic" because what I do is not meant to be pretty or decorative but
express my own (and no one else's as in most advertising/etc. photography) most
deepest personal convictions/ideas. Whatever you meant, I'l take it as a
complement anyways (asuming it was even meant for me?).
" Although you are not 'implementing' some ideas,
but a 'quiet observer' can also catch the great images."
This makes me wonder whether you are talking about me because I mostly think
then shoot rather than play the quiet photojournalistic/other observer...
" You and your
subjects like the photos."
I know I like my photos (I better or I'd have little motivation/inspiration to
do more) ;-)
" That's what counts. If you don't like, seldom
others will do."
I agree totally on this point.
"Because of your insight, your photos will be logically more complete (or
incomplete deliberately), better paintingly if self-contain, so composition."
I don't understand what your saying here about "better paintingly" (sounds like
it might apply more to Gordon's paintings, or are you referring to common
qualities of excellence between a well designed painting and a well designed
photographic image? I'm confused here...) but good photo thinking usually
results in good compositions... :-)
Pros are way ahead of us in this adventure, but not all commecial art works
are 'good'. Also they have defined viewers or audiences too. You still need
to know what they really expect (the market :-), and better if you present
something new.
Actually I think what sells (somebody correct me are the same old same old, at
least in terms of stock photography, photo decor subject matter for hanging in
a den or corporate office (landscapes, wildlife, possibly nudes (at home),
etc.). As Gordon pointed out I believe, advertising usually wants something
flashy/attention getting in the design/subject matter department rather than
what is good (deep), but then again advertising is there to sell a product and
hopefully the end point is to make more sales (eventually) not to put across
one person's vision of theirself/the world like in fine art (whether that
product be a physical product a company makes such as cars, a service such as
an internet provider, or a corporate image - "we're the company that cares
about the environment/customer/fill in the blank").
That is not to say that some advertising can't be used by the photographer to
"do their own thing" and make personal statements/art w/ it" - many of
Rembrandt's (the painter not the rock group or the toothpaste ;-)) finest _art_
works were done on commision for guild's/groups and many other artists did
commercial work for presidents and/or kings throughout the history of art right
up to this very day whether the artist is called photographer, painter or
whatever because of the medium they work in... Its not the fact that a work is
commissioned that makes it art or not but the personal genius, dedication, and
vision of the world a person brings to their an "assignment" to make it
uniquely their own, whether that be a self-assignment or working for someone
else/"other"/advertising/commision/whatever. either a work expresses something
deeper than a surface attempt at grabbing your percentage of the gross national
product or it is just gross hack work w/ no input and "vision" from the creator
(painter/photographer/etc.)
"Perhaps artist or not is distinguished by the emotion or passion."
Its more than emotion or passion, its how you translate that emotion/passion
into passionate meaningful compeliing statements/ideas/treatments/themes
through your photography. You can be the most passionate photographer in the
world and yet produce crap, that passion for a subject, theme or whatever has
to express itself through the work and hopefully into the viewer as something
meaningful/moving to that audience, not just "a loud noise signifying nothing"
which I find most advertising/commisioned hack work is.
" Is that
what your friends accuse of you? :-)"
Not really. They accuse me of not pushing my work too hard, and they're right,
I'd rather be out making photographs and teaching myself how to make my next
photograph, the business end I am underwhelmed by (except getting paid for it,
then I am overwhelmed ;-)) so I have to force myself to get my work out there.
"I am not an artist, but you've got my praise :-)
Dan"
Thanks Dan, or thanks on behalf of whoever (photographer) you intended here to
mention as the subject of your post but forgot to mention/forgot :-).
By the way, Gordon, as an aside here, I haven't forgotten my answering your
post, I am/will be getting back to replying to your post soon/next too, sorry
its taken quite a while to do it. It should be upcoming sometime on Sunday...
Regards,
Lewis Lang
et&rnum=24
(w/ my reply added to the google URL above):
Hi Gordon:
Sorry for the long delay in replying (and in the use of small quotation marks,
my newsreader seems to have missied your post so I can’t reply to it q/ my
standard AOL quoting arrows, I hope you understand/can forgive it :-))...
“Groups Advanced Groups Search Groups Help
Groups search result 24 for
From: Gordon Moat (mo...@attglobal.net)
Subject: Re: Mega Leaps
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
View: Complete Thread (29 articles) | Original FormatDate: 2002-02-06 12:51:16
PST
Lewis Lang wrote:
> Hi Gordon:
Good afternoon Lewis,
> Actually I've gone there and enjoyed it.
Thank you.
> There are elements of your style that
> remind me of Phillip Guston, Rosenquist (I'm probably getting the name wrong
> here) and perhaps Cindy Sherman (though she tends to use herself mostly as
the
> main actress (or at least has in the past).
More inspiration than exploring a style. Guston is an interesting character.
Lately, I have found the images of Christian Boltanski (spelling?) very
interesting. Rosenquist seems too much like 1960s advertising influenced, but
just
my opinion . . . judging from the colour choices.”
You’re probably right about Rosenquist, though I haven’t done a full study of
his work, I’m just very vaguely familiar w/ it, I’ll have to check into
Boltanski’s work...
“>
> You seem to have a strange fascination w/ pistols, besides the fact that they
> are very glamourous/cinematic (at least as represented in older films and on
> your canvas) do they have any special meanings for you or do you just like
the
> way they look and/or the emotional effect/associations/connotations? they
have?
>
LOL . . . actually they are used mostly for a reaction from the viewer.”
Just for shock/attention getting, nothing thematically meaningful?
“ I have
noticed that Americans tend to notice these first,”
Exposure to too many Jimmy Cagney and Rambo movies? ;-)
“ while most Europeans that have
seen my paintings notice the faces first.”
Interesting...
“ I guess the cultural associations, and
emotional effect (reactions), were the choices. Movies quite often portray
violence, and clichés, in a hyper realistic manner.”
I’d call it “stylized/heightened realism” but we probably mean the same
thing...
“ Movies do influence life, and
become a part of life, so that series of paintings was an exploration.”
An exploration of how movies become a part of life? How so?
“By the way, I do not own any guns at all. I am glad I do not have a need to do
so.
I am not against those who wish to own guns, and I prefer not to get involved
in
the politics of guns.”
I have similar feelings, though if I was out west I might own one again...
“>
> A mistake (the two light sources) that you ended up using anyway because it
> worked or did you plan it this way fromthe beginning in these experiments?
No . . . it was intentional, which was why I made it obvious. Really just
another
way to change focal points and create eye movement. I had not seen any examples
of
what I wanted to try, so I just did a few to see what stories could be told
from
that technique. So far, I have found that it has very limited use.”
What stories does that technique tell/what’s its best uses, why do you find its
uses ‘limited’?
“>
> Perhaps for more of the bare bones structure but I find for myself that color
> is another layer of "life" in the image that has a life of its own beyond the
> elements of tonal symmetry, juxtapositions, rhythms, etc. I guess that while
I
> sometimes sketch out things (in images or words) I basically have to edit
right
> before my eyes as to which color schemes work best and why. Since I see
mostly
> shapes then color which is intregal yet secondary in execution but primary
> along w/ shapes in consideration/usefulness I guess that despite my
preference
> for shapes that most of my works work better as color than black and white
> because I tend to see the world mainly in color (but it is a highly stylized
> relaistic if not an in your face color scheme).
I guess I am probably quite a bit different in the way I create. Most of the
creative individuals that I know constantly think directly in colour from the
very
beginning, similar to the way you work.”
Actually, I don’t work that way, I choose my shapes/compositional lay out first
then I select my color right before my eyes as I build the shot (a set in a
stil life). I sometimes will chose a color cheme before hand (befor ei shoot
the shot) but more often then not I need to or prefer to see how the colro
elements develop before my eyes and build the colors as I work as sort of a
visual version of jazz improv but instead of improvising melodies w/ notes I am
improvising color schemes/juggling color elements to see what works best w/
what and why - a sort of loose improvisation which I prefer, more interesting
surprises and varied possibilities are explored that way...
“ Really just a technique that has worked
well for me, though obviously nothing is done the same all the time. The use of
that technique in painting allows me to focus on composition first. My
photographic studies used for my paintings are all B/W shots.”
Do you ever paint from your head, w/o drawings or photographic studies -
why/why not?
“> Basically I treat color as any
> other element of composition, I use whatever mode from the realistic/subdued
to
> the surrelaistic (in your face or pastel/almost monochromatic) mode of colro
> depending on what a shot needs. I love and do black and white, when
necessary,
> but it is rare that I'll actually envision an image as black and white before
> shooting it. Usually I'll just envision the image as an image and the subject
> matter and the theme(s) I try to convey and treatment I wish to give it will
> help me determine which if any color/schemes are needed.
In my design work, there is much more of a focus on colour selection. Since
these
will be going to print, the colour associations are all very carefully
considered
and studied.”
This makes perfect sense, especially for design work since everything must be
planned out to a “t.”
“Another aspect of colour strictly applies to my oil paintings. There are
undercoats of paint comprising different tones. These cause a change in the
topmost layers of colour, which altered the warmness/coolness (push/pull) of
the
colours. Since oil paints blend so well, it makes this possible. Unfortunately,
film images of the paintings lose this quality. The colour gamut of oil
paintings
is much beyond the maximum gamut of colour films. :-(“
I know,I know, tell me about it :-(...
“>
> Color can be/is timeless too depending on how its used. I can't imagine
anyone
> ever telling me what colors to use much less "what's in" because it would be
> like telling me when to inhale/exhale, then (2/11/2: “again” I should have
added here) I'm not into design and when people
> tell me what they want (at least for the rare amount of paid
> portraits/editorial I do) my mind usually grows fuzzy and I end up doing what
I
> want anyways. They usually like it :-)
Design is a very different animal indeed. Design for advertising needs to
consider
the current colour choices. There is an entire industry built on this. Studies
are
done each year, for the next year, to determine the direction that popular
items
will take. Seems quite manufactured, since the companies that forecast, also
control the processing of those colours. Pantone is probably the one company
that
most on this NG may be familiar. These colour choices are often based on
psychological, environmental, situational, and political influences in western
culture. Of course, on the surface, it seems to be self perpetuating: The
colours
are identified, they get used in print, on clothes, and for products; thus
fulfilling the predictions of their popular usage . . . funny . . . .”
A self-fullfilling marketing juggernaut prophecy, LOL! :-)
“
This is all not nearly as limiting as it may seem. The current list has 82
colours, and covers the entire gamut (or colour wheel). The reasons for
particular
choices still are dependant on the designer.”
82 colors is still quite a big spectrum to choose from, but for me its a good
thing I’m not a designer since I’d still be choosing whatever colors I felt
worked not whats on some list of “acceptables” vs. “untouchables” LOL :-)
“
>
>
> >Design lasts longer than advertising, so colour choices tend to be more
> >conservative.
>
> That makes sense. But by design you mean what exactly? Must it match the
color
> scheme of the couch (like decor) or some kind of industrial design or what
> exactly?
Think branding and corporate identity. Look at logos for financial companies
and
large corporations . . . notice how they are very limited in their colour
choices.”
Like Starbucks (green white and black?), etc....
“That is probably the most noticeable difference between design and
advertising.
Advertising has a short life span, and is more for the moment.
One of my latest projects involved colour explorations for a restaurant chain.
These are concepts that will need to remain unchanged for five (or ten) years.
Obviously, this would not necessarily involve any of the colours on the list I
previously mentioned, but it could. It is likely that none of the ideas I
presented may be used, since these were studies to be used in meetings with a
larger design team. I did all the photography and image manipulation for the
project. Quite a lot of work, and it archives to seven CD-R and five boxes of
transparencies.”
A lot of work... How do you work, do you select the ideas/themes first like
“home” or “comfort” or “bright” or “woodsey” and/or whatever and then the color
or color scheme that matches those ideas/themes best or what exactly? Is all
this work on spec or do they pay you for each stage/how does that end of it
work exactly?
“
>
>
> B/W done properly can assume timeless, and contemporary qualities
> >in
> >the same image, or series of images.
> >
>
> You're right but to me timelessness is more dependent on the image/emotional
> thrust of its contents/approach rather than black and white or color
> considerations.
I suppose you mean content and subject matter? Basically, just because it is
B/W
photography does not make it dated, or nostalgic, but the subject matter (or
content) could (or not).”
Right, the subject matter and/or the technical approach (ie. vignetting, soft
focus filters, sepia (more classic) or split toning (a more modern look,
perhaps), etc.).
“> I have seen black and white images that look dated (tied to a
> specific time) as well as timeless and the same thing for color, it really
> depnds on the image and the photographer (that is if we are still ralking
about
> photgraphy at this point ;-)).
Absolutely.”
:-)
“
> In more recent photographs (not on my website) I tend to balance more
asymmetry
> (subjects cropped at edges of frame) w/ symmetry (subject posed in the center
> or bisymmetrical subject at either side of center) all in the same shot. I
find
> this whole lot fun and a quite a bit "spooky" - for lack of a better term
:-).
> Part of me prefers the classicism of bisymmetrical and/or centrally placed
> compositions while the other part of me loves a sort of
> "Winograndesque"?/Degas? snapshot compositions of letting the subject(s)
> diverge at/towards the edges/corners of the frame - w/i the past 5? years I
> have begun to incorporate both approaches successfully into single shots
rather
> than doing one or the other compositional approaches in different shots.
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st3.htm">"YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK
UP
> THE NUMBER)/TALK'S C…</A>
Not so sure about the Dutched angle, but the strong diagonal does make this
interesting. Cropping the bottom a bit to change the aspect ratio could
reinforce
that more. Nice shot.”
Thanks.This is an off kilter/dutch angle so for me it needs a “touch of the
Titanic” to show/emotionally express this crazy/sinking commentary on the
world, so for me it definitely does work, but to each their own... :-) I really
like it cropped the way it is, which is quite cropped to the limits anyway, I
don’t want to cut off her hand w/ the watch and I like both the swoop of her
shirt on the left corner as a lead in line and the “anchoring” (pardon another
deliberate Titanic reference/pun) that having more of her shirt show on the
bottom does for the compositional balance of the image...
“>
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st2.htm">"HOME IMPROVEMENT"</A>
A bit surreal. Was that a fisheye, or PhotoShop Bloat filter?”
16mm Zeiss Distagon full frame fisheye, no “bloating” ;-)
“ Here is an example
of where a symmetrical composition can give stability to an image. The curve
lines
(window frames?)”
They are actually 2x4’s that are the wooden framework of this hut (they were
probably builing it as the new entrance mini-ticket booth at the time at the
entrance to the park...
“ and sky contrast give a top weighted feel, but the symmetrical
crop makes the bottom centre images take on more visual weight. Perhaps a
concept
to explore further.”
I am/have been ;-) Opposittes that at least balance each other if not attract
each other in symmetrical, asymmetrical and combination
symmetrical/assymetrical shots :-) A similar scema is used in my shot “Family
Ties” which is a non-fisheye shot (also not on my website). I am also working
out/exploring other compositional schema not as rules but as both devices and
reference points for more free form compositions in order to both use for
future compositional possibilities as well as for the sheer fun/joy and freedom
of exploring what works visually and emotionally.
“ More contrast may be another direction, which could create
more apparent motion.”
How so? Could you give an reason/example of how/why contrast would create
apparent motion in this shot or another and/or how (and more importantly why)
this compositional device could be used for emotional/thematic effect in a shot
(“Home Improvement” or some other shot of mine or yours or in a description of
some kind of hypothetical shot example)? Thanks.
“>
>
> There are also more recent shots (not on the website) that successfully
> incorporate both compsoitional approaches into single shots...
>
> >There is also cropping to confine an image, which can create stability were
> >there
> >was none. Some of this is done in camera (or on paper/canvas), though it
> >can be
> >later refined further. Creating rhythm is one of the fun things to explore
> >in
> >camera, and can sometimes be enhanced by cropping.
> >
> :-)
> >All these are much easier to explore with faces, though face like shapes
> >can serve
> >as well.
>
> ...because faces are usually looking in a certain direction?
Because people can associate with faces, and it is an easy to understand
element
of proportion. There is an element of direction, but the indication of
proportion
will be more influential. Draw a horse slightly out of proportion, and many
people
would not notice, but draw a person out of proportion, and it becomes obvious
even
to non artists. The directional aspect is less of a consideration, and usually
more effective using whole body positioning, or arms/hands, or legs/feet.”
People definitely identify w/ faces more than any other type of compositional
element perhaps, and definitely w/ eyes. But faces or not, cropped in camera or
later on, I love creating different rhythms w/i the composition - it is a
surefire way to spice up more symmetrical type shots (like the curving
succession of 2x4’s in “Home Improvement” - symmetrical compositions can give a
more classical feel to a composition but symmetrical doesn’t have to be
synonymous w/ “boring” - not if I have anything to say/show about it! :-)
“>
>
> ANything that is somewhat directional by nature, or design, could
> >also be
> >used this way. I think that confined convergent lines can be more
interesting
> >than
> >divergent lines, though this can be tougher to pull off.
>
> Why do you find confined convergenet lines more interesting?
Creates a sense of closed in, confined, or pointing towards an unknown
direction.”
Sort of like a shorthand “arrow” of sorts to lead/point the way in different
directions and focal points w/i the composition...
“Cliché for this would be the railroad tracks converging on the horizon in the
centre of an image, but there are subtler ways to use this.”
Give the dastardly villain w/ handlebar mustache that ties down Penelope
Pitstop to the railroad tracks a white hat as opposed to a black hat, perhaps?
:-) (Just kidding).
“Basically, I try to
use them to stir the imagination of the viewer, provoke more thought, and let
the
viewer discover their own story within the image. The story is guided by my
images, but the story I envisioned, or intended, is less important to me than
the
ability of the viewer to generate their own story. Convergent lines just work
better for me when I tell stories.”
What are some of the stories you specifically are trying to generate w/ these
converging lines, could you give an example or three from one of your shots? Or
are you just trying to hint at a narrative/mystery w/o having any particular
story(s) in mind?
“>
>
> A suggestion of
> >motion
> >can also serve the same purpose.
> >
>
> Motion usually contains direction as an element of it but what purpose are
you
> actually referring to here that it serves?
Same as the convergent lines . . . to stir the imagination (story) in a
direction
of the viewers thoughts. A sense of motion creates a feeling of anticipation .
. .
what comes next, etc.; the suggestion of direction, or lack of direction with
motion, can reinforce, or confuse, the story. Hopefully, the viewer is able to
make up their own story to bring order, or interest, to the image.”
So all these narrative devices (motion, converging lines, guns, etc.) are more
indicators/hints/suggestors to/of a story than exemplifying/pointing to a
particular specific theme or situation?
“>
> So you continue to paint/the painting onto the frame itself? Its hard for me
to
> picture exactly what you're doing from your written/verbal description.
I wish I had some detail photos. Perhaps that is something I can add to my
site. I
consider the side of the canvas just as much a part of the story as the front,
since it is also visible.”
From your description I understand all of the above now, perhaps you should
consider doing some “box kites” that have either 4 paintings connected at the
edges to form an open box (no top or bottom planes) w/ different images on each
of its four sides, or consider doing one long continuous canvas stretched
around the bars in a box-like shape so that one end meets the other? :-) You
might also want to consider doing Moebius strips w/ your canvases that don’t
have a beginning or an ending. Just hypothesizing off the top of my head
here... :-)
“ This is not an add-on wood frame that goes over the
canvas, like most paintings you might see. The wood is underneath the canvas,
since it merely needs to hold (stretch) the canvas. Since it is fairly thick
sided, I consider it part of the composition, and always paint that part.”
Understood.
“> Getting (fine art) photographs (not decor photographs that match the couch)
in
> galleries sold doesn't seem that much easier, so I think I understand what
boat
> (or at least what paint pot) you're in ;-)
>
> Paintings also take quite
> >a bit
> >of time, and some money, for each (30 to 80 hours for each piece, not
including
> >conceptual studies).
> >
>
> I understand, some of my conceptual still lifes have taken months too (my
> kitchen/dining room floor was turned into a beach (and so was a part of my
> living room) but that's another story(s))...
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll14.htm">"JUST SAY NO…"</A>
Funny . . . and surrealism again. It might be interesting to have a symmetrical
crop to this, and create a very tall and narrow aspect ratio. Could be some fun
crops in this as well.”
Actually I like the isolated feeling of the symmetrical crop as is, but I
appreciate you mentioning other possibilities :-).
“>
>
> >Design/illustration is also not an easy choice for a career.
>
> Would you say its easier, tougher, or the same as photography as a career and
> why?
Tougher since it is less understandable by the average individual/client. Too
many
people think it is just computer software, clip art, and stock images (low
end),
much like the term "desktop publishing". It is all around us, but not that
noticeable, nor understandable in the aspect of what it took to develop an
idea.
The computer is just a tool to achieve a desired result . . . the creativity
must
come from the individual.”
Amen and and how! :-)
“Another issue is that for a while, nearly half the people you met were web
designers. Most of these people were programmers, and coders. Few had any
formal
training in art, or artist (aesthetic) capabilities, at least not much beyond
what
an average individual would. That is not to say that a certain amount of
creativity was not involved, but aesthetic considerations were often the least
focused aspects of the end results. This proliferation cheapened the use of the
word design, which is also sadly overused in many other professions as well.
Perhaps the Home Depot "Design Centre" approach would be an example; people are
invited to come in and choose how to "design" the interiors of their house.
This
gives the notion that anyone can do design. While I am certain that many good,
and
satisfying, results occur from this, it also makes the perception of a need for
an
actual "interior designer" less important.”
And of course increases Home Depot sales... :-)
“So at the low end, you compete with lots of do-it-yourself people, and find
Ciao!
Post a follow-up to this message
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Add Google to Your Site - News and Resources
- Language Tools - Jobs, Press, Cool Stuff...
©2002 Google”
The feeling/discussion is likewise :-)
©2002 Leiws Lang
©2002 Gordon Moat
(Different parts)
Why should Google get the credit/copyright for my or our work? :-) LOL
Regards,
Lewis Lang 2/11/2
Gordon Moat
> Hi Gordon:
>
Good afternoon Lewis,
> More inspiration than exploring a style. Guston is an interesting character.
> Lately, I have found the images of Christian Boltanski (spelling?) very
> interesting. Rosenquist seems too much like 1960s advertising influenced, but
> just
> my opinion . . . judging from the colour choices.”
>
> You’re probably right about Rosenquist, though I haven’t done a full study of
> his work, I’m just very vaguely familiar w/ it, I’ll have to check into
> Boltanski’s work...
>
> “>
> > You seem to have a strange fascination w/ pistols, besides the fact that they
> > are very glamourous/cinematic (at least as represented in older films and on
> > your canvas) do they have any special meanings for you or do you just like
> the
> > way they look and/or the emotional effect/associations/connotations? they
> have?
> >
>
> LOL . . . actually they are used mostly for a reaction from the viewer.”
>
> Just for shock/attention getting, nothing thematically meaningful?
I suppose they could be considered cultural icons. There was no violent theme
intended. The exact moment of each of those, from each relevant source movie, was
when each gun (or rifle) was out of ammunition. Of course, it is not very likely
that someone viewing the paintings would know which movies, and the exact moment
from those movies.
This plays in well with allowing the viewer to make the decision of what is going
on in the paintings. The intention is to guide the viewer to make up their own
story, not trying to figure out mine. Telling you, or anyone, that the guns were
empty really changes the perception, and may change the meaning for the viewer.
> “ I have
> noticed that Americans tend to notice these first,”
>
> Exposure to too many Jimmy Cagney and Rambo movies? ;-)
>
> “ while most Europeans that have
> seen my paintings notice the faces first.”
>
> Interesting...
This goes well with my idea of letting the viewer imagine their own story, and
draw their own conclusions from the paintings. The ideas that the viewers express
are often reflections of the personality and experiences of each viewer. These
allow insight into each viewer for me.
I am always very interested in what the viewer sees, and imagines. It is a way for
me to enjoy the paintings after they are completed, and share the ideas and
imagination of others.
>
>
> “ I guess the cultural associations, and
> emotional effect (reactions), were the choices. Movies quite often portray
> violence, and clichés, in a hyper realistic manner.”
>
> I’d call it “stylized/heightened realism” but we probably mean the same
> thing...
Sure . . . the term Hyper Realistic comes from my art classes.
>
>
> “ Movies do influence life, and
> become a part of life, so that series of paintings was an exploration.”
>
> An exploration of how movies become a part of life? How so?
More on the line of what I was explaining above. Many people go see movies. Many
of the more memorable movies are a way for people to escape, or to deeply relate
to a situation that mirrors their own lives. The sensation of enhanced reality, or
unreality (for some), stirs the brain, and the imagination.
I explored the cultural aspects of movies in order to bring the viewer to that
imaginary/realistic dichotomy. The painting were done in a way to stimulate memory
and imagination, which allowed me to discover who the viewers were.
It is not entirely necessary for me to be there, since I can enjoy the fact that
the viewer may find something within themselves by looking at my paintings. That
could be emotion, memory, imagination, humour, curiosity, etc. Viewing any art
work is a chance to observe and reflect upon ones own life, and the world around
them. My works are merely a price pause in those lives.
>
> “>
> > A mistake (the two light sources) that you ended up using anyway because it
> > worked or did you plan it this way fromthe beginning in these experiments?
>
> No . . . it was intentional, which was why I made it obvious. Really just
> another
> way to change focal points and create eye movement. I had not seen any examples
> of
> what I wanted to try, so I just did a few to see what stories could be told
> from
> that technique. So far, I have found that it has very limited use.”
>
> What stories does that technique tell/what’s its best uses, why do you find its
> uses ‘limited’?
It changes the focus of the subject matter. It also directs the eye movement of
the viewer in an unexpected direction. This can be sub-consciously disturbing, or
consciously confusing, hence the limited use aspect. A lesser focal point that
would ordinarily be a secondary focal point, now competes, and causes two focal
points, or becomes dominant. It also looks very unnatural, so the sense of reality
is diminished.
>
> "I guess I am probably quite a bit different in the way I create. Most of the
> creative individuals that I know constantly think directly in colour from the
> very
> beginning, similar to the way you work.”
>
> Actually, I don’t work that way, I choose my shapes/compositional lay out first
> then I select my color right before my eyes as I build the shot (a set in a
> stil life).
Makes sense for installation work, or still life. The only set-up shots I do are
food imagery, though I have a few others for more theme based images, though these
are guided more by client needs.
> I sometimes will chose a color cheme before hand (befor ei shoot
> the shot) but more often then not I need to or prefer to see how the colro
> elements develop before my eyes and build the colors as I work as sort of a
> visual version of jazz improv but instead of improvising melodies w/ notes I am
> improvising color schemes/juggling color elements to see what works best w/
> what and why - a sort of loose improvisation which I prefer, more interesting
> surprises and varied possibilities are explored that way...
You may find <http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Musique.jpg> interesting. This is my
one and only abstract painting. Without the title, few viewers ever get any ideas
from this image, so I have never thought of it as successful in stimulating
thought, nor imagination. You may want to look at
<http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Sonne.jpg> to get an idea of where the
composition started. These were originally intended to be shown together, since
they were different expressions of similar ideas. However, I just do not think the
abstract "Musique" works.
>
>
> “ Really just a technique that has worked
> well for me, though obviously nothing is done the same all the time. The use of
> that technique in painting allows me to focus on composition first. My
> photographic studies used for my paintings are all B/W shots.”
>
> Do you ever paint from your head, w/o drawings or photographic studies -
> why/why not?
Everything is done from observation. Usually it is direct observation backed up by
images. Going directly to canvas would be too directionless, and unfocused for me.
The least amount of planning would be just for the composition, and gathering
sample images. Gathering images, and ideas, is more like research, and does start
in my head, but I need to guide that to a final image.
Since my paintings often involve people and faces, it is important to get relative
proportions correct. I would make too many mistakes if I simply did it from
memory.
>
> “
>
> >
> >
> > >Design lasts longer than advertising, so colour choices tend to be more
> > >conservative.
> >
> > That makes sense. But by design you mean what exactly? Must it match the
> color
> > scheme of the couch (like decor) or some kind of industrial design or what
> > exactly?
>
> Think branding and corporate identity. Look at logos for financial companies
> and
> large corporations . . . notice how they are very limited in their colour
> choices.”
>
> Like Starbucks (green white and black?), etc....
Actually their logo is a departure from more common blue, or red logos. You may
also have noticed that their identity is not lost if it is only black and white.
They do not pass one of the tests of a good logo, which is satire. When I find
myself in a Starbucks, I often alter the mermaid shape with a black pen.
>
>
> “That is probably the most noticeable difference between design and
> advertising.
> Advertising has a short life span, and is more for the moment.
>
> One of my latest projects involved colour explorations for a restaurant chain.
> These are concepts that will need to remain unchanged for five (or ten) years.
> Obviously, this would not necessarily involve any of the colours on the list I
> previously mentioned, but it could. It is likely that none of the ideas I
> presented may be used, since these were studies to be used in meetings with a
> larger design team. I did all the photography and image manipulation for the
> project. Quite a lot of work, and it archives to seven CD-R and five boxes of
> transparencies.”
>
> A lot of work... How do you work, do you select the ideas/themes first like
> “home” or “comfort” or “bright” or “woodsey” and/or whatever and then the color
> or color scheme that matches those ideas/themes best or what exactly?
There are certain colour associations that work well in food environments, and
some that do not. Patterns are much more difficult, as are realistic images. Warm
colours push, and cool colours retract, which can also influence where, and why,
choices are made. A wall could look farther away, and open a space up visually,
given a cooler colour. The use of warmer colours on walls can give a cosy feeling,
but done improperly can make a space seem confining.
> Is all
> this work on spec or do they pay you for each stage/how does that end of it
> work exactly?
I do not do any spec work. There is normally a 50% deposit based on expected
costs. When the final images are delivered in desired form (prints, CD-R to a
print shop, CD-R to the client, etc.), then a balance due invoice is sent out.
Some smaller jobs are paid on delivery, though larger clients with accounting
departments often take more time to process an invoice.
The initial part of this last project started with a walk through, and meeting. A
second meeting was arranged to look at ten image concepts. That meeting brought a
request for more images concepts, which were delivered a week later. Actually, I
think it may have gone better to involve this client much more, and have more
meetings. Unfortunately, time constraints, and difficult technical obstacles
hindered that option. Many of the images were over 500 MB files, with multiple
layers and channels, and often slowed the pace of work.
>
> > <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st3.htm">"YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK
> UP
> > THE NUMBER)/TALK'S C…</A>
>
> Not so sure about the Dutched angle, but the strong diagonal does make this
> interesting. Cropping the bottom a bit to change the aspect ratio could
> reinforce
> that more. Nice shot.”
>
> Thanks.This is an off kilter/dutch angle so for me it needs a “touch of the
> Titanic” to show/emotionally express this crazy/sinking commentary on the
> world, so for me it definitely does work, but to each their own... :-)
Definitely a more guided approach, with a particular expected perception.
> I really
> like it cropped the way it is, which is quite cropped to the limits anyway, I
> don’t want to cut off her hand w/ the watch and I like both the swoop of her
> shirt on the left corner as a lead in line and the “anchoring” (pardon another
> deliberate Titanic reference/pun) that having more of her shirt show on the
> bottom does for the compositional balance of the image...
Titanic . . . yeah . . . not much reality there either . . . I mean, how does a
skinny runt like LdC survive in the freezing water, and some fat (well insulated)
guy dies . . . give me a break . . . ahh . . but that is Hollywood . . . .
>
>
> “>
> >
> > <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st2.htm">"HOME IMPROVEMENT"</A>
>
> A bit surreal. Was that a fisheye, or PhotoShop Bloat filter?”
>
> 16mm Zeiss Distagon full frame fisheye, no “bloating” ;-)
Nice lens for a fisheye . . . not nearly as fishy as a Nikon fisheye . . . but not
as straight as a 15mm Heliar. Distortion worked well for that image.
>
>
> “ Here is an example
> of where a symmetrical composition can give stability to an image. The curve
> lines
> (window frames?)”
>
> They are actually 2x4’s that are the wooden framework of this hut (they were
> probably builing it as the new entrance mini-ticket booth at the time at the
> entrance to the park...
The story within the story . . . .
>
> “ More contrast may be another direction, which could create
> more apparent motion.”
>
> How so? Could you give an reason/example of how/why contrast would create
> apparent motion in this shot or another and/or how (and more importantly why)
> this compositional device could be used for emotional/thematic effect in a shot
> (“Home Improvement” or some other shot of mine or yours or in a description of
> some kind of hypothetical shot example)? Thanks.
A simple example is the use of shadows. The placement of shadows contrasts with
the light from just beyond the shadow (though I may be thinking a bit too B/W
here). Motion can also be thought of as the eye motion created within the
composition; when you lead the viewers eye, you create apparent motion. Warm
colours can contrast cool colours, even when they are not adjacent. The push and
pull of warm and cool colours creates motion from this contrast. Apparent depth
(or lack of it), can also be motion (not strictly two dimensional).
Emotionally, pushing parts of the composition can change perception. Here is a
little exercise to try. People of different cultures have different personal
spaces. Next time you are in a conversation, try moving closer to that individual.
Notice their reaction. Do they move away, or allow you to get closer? In another
conversation, try moving slightly farther away as you are talking. Does the person
move closer to you, or stand their ground? Then try this with people from other
cultures, and notice if their reactions are different. Last, use this for some
images, and test peoples personal comfort levels to your compositional spaces.
Probably an overly simplified example, but try
<http://www.allgstudio.com/fotos/WLjazz.jpg>. The shot was taken a bit farther
back from the subject, but the composition leads the viewers eye directly to him.
What feelings could this give the viewer? A desire to get closer? A sense of
discovery, a brief glimpse, disconnection, etc.? The singer liked the shot, but
the band never used this image for anything.
Another one might be <http://www.allgstudio.com/fotos/Puddle.jpg>. This is a
reflection of the sky taken from a puddle after a rain storm. You could almost
turn this upside down, and get a completely different reaction. Actually, looking
at this one now, I may decide to tint it to get the blue of the sky to come out .
. . now were did I put that print . . . .
>
> “>
> >
> > ANything that is somewhat directional by nature, or design, could
> > >also be
> > >used this way. I think that confined convergent lines can be more
> interesting
> > >than
> > >divergent lines, though this can be tougher to pull off.
> >
> > Why do you find confined convergenet lines more interesting?
>
> Creates a sense of closed in, confined, or pointing towards an unknown
> direction.”
>
> Sort of like a shorthand “arrow” of sorts to lead/point the way in different
> directions and focal points w/i the composition...
Precisely.
>
> “Basically, I try to
> use them to stir the imagination of the viewer, provoke more thought, and let
> the
> viewer discover their own story within the image. The story is guided by my
> images, but the story I envisioned, or intended, is less important to me than
> the
> ability of the viewer to generate their own story. Convergent lines just work
> better for me when I tell stories.”
>
> What are some of the stories you specifically are trying to generate w/ these
> converging lines, could you give an example or three from one of your shots?
I try not to generate a specific story. I think that the image would fail from
guilt by association. ;-)
> Or
> are you just trying to hint at a narrative/mystery w/o having any particular
> story(s) in mind?
I like to know what the viewer thinks and imagines. I try not to compare it to my
own perceptions when I created the image (or took the photo). There are often
personal reasons for choosing a shot, or creating an image, but it is a surprise
for me when a viewer discovers what I saw, or thought. I guess an example would be
better.
Try <http://www.allgstudio.com/fotos/miles.jpg>. This looks simple enough. I am
sure some may be bored by it, and some may be intrigued, or discover an idea, or
story in it. I rarely ever tell anyone the circumstances behind an image, since it
will change the viewers perception to my perception, but here goes.
The image was taken after I broke up with my girlfriend. She had some problems
that I had difficulty dealing with, so I left her in the hope that she would
straighten out her problems. She cried like crazy, and kept calling me (and my
friends) to get back together. I wanted to wait in the hope that she would
understand that why I left, and then thought I would return to her. She ended up
leaving, and I was unable to find her when I went to check on her. That day I
tried to find her, I felt emotionally drained, wandered around, and found myself
looking in this direction, on a fairly gloomy day. I wondered if I had made the
right choices. The paths we choose in life are not always direct, and even the
rare times they are, we do not know what is over the horizon.
>
>
> “>
> >
> > A suggestion of
> > >motion
> > >can also serve the same purpose.
> > >
> >
> > Motion usually contains direction as an element of it but what purpose are
> you
> > actually referring to here that it serves?
>
> Same as the convergent lines . . . to stir the imagination (story) in a
> direction
> of the viewers thoughts. A sense of motion creates a feeling of anticipation .
> . .
> what comes next, etc.; the suggestion of direction, or lack of direction with
> motion, can reinforce, or confuse, the story. Hopefully, the viewer is able to
> make up their own story to bring order, or interest, to the image.”
>
> So all these narrative devices (motion, converging lines, guns, etc.) are more
> indicators/hints/suggestors to/of a story than exemplifying/pointing to a
> particular specific theme or situation?
Sure . . . I try not to create an editorial aspect to these images. They serve
much better as narrative devices, and I find them more interesting to me. I do not
have a story to tell . . . though I do have more stories to discover . . .
sometimes from other people.
>
>
> From your description I understand all of the above now, perhaps you should
> consider doing some “box kites” that have either 4 paintings connected at the
> edges to form an open box (no top or bottom planes) w/ different images on each
> of its four sides, or consider doing one long continuous canvas stretched
> around the bars in a box-like shape so that one end meets the other? :-) You
> might also want to consider doing Moebius strips w/ your canvases that don’t
> have a beginning or an ending. Just hypothesizing off the top of my head
> here... :-)
Moebius strip would be hard to keep firm enough to paint upon. I like the box
idea, and I think I may work on something like that in the near future.
>
>
> "Thanks Lewis . . . great discussion here."
>
>
>
> The feeling/discussion is likewise :-)
>
> ©2002 Leiws Lang
> ©2002 Gordon Moat
>
> (Different parts)
>
> Why should Google get the credit/copyright for my or our work? :-) LOL
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis Lang 2/11/2
>
> Lewis
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
Steve Dunlop
a meeting of the Minnesota nature photographer's club, where
they displayed and critiqued a bunch of slides.
The slides were fantastic by any standards, and in talking
to some of the people afterwards, I found that most of them
had tried to sell their work at some point, but couldn't, so
they just did it for their own enjoyment.
I came away with a new sense of how high the bar is set.
--
Steve
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Leicaddict
over it. Go to Photo.Net, and you'll see examples of top notch photography
posted week after week. Some of it, at least, as good as anything I've ever
seen.
"Steve Dunlop" <dun...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:3cade8f1$0$79555$6536...@news.bitstream.net...
Pat Chaney
>It's not that the bar is set so high, it's that everyone seems to be jumping
>over it.
I think Steve's point was that they aren't.
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
ajacobs2
> had tried to sell their work at some point, but couldn't, so
> they just did it for their own enjoyment.
Proving the starving artist theory once more...............
I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Site: www.aljacobs.com
Teaching site: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2
Leicaddict
"Pat Chaney" <p...@patchaney.com> wrote in message
news:lefsau8k677c5ksbp...@4ax.com...
Pat Chaney
>Are you behind the door marked "Stupid?"
No. Did you deliberately miss the point?
Are you behind the door marked "can't take any form of constructive
criticism without throwing a tantrum, but can hand out insults for no
apparent reason"?
Or hiding in the "tilting 3D[*] shots" room perhaps?
* [snigger]
Alan Browne
Please elabroate on your brillant reposte.
Cheers,
Alan.