Re: Portrait Experiment
UC
you, Id commit suicide immediately to spare the world of your miserable
existence. Pathetic in every conceivable way.
Rob Novak wrote:
> Black and white film (Ilford Delta 400), dark neutral drop-sheet for
> the background. Nikon F4, Tamron 28-105 zoom @ 105mm/f5.6, Nikon
> SB-24 speedlight mounted off-camera with synch-cord (about 3 feet to
> the left and above the lens). Hoya HMC 25A red filter, pushed two
> full stops.
>
> The details are in the text accompanying the photos, but the general
> object of the exercise was not to take the "perfect portrait", but to
> use filtering, push, selective focus, and lighting to produce as
> dramatic a set of images as possible.
>
> While I was not entirely satisfied with the outcome (I believe I
> pushed the pushed things a little too far, and would like to have some
> of the highlight detail back), I think it's a good start to build on.
>
> Opinions and advice welcome:
> http://rob.rnovak.net/content/archives/Individual/000472.php
>
> --
> Central Maryland Photographer's Guild
> http://cmpg.org
Garry Freemyer
what sounds extremely cruel and heartless only to be told he was "Only
playing" I'm leaving.
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121096876.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
UC
Garry Freemyer wrote:
> That does it. With all the flamers and folks like you and Owamanga saying
> what sounds extremely cruel and heartless only to be told he was "Only
> playing" I'm leaving.
Well, I was not kidding. This stuff makes crap look good...
Jason
"Rob Novak" <yer...@rnovak.net> wrote in message
news:7415d1dc1mvbknnf6...@4ax.com...
> Black and white film (Ilford Delta 400), dark neutral drop-sheet for
> the background. Nikon F4, Tamron 28-105 zoom @ 105mm/f5.6, Nikon
> SB-24 speedlight mounted off-camera with synch-cord (about 3 feet to
> the left and above the lens). Hoya HMC 25A red filter, pushed two
> full stops.
>
> The details are in the text accompanying the photos, but the general
> object of the exercise was not to take the "perfect portrait", but to
> use filtering, push, selective focus, and lighting to produce as
> dramatic a set of images as possible.
>
> While I was not entirely satisfied with the outcome (I believe I
> pushed the pushed things a little too far, and would like to have some
> of the highlight detail back), I think it's a good start to build on.
>
> Opinions and advice welcome:
> http://rob.rnovak.net/content/archives/Individual/000472.php
>
Try this with a blue (or green) filter. 25 asa film. One 60 watt lamp in the
ceiling fitting. Mount the camera on a tripod. Pose model a the outer edges
of the room.Take a series of bracketed exposures. Develop in print
developer. Print for the 'blacks'
grolschie
"Rob Novak" <yer...@rnovak.net> wrote in message
news:7415d1dc1mvbknnf6...@4ax.com...
> Black and white film (Ilford Delta 400), dark neutral drop-sheet for
> the background. Nikon F4, Tamron 28-105 zoom @ 105mm/f5.6, Nikon
> SB-24 speedlight mounted off-camera with synch-cord (about 3 feet to
> the left and above the lens). Hoya HMC 25A red filter, pushed two
> full stops.
I no pro, but am starting to experiment with B&W myself. Personally, I would
under-expose by 1/2 a stop or more perhaps. Darken up the shadows a little
and reduce the blown out highlights. I have had alot of joy using Kodak
BW400CN Professional 400, rating at 1000 and pushing two stops (1600) at a
good lab. I might try and rate at 1250iso next time, but the current result
at 1000 has pleasing grain and high contrast. Nice inky black textures. I
tried Fuji Neopan 1600 @ 800 but the grain was like salt&pepper.
grol
Rob Novak
wrote:
>Try this with a blue (or green) filter. 25 asa film. One 60 watt lamp in the
>ceiling fitting. Mount the camera on a tripod. Pose model a the outer edges
>of the room.Take a series of bracketed exposures. Develop in print
>developer. Print for the 'blacks'
This makes absolutely no sense at all. I can't quite tell if you're
trying to be serious or not, but ISO 25 film with a filter that's
going to rob a stop and a half at least, with a weak light source?
I'd like exposure times that don't require an egg timer.
I mean, seriously. ISO 25 in noon sun at f5.6 with a filter is a 60th
at best. With the only illumination being a 60W incandescent? My
SWAG is a 16 second exposure. If I dig around am able to find my old
f2.8 MF lens, I can cut it down to about four seconds. Impractical.
--
Central Maryland Photographers' Guild:
http://www.cmpg.org
UC
Rob Novak
<grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>I no pro, but am starting to experiment with B&W myself. Personally, I would
>under-expose by 1/2 a stop or more perhaps. Darken up the shadows a little
>and reduce the blown out highlights. I have had alot of joy using Kodak
I did figure that I ended up going about a half-stop too far, if not a
full stop, in doing what I wanted. The goal was to push things as far
as possible. Now that I know the limits, for my next go-round, I'll
back off just a bit and see if I can retain the texture and contrast
levels without blowing out the highlight detail as much. It really
was an exercise in departing from the normal envelope as much as
possible without complete disaster. Honestly, I'm impressed at the
results even though I have some more work to do, because I was able to
get in the ballpark of the look I was aiming for on the first try.
As far as B&W films, I've always been very fond of Ilford's emulsions,
and not so much so with Kodak. When I replace all of my developing
gear and can begin experimenting with processing formulations, I might
go through re-evaluating various stocks again. Until then, Delta 100
is nice and tight, and Delta 400 pushes to a nice, velvet grain at 800
and 1600, and will go to 3200 and still be workable.
grolschie
"Rob Novak" <rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
news:ui06d1lacf7vdbi1j...@4ax.com...
> As far as B&W films, I've always been very fond of Ilford's emulsions,
> and not so much so with Kodak. When I replace all of my developing
> gear and can begin experimenting with processing formulations, I might
> go through re-evaluating various stocks again. Until then, Delta 100
> is nice and tight, and Delta 400 pushes to a nice, velvet grain at 800
> and 1600, and will go to 3200 and still be workable.
I am not normally a fan of Kodak C41 B&W, especially their consumer one. But
this old dude in a shop gave me this tip of pushing their professional 400
C41 film in this manner and I was totally stoked with the results. It blew
the Neopan 1600@800 out of the water. Velvet is a great description for the
darker tones. No need to develop it myself also. :-)
eg: http://radel.inet.net.nz/photography/pics/ellesmere2.jpg
Please keep us posted with more of your B&W experiments. :-)
later,
grol
dadiOH
> That does it.
You liked them??
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
UC
You have no idea of what you are talking about. Your cat is in heat. Go
tend to her.
Jason
"Rob Novak" <rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
I produced a set of 10x8s for a rock group using this formula.
dadiOH
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:21:23 +1200, "grolschie"
> <grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I no pro, but am starting to experiment with B&W myself. Personally,
>> I would under-expose by 1/2 a stop or more perhaps. Darken up the
>> shadows a little and reduce the blown out highlights. I have had
>> alot of joy using Kodak
>
> I did figure that I ended up going about a half-stop too far, if not a
> full stop, in doing what I wanted. The goal was to push things as far
> as possible.
You might want to experiment with flat prints and potassium
ferricyanide.
UC
Rob Novak
wrote:
> Have you tried it?
> I produced a set of 10x8s for a rock group using this formula.
You know, I should not been so quick to dismiss the idea as a concept.
However, I'm not sure that it gets me closer to what I'm looking for.
It's a completely different approach to a portrait process. It might
be interesting to try at a later time, with a different subject.
I am going into mostly unexplored territory with regard to my usual
choice of subjects and techniques. Normally, I don't shoot people
other than candids, and I normally want tonal accuracy in my scenics
and architectural photos. I figured I'd go off in the weeds for a
bit.
--
Rob Novak
wrote:
>You might want to experiment with flat prints and potassium
>ferricyanide.
No wet prints here, I'm afraid. Everything goes from film to a
scanner and completely digital workflow from that point. I don't have
room in this house for that type of work. 1940's tiny bathrooms and
no place in the house to practically plumb and seal.
I do, however, print all of my monochrome images flat. As time goes
on, I'll work with dedicated black & white inksets and various media.
Rob Novak
wrote:
>You liked them??
Well, that's a rather backhanded remark.
What, indeed, makes those photos the deserving target of derision?
What makes them worse than any other portraiture? I'm not claiming
masterpiece status, but I don't believe that they're without merit.
Or, should I just shoot stacks of flowers and bugs and never challenge
myself?
Mike Kohary
> Black and white film (Ilford Delta 400), dark neutral drop-sheet for
> the background. Nikon F4, Tamron 28-105 zoom @ 105mm/f5.6, Nikon
> SB-24 speedlight mounted off-camera with synch-cord (about 3 feet to
> the left and above the lens). Hoya HMC 25A red filter, pushed two
> full stops.
>
> object of the exercise was not to take the "perfect portrait", but to
> use filtering, push, selective focus, and lighting to produce as
> dramatic a set of images as possible.
>
> While I was not entirely satisfied with the outcome (I believe I
> pushed the pushed things a little too far, and would like to have some
> of the highlight detail back), I think it's a good start to build on.
>
> Opinions and advice welcome:
> http://rob.rnovak.net/content/archives/Individual/000472.php
It's a good group of shots - I like this one the best:
http://rob.rnovak.net/content/Photos/Brian/Brian3.jpg
Lots of personality, and the non-conventional exposure gives it even more
personality than if it had been conventionally exposed. Nice experiment!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary
> That does it. With all the flamers and folks like you and Owamanga
> saying what sounds extremely cruel and heartless only to be told he
> was "Only playing" I'm leaving.
UC is a troll (i.e. he posts to deliberately inflame, not because he means
anything he says). Just killfile him and forget about him like the rest of
us have done.
UC
Rob Novak wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:32:16 GMT, "dadiOH" <dad...@wherever.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You liked them??
>
> Well, that's a rather backhanded remark.
>
> What, indeed, makes those photos the deserving target of derision?
> What makes them worse than any other portraiture? I'm not claiming
> masterpiece status, but I don't believe that they're without merit.
>
> Or, should I just shoot stacks of flowers and bugs and never challenge
> myself?
False dichotomy. These prints are utterly horrible. You have NO FUCKING
IDEA of what a good B&W print looks like, and yet you have the
unmintigated GALL to come here and say that these are your work, and
ask our opinion. This stuff is shit--garbage--unfit for human
consumption. Pretentious. Vacuous. Puerile. Void of ANY redeeming
qualities.
THAT'S your problem, not mine. I'm just letting you know, so that you
don't come here again with such pretentions.
You need some-one to kick you in the balls and tell you this is shit...
The images are neither technically nor aesthetically competent in any
way...
UC
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1329
Note the skin tones are NOT blank white. Skin is NOT white. Who the
fuck told you it should be?
The skin is DARKER than the white uniforms and socks, as it should be.
Go fuck your cat....and be sure to watch out for the claws...
grolschie
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> dribbled in message
> blah blah blah I have no life blah blah blah I have no friends
> blah blah blah nothing I say has any crediblity
Now if your remarks came from someone who has displayed even a minute amount
of knowledge in photography, or even posted a single photograph for
critique, people might actually take your post seriously. But since you have
never offered anything except trash to this newsgroup, ever, don't expect
anyone to care what you think. UC, you have no credibility whatsoever.
grol
Owamanga
<rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:32:16 GMT, "dadiOH" <dad...@wherever.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You liked them??
>
>Well, that's a rather backhanded remark.
>
>What, indeed, makes those photos the deserving target of derision?
>What makes them worse than any other portraiture? I'm not claiming
>masterpiece status, but I don't believe that they're without merit.
I think your line "Opinions and advice welcome" covers that.
>Or, should I just shoot stacks of flowers and bugs and never challenge
>myself?
Definitely not. Whilst I wouldn't advise you to kill yourself, (that's
never a good idea), maybe you could try just changing *everything*
about the way you shoot portraits and see how that comes out.
You went too far with all the buggering about. Shooting an already
fast 400 film 2 stops faster, throwing in harsh lighting and a red
filter is asking for trouble. Throw in not bothering to focus on the
subject and being loose about composition and chucking exposure rules
out the window you ended up with a steaming pile of trouble.
Brian1 is the worst, the background (very boring) is in focus but not
Brian. Brian5 is the best, but still damaged because of the single
light source (a hair light might of saved this) and over-exposed face.
Concentrate on the rules, and be chronically aware of how many you are
going to break and why.
1) Get the focus on the subject.
2) Light the scene properly, so we can see the subject.
3) Expose for the subject.
4) Follow the rule of thirds.
5) Get him to keep his eyes open.
You mention some of these rules were broken to instill a feeling of
tension. I don't get that from these at all. With the high-key
approach you ended up shooting him as if he was a girl. Get some
detail, *all* the gristly detail of his face back. He's a man, not a
fairy.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
grolschie
Off-topic:
Hey Rob, I see you photograph roses. I have photographed roses with some
success, but when trying to photograph this one particular rose the colours
never come out as I see them. I have tried film and digital. The rose is
called Paddy Stephens and it coral-pink, but ends up looking washed out and
weird when captured with a camera. Results with film and digital exhibit the
same colours. Photoshopping cannot fix with simple saturation and contrast
adjustment. Ever come across that?
grol
UC
UC
UC
You're an asshole.
grolschie
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121204685.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Some colors cannot be reproduced by any system.
Hey Mr Scarpitti, thanks for replying with something helpful instead of the
usual trolling. Why don't you just play nice more often?
grol
Mike Kohary
>
> Concentrate on the rules, and be chronically aware of how many you are
> going to break and why.
>
> 1) Get the focus on the subject.
> 2) Light the scene properly, so we can see the subject.
> 3) Expose for the subject.
> 4) Follow the rule of thirds.
> 5) Get him to keep his eyes open.
All of which is totally conventional, entirely defeating the purpose of
"experimenting". You do know what that word means, don't you? If he'd
followed your checklist, he'd probably have a bunch of nice standard
portraits, without a single exceptional picture. One of the consequences of
"experimenting" is often that your experiment will turn out to be rubbish,
but every once in a while you'll nail something that would have been
impossible to accidentally run across while shooting conventionally.
I experiment all the time, mixing in risks with more conventional
approaches. I shoot maybe 25% this way, and through the course of a year,
will reap 20-30 photos that totally rock, that I never, ever would have
captured using conventional methods. Your post basically suggests one
shouldn't experiment (much, if at all), which kind of defeats the point of
being an artist, wouldn't you say?
If you meant something else, feel free to clarify. But that's what I got
out of your post.
Garry Freemyer
Rob Novak
<grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>success, but when trying to photograph this one particular rose the colours
>never come out as I see them. I have tried film and digital. The rose is
>called Paddy Stephens and it coral-pink, but ends up looking washed out and
>weird when captured with a camera. Results with film and digital exhibit the
The human eye and optic centers of the brain are much more sensitive
to hue than any camera, film, or reproduction system. Sometimes, it's
just not technically possible to capture a color exactly as it appears
to the eye.
A film such as Velvia or Kodak Portra 160VC that produce warm,
saturated tones might render your coral-pink a bit better. However,
sometimes even the best photograph is but a pale comparison to real
life.
Rob Novak
<owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>tension. I don't get that from these at all. With the high-key
>approach you ended up shooting him as if he was a girl. Get some
>detail, *all* the gristly detail of his face back. He's a man, not a
>fairy.
Well, to be perfectly honest, following the "rules" (of which I am
quite aware) would yield a bunch of bog-standard B&W headshots. Which
is decidedly NOT what I was trying to accomplish. The drones at the
Department of Motor Vehicles can take headshots.
The key word here is "experiment" - to see how far out on the edge of
the envelope I could push and create a certain feeling. High/maximum
contrast was a priority. Hell, if I could have laid my hands on some
for the evening, I'd have shot orthochromatic, just for the hell of
it. I could very easily have set up a diffused main light, a hair
light, shot at speed, used slower film, and all the rest of the
conventional stuff. I wouldn't have got anywhere near what I was
looking for, but it would have been portraiture by the numbers.
I'll accept some grief over the posing, because posed subjects are not
a strength of mine at this point. I'm working on that.
Composition-wise, meh - you can have your opinions, I'll have mine.
The only real non-standard composition was the first frame presented.
The rest are pretty conventional as far as framing.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to "If you're trying to accomplish x,
try y." I'm not willing to lend credence to "This is shit, because I
wouldn't do it that way. Do it my way." The first is helpful, the
second is arrogant.
grolschie
"Rob Novak" <rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
Thanks man. I might give it a try next spring. :-)
Oh also in reference to a previous post where your portraits were critized
for not following the 'rules' of photography. Make your own rules I say.
Experiment, find what works, enjoy.
grol
UC
portrait is not worth pursuing. Have you considered the possibility
that you are mistaken? Have you considered the possibility that you
have NO CLUE what experimentation in a field such as portrature is?
What you have produced is NOT, I repeat, NOT even worth looking at.
It's so far from acceptable that it is crap.
UC
dadiOH
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:32:16 GMT, "dadiOH" <dad...@wherever.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You liked them??
>
> Well, that's a rather backhanded remark.
>
> What, indeed, makes those photos the deserving target of derision?
I didn't deride them, just indicated I didn't like them. I don't.
Others may.
Owamanga
wrote:
>Owamanga wrote:
>>
>> Concentrate on the rules, and be chronically aware of how many you are
>> going to break and why.
>>
>> 1) Get the focus on the subject.
>> 2) Light the scene properly, so we can see the subject.
>> 3) Expose for the subject.
>> 4) Follow the rule of thirds.
>> 5) Get him to keep his eyes open.
>
>All of which is totally conventional, entirely defeating the purpose of
>"experimenting". You do know what that word means, don't you? If he'd
>followed your checklist, he'd probably have a bunch of nice standard
>portraits, without a single exceptional picture. One of the consequences of
>"experimenting" is often that your experiment will turn out to be rubbish,
>but every once in a while you'll nail something that would have been
>impossible to accidentally run across while shooting conventionally.
Reread it Mike, I especially the bit where I said "aware of how many
you are going to break and why."
That doesn't mean "you gotta follow all the rules" it means *if* you
are going to break one or more at least have a damn good reason, be
sure it's essential to what you are trying to achieve. I can't see for
example why sloppy focus was a *requirement*, it just comes across as
sloppy.
I encourage rule breaking, just not *ALL* of them at the same time.
Hell, if people did that there photos would all look the same: Rule #0
is "remove lens cap". I'm suggesting he starts from conventional
photograph and move away from there, not the other way round. You
*can't* polish a turd.
>I experiment all the time, mixing in risks with more conventional
>approaches. I shoot maybe 25% this way, and through the course of a year,
>will reap 20-30 photos that totally rock, that I never, ever would have
>captured using conventional methods.
Great. I don't know what my % is, but I too do this throughout the
year and have learned a lot from it. However, my approach has never
been: disengage the AF, ignore the metering, tell the camera I've got
a different speed film in than is actually there, spend less than 6
seconds considering the implication of a single lamp, put a bit of
dirty glass on the lens and snap snap snap.
>Your post basically suggests one shouldn't experiment (much, if at all),
No it doesn't.
>which kind of defeats the point of being an artist, wouldn't you say?
Yes, but I didn't say that, did I?
>If you meant something else, feel free to clarify. But that's what I got
>out of your post.
Okay, well, here it is. Clarification: I'm not suggesting people don't
try new things, I think it's extremely important to do this. But to
throw out *all* the rules in one go, and for no particular reason just
generates garbage. I know some people will disagree, but it's not
really *art* if it's random.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:51:54 GMT, Owamanga
><owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Again, *rule* is too strong a word. Guidelines really. You broke them
>>and it appears you didn't realize. This is my point.
>
>There's the assumption that sets us at odds, sir.
It's hardly an assumption. My statement is based on your claims that
your composition and framing was conventional and I've pointed out why
it wasn't. Most were technically poor.
>You *assume* that I had no reason, and no knowledge of why I was doing
>anything. That's where you're just wrong.
Okay, but then I asked you to explain why you ignored certain
established traditional methods in the name of art and you can't (or
won't).
> I can take headshots. I
>can do _basic_ portrait posing. I've assisted in portrait shoots and
>know the normal parameters. However, as originally stated, doing
>perfect portraits was *never* the aim of the exercise. Working in the
>safe space I know already doesn't _teach_ me anything.
In other words, you *wanted* to take soft pictures? Err.. Okay. You
still didn't explain how this translates into a dramatic image though?
At least given that you were experimenting, to see if soft images
would create drama - would you agree now that you have discovered that
it *doesn't* ?
Would you agree now that having the subject face out of the shot
*doesn't* add drama (at least in these shots) ?
Would you agree now that having the subject close his eyes *doesn't*
add drama?
...or do we still completely disagree?
I can see the logic behind the use of a single light source, I can see
it being harsh, I can see B&W, I can see the choice of film and grain,
high contrast but just don't see how semi-random focusing helps.
>The answer to every one of your questions (which I've snipped, because
>I'm not going to answer that litany of inquisition piecemeal) is
>"Because I wanted to see what I'd get."
So it was just a test, like the stuff UC shoots. Got it. While this is
a valid excuse for a lot of images people shoot, especially in these
NGs, in this case I don't see why the composition or even
post-cropping couldn't have been decent - it cost's nothing to do
right, and lowers the strength of the image you end up with and it
comes across as being sloppy.
>I used shallow depth of field
>and selective focus because I wanted to play around with those
>elements.
'Selective focus' ;-) I'll have to remember that term.
> I used fast film pushed, because I wanted the grain and
>knew that Delta 400 shot at 1600 gives me a nice sugary grain.
And it did, indeed, here you succeeded.
<Bakers/Cooks...>
>Neither approach inherently makes one a better or worse photographer,
>provided that one is willing to learn and refine from their starting
>point. And that was the point of this exercise - to establish a
>starting point, from which improvements and refinements could be made.
Fair enough, but if you seem to have written off all my statements
with the argument "I actually meant to do that, but won't tell you
why". Given that, what possible improvements are there to be made?
I don't get it.
It appears to me that the only major thing wrong with them, in your
opinion, is the blown highlights.
>The problem I've had is that you've assumed that the first fry-up is
>the finished dish.
Well... maybe this is true. But if your first fry-up involves
boot-laces and stuff you found in the vacuum cleaner bag, it ain't
gonna get much better is it? My point is I feel you should start from
established ingredients and move away with a purpose. You don't agree.
Fine, that's no big deal.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
<rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:38:08 GMT, Owamanga
><owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>tension. I don't get that from these at all. With the high-key
>>approach you ended up shooting him as if he was a girl. Get some
>>detail, *all* the gristly detail of his face back. He's a man, not a
>>fairy.
>
>Well, to be perfectly honest, following the "rules" (of which I am
>quite aware) would yield a bunch of bog-standard B&W headshots. Which
>is decidedly NOT what I was trying to accomplish. The drones at the
>Department of Motor Vehicles can take headshots.
As I responded to Mike, I am not suggesting you must follow *ALL* the
ruls, just don't break *ALL* the rules.
Anyway, I'll take you up on this. I looked at those portraits and came
to the conclusion that you don't know what you are doing. So, prove me
wrong. Explain to me *why* (the artistic or technical reason) you did
the following:
(Doh!, I just noticed that the images aren't in order, so my first
comments probably aren't as accurate as I'd like. Here they are in
order from left to right, but named correctly)
Brian1:
You focused on the background. Why?
You used a red filter. Why?
Crop is 6x4 ratio. Why?
Brian4:
You blew his hand/shirt. Why?
He has his eyes closed. Why?
You focused on his forearm, not his face. Why?
You used a red filter. Why?
Crop is 6x4 ratio. Why?
Brian2:
You didn't focus on anything. Why?
You put the left side of his face in complete darkness so we can't see
it's shape. Why? (Remember, this is a portrait, and the point of a
portrait is what?)
You blew his forehead and right cheek, Why?
You used a red filter. Why?
Crop is 6x4 ratio. Why?
Brian3:
You cropped his tatoo. Why?
You blew his face, bottom lip and forehead have no detail. Why?
You used a red filter. Why?
Subject looking out of the frame. Why?
Crop is 6x4 ratio. Why?
Brian5:
Here, the red filter works. This is the only 'keeper' but I would have
framed it differently.
Subject almost dead center. Why?
Subject looking out of the frame. Why?
Crop is 6x4 ratio. Why?
Generally: You used a flash to light him, so I'll put down any
blurring of the subject to inaccurate focus & poor aperture choice
rather than subject movement. You've either got a crap lens or can't
focus. None of these are really sharp. Now if it was a girl, okay, you
got yourself an excuse, but this is a dude. So my final 'art'
question, when 'drama' is what you want, why are they *all* soft? How
is soft ever going to be dramatic?
>The key word here is "experiment" - to see how far out on the edge of
>the envelope I could push and create a certain feeling. High/maximum
>contrast was a priority. Hell, if I could have laid my hands on some
>for the evening, I'd have shot orthochromatic, just for the hell of
>it. I could very easily have set up a diffused main light, a hair
>light, shot at speed, used slower film, and all the rest of the
>conventional stuff. I wouldn't have got anywhere near what I was
>looking for, but it would have been portraiture by the numbers.
Again, my post obviously wasn't clear enough. Yes, break rules, yes
experiment but for fucks sake have a clear idea of *why*. I don't
believe a hair light would have sabotaged your intent (and it only had
to be very subtle). I don't believe tighter focussing would have
sabotaged your intent, I don't believe that following simple
compositional rules (getting the subject to face into the frame, not
out of it) has *any* affect on 'drama'.
..but I'm interested to find out why, in your opinion, it does.
I agree (for once) with UC, in that these are technically poor. And
until you explain it, I just don't see the reason for that.
>I'll accept some grief over the posing, because posed subjects are not
>a strength of mine at this point. I'm working on that.
Okay, a lot of this comes from the model of course. Personally, I have
no idea what works and what doesn't until I see the print. But people
have eyes, a nose, a mouth and ears. A portrait is supposed to reflect
that (unless of course you have a *good* artistic reason why it
shouldn't for a particular shot). There is no 'drama' to be found in
cropping his tatoo for example.
>Composition-wise, meh - you can have your opinions, I'll have mine.
>The only real non-standard composition was the first frame presented.
I don't agree with that claim at all. For the sake of this, I'm going
to lump composition and framing together. Eg, loosely composition
being the position and orientation of the subject in comparison to the
background and frame. Rule of thirds isn't met on Brian4, Brian3 or
Brian5. 'Leading the eye into the frame' isn't met on 4,2,3 and 5.
Again, *rule* is too strong a word. Guidelines really. You broke them
and it appears you didn't realize. This is my point.
>The rest are pretty conventional as far as framing.
;-s
>I'm perfectly willing to listen to "If you're trying to accomplish x,
>try y." I'm not willing to lend credence to "This is shit, because I
>wouldn't do it that way. Do it my way." The first is helpful, the
>second is arrogant.
Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. But I don't allow
apparent arrogance to stand in the way of me saying what I want to
say. I'm not *qualified* to tell you how to take portraits, so it's
best to read my posts with that in mind. However, if you ask what we
think of them, i'll tell you - and I did.
A small disclaimer here: My comments appear to be all negative. All of
that stuff above said, there is a lot *right* about these images that
I don't need to cover because obviously you and I agree on these
aspects already.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Rob Novak
<owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Again, *rule* is too strong a word. Guidelines really. You broke them
>and it appears you didn't realize. This is my point.
There's the assumption that sets us at odds, sir.
You *assume* that I had no reason, and no knowledge of why I was doing
anything. That's where you're just wrong. I can take headshots. I
can do _basic_ portrait posing. I've assisted in portrait shoots and
know the normal parameters. However, as originally stated, doing
perfect portraits was *never* the aim of the exercise. Working in the
safe space I know already doesn't _teach_ me anything.
The answer to every one of your questions (which I've snipped, because
I'm not going to answer that litany of inquisition piecemeal) is
"Because I wanted to see what I'd get." I used shallow depth of field
and selective focus because I wanted to play around with those
elements. I used fast film pushed, because I wanted the grain and
knew that Delta 400 shot at 1600 gives me a nice sugary grain. I used
a red filter and harsh lighting because I knew I wanted very high
contrast - I _know_ how to use black and white film to capture normal
tonal ranges, and I wanted to work outside of that zone. Yeah, I blew
out the highlights more than I (or you) wanted them to be, so I know
to back off a bit for the next go-round. I'm also not enthralled with
the selective focus approach, so I'll probably discard that as an
element as I develop this particular style. However, you've spent a
lot of time and words strenuously attacking a position I'm really not
defending.
You see, I've realized there are two kinds of photographers - bakers
and cooks. Bakers weigh everything to the gram, use precise
techniques, and worry about proper temperatures, times, and so forth.
Bakers don't usually approach a project from scratch - they refine a
known good technique to achieve their results. Even new recipes are
evolutions of old ones, novelty built on establishment.
Cooks, on the other hand, tend to grab a bunch of ingredients on-hand,
mix 'em up in a way that is likely to work, and give it a taste. A
pinch of this, a dash of that, yeah that looks about done. Then they
taste, and refine from there - too much salt, too little spice, ugh -
this particular curry overwhelms the shrimp.
Neither approach inherently makes one a better or worse photographer,
provided that one is willing to learn and refine from their starting
point. And that was the point of this exercise - to establish a
starting point, from which improvements and refinements could be made.
The problem I've had is that you've assumed that the first fry-up is
the finished dish.
--
Strange, Geometrical Hinges: http://rob.rnovak.net
Rob Novak
<grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>Oh also in reference to a previous post where your portraits were critized
>for not following the 'rules' of photography. Make your own rules I say.
>Experiment, find what works, enjoy.
I'm not looking for a fan club, so it doesn't really bother me. I
just find it more useful to discuss things along the lines of "I see
you're trying to do $whatever, and I've had success with this
technique..." instead of "Your method sucks. Use my method." I've
also found over the years that people who use the phrase (and it's oft
repeated by the same folks) "Know what rules you're breaking and why"
are just waaaaaay too serious, and hate to see anyone just playing
around. Experimentation isn't just about tweaking a known formula -
that's refinement. Sometimes, it's just fun to see where the edges
are and what happens when you poke them.
You'd think from the reaction of some that I'd claimed membership in
the pantheon of greats, when all I did was say "Hey, I was playing
around and this is what I came up with." Whatever. I don't have time
for stress-heads and people who feel that the only way to criticize is
to demolish the other party.
Owamanga
<grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>Oh also in reference to a previous post where your portraits were critized
>for not following the 'rules' of photography. Make your own rules I say.
Questionable advice.
>Experiment,
Good advice.
>find what works,
So you agree, he hasn't achieved that yet then.
>enjoy.
Of course.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Rob Novak
wrote:
>I didn't deride them, just indicated I didn't like them. I don't.
>Others may.
I apologize - I mixed up your response with some of the quoted
material from our resident troll.
Opinions I can take - abuse gets my dander up.
RSD99
> Hey, punk, I know more than 99% of the pros, and I can prove it.
>
> You're an asshole.
>
That's a ridiculous statement ... even for you!
Rob Novak
<owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Okay, but then I asked you to explain why you ignored certain
>established traditional methods in the name of art and you can't (or
>won't).
Not "art" - experimentation. A learning exercise. Never did I claim
art.
>At least given that you were experimenting, to see if soft images
>would create drama - would you agree now that you have discovered that
>it *doesn't* ?
From my last reply: "I'm also not enthralled with the selective focus
approach, so I'll probably discard that as an element as I develop
this particular style."
Again, you're attacking, quite vehemently, a position I'm not
defending. I'm not sure whether I find it amusing or maddening.
>post-cropping couldn't have been decent - it cost's nothing to do
>right, and lowers the strength of the image you end up with and it
>comes across as being sloppy.
They're presented full-frame on purpose. Would I choose to print any
of the results, I'd make my cropping decisions then.
>Fair enough, but if you seem to have written off all my statements
>with the argument "I actually meant to do that, but won't tell you
>why". Given that, what possible improvements are there to be made?
Well, no, I haven't.
Can you not see the difference between:
"I don't know that your focusing choices accomplished what you hoped."
and
"Learn to focus, ass."
Hint - the second is less likely to be productive.
>I don't get it.
Obviously. It's called "civility," and you might want to try it every
once in a while. You'd be surprised how much your blood pressure
drops.
>It appears to me that the only major thing wrong with them, in your
>opinion, is the blown highlights.
Nope. You haven't been reading.
"I'm also not enthralled with the selective focus approach, so I'll
probably discard that as an element as I develop this particular
style."
"...I was using selective focus to attempt to create a certain feeling
of tension. I'm not entirely sure I got the mood I was aiming for, but
it's certainly a starting point for later work."
"...posed subjects are not a strength of mine at this point. I'm
working on that."
These are direct quotes from what I actually wrote, not what you want
to assume.
>gonna get much better is it? My point is I feel you should start from
>established ingredients and move away with a purpose. You don't agree.
>Fine, that's no big deal.
You're right, it isn't. But you've been making it one. Why, I have
no idea. I'm through debating it, because you seem obsessed with
proving yourself right and me wrong, when I'm not even playing the
right/wrong game. There's nothing more to be accomplished here.
Owamanga
wrote:
>Can you not see the difference between:
>
>"I don't know that your focusing choices accomplished what you hoped."
>
>and
>
>"Learn to focus, ass."
Yes of course, but I didn't call you any names.
> It's called "civility," and you might want to try it every
>once in a while. You'd be surprised how much your blood pressure
>drops.
Actually, I smile when writing posts. I'm smiling now.
>>It appears to me that the only major thing wrong with them, in your
>>opinion, is the blown highlights.
>
>Nope. You haven't been reading.
>
>"I'm also not enthralled with the selective focus approach, so I'll
>probably discard that as an element as I develop this particular
>style."
I'll admit that I missed that.
>"...I was using selective focus to attempt to create a certain feeling
>of tension. I'm not entirely sure I got the mood I was aiming for, but
>it's certainly a starting point for later work."
>
>"...posed subjects are not a strength of mine at this point. I'm
>working on that."
Those I saw, and I didn't mention pose again did I?
>>My point is I feel you should start from
>>established ingredients and move away with a purpose. You don't agree.
>>Fine, that's no big deal.
>
>You're right, it isn't. But you've been making it one. Why, I have
>no idea.
Well, partly because it's my turn to choose the shoot-in mandate at
the end of this week.
I was interested in the logic behind some of the choices you made, and
this discussion has given me (well, at least strengthened) an idea for
the mandate.
>There's nothing more to be accomplished here.
From my perspective, enough has been accomplished already. Now I'll be
more positive:
May I suggest instead of 'selective focus', which you are abandoning,
investigate *motion*. It'll require a change of light source, but the
same style can be achieved with a halogen lamp. I can't see drama in a
still/obviously posed portrait, but I can see how movement might help.
Motion isn't associated with classic portraiture, so you'll still get
all the rebel-ness you seem to enjoy.
Maybe even experiment with a slower shutter, rear curtain flash. Tape
the halogen to the flash so the light direction is the same, and use a
dimming switch to tone down the halogen (or of course, use a less
powerful light source). Shooting wide open at 1600ASA, you'll need to.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
McLeod
<rob....@NOcomSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>
>I'll accept some grief over the posing, because posed subjects are not
>a strength of mine at this point. I'm working on that.
>Composition-wise, meh - you can have your opinions, I'll have mine.
>The only real non-standard composition was the first frame presented.
>The rest are pretty conventional as far as framing.
I saw your page. I thought you did an excellent job of capturing the
emotions of your subjects. I thought they would have been pretty good
if they had just a bit more detail retained in the exposures.
Paul Mitchum
> Well, to be perfectly honest, following the "rules" (of which I am quite
> aware) would yield a bunch of bog-standard B&W headshots. Which is
> decidedly NOT what I was trying to accomplish. The drones at the
> Department of Motor Vehicles can take headshots.
>
> The key word here is "experiment" - to see how far out on the edge of the
> envelope I could push and create a certain feeling. [..]
I kinda like your pictures. I especially like the next-to-last one where
he seems to be caught in mid-laugh. Brian3.jpg. But what I like about
that picture is that it hints at the rapport between you and your
brother, not that it's an experiment in anything. It could have been
taken with a point-and-shoot with an on-board flash on consumer film and
it would be a good picture, because it's a good subject. I like it
because it's actually candid.
I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that all the portrait
photography I've liked has been about something interesting in the
relationship between the subject and the person taking the picture. Not
necessarily a rapport, or even comfort or intimacy. Sometimes it can be
a discomfort that makes an interesting implication. You can create a
whole story in your mind about what's going on in the studio at that
moment.
Now, you admit that posed portraits are not your strong suit, and this
set of pictures isn't any kind of evidence that this self-knowledge is
in any way incorrect. :-) So if you *can* take a picture of your brother
that expresses the rapport between you, then it seems you'd be able to
*better* express that if you had more experience inside 'the rules.' If
you take a zillion cookie-cutter posed portraits, you'll be good at it,
and if you know how and when to break the rules, you'll be excellent at
it. And Brian3.jpg won't end up looking like the back of his head is
missing, and you'll be able to tell where his shirt ends and his arm
begins.
Experiment with non-experimentation. :-)
UC
Rob Novak wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:51:54 GMT, Owamanga
> <owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Again, *rule* is too strong a word. Guidelines really. You broke them
> >and it appears you didn't realize. This is my point.
>
> There's the assumption that sets us at odds, sir.
>
> You *assume* that I had no reason, and no knowledge of why I was doing
> anything. That's where you're just wrong. I can take headshots. I
> can do _basic_ portrait posing. I've assisted in portrait shoots and
> know the normal parameters. However, as originally stated, doing
> perfect portraits was *never* the aim of the exercise. Working in the
> safe space I know already doesn't _teach_ me anything.
You have shown no evidence that you are capable of doing anything but
crap. Your 'experiments' are worthless, and I've seen better stuff from
toddlers. What is the point of 'experimentation'? Why is that of ANY
value whatsoever?
>
> The answer to every one of your questions (which I've snipped, because
> I'm not going to answer that litany of inquisition piecemeal) is
> "Because I wanted to see what I'd get."
You actually didn't have any idea?
> I used shallow depth of field
> and selective focus because I wanted to play around with those
> elements. I used fast film pushed, because I wanted the grain and
> knew that Delta 400 shot at 1600 gives me a nice sugary grain. I used
> a red filter and harsh lighting because I knew I wanted very high
> contrast - I _know_ how to use black and white film to capture normal
> tonal ranges, and I wanted to work outside of that zone.
But WHY? Films have an ISO FOR A REASON! Going outside of that 'zone'
gives you LOUSY results.
> Yeah, I blew
> out the highlights more than I (or you) wanted them to be, so I know
> to back off a bit for the next go-round. I'm also not enthralled with
> the selective focus approach, so I'll probably discard that as an
> element as I develop this particular style. However, you've spent a
> lot of time and words strenuously attacking a position I'm really not
> defending.
You have to be a cretin not to know this ALREADY. This is basic shit.
BASIC. High-school level darkroom shit.
> You see, I've realized there are two kinds of photographers - bakers
> and cooks. Bakers weigh everything to the gram, use precise
> techniques, and worry about proper temperatures, times, and so forth.
> Bakers don't usually approach a project from scratch - they refine a
> known good technique to achieve their results. Even new recipes are
> evolutions of old ones, novelty built on establishment.
You have demonstrated no mastery, which must come BEFORE
'experimentation', not AFTER.
> Cooks, on the other hand, tend to grab a bunch of ingredients on-hand,
> mix 'em up in a way that is likely to work, and give it a taste. A
> pinch of this, a dash of that, yeah that looks about done. Then they
> taste, and refine from there - too much salt, too little spice, ugh -
> this particular curry overwhelms the shrimp.
>
> Neither approach inherently makes one a better or worse photographer,
> provided that one is willing to learn and refine from their starting
> point. And that was the point of this exercise - to establish a
> starting point, from which improvements and refinements could be made.
> The problem I've had is that you've assumed that the first fry-up is
> the finished dish.
You should start with the recommended ISO and normal development. You
should start without a red filter. You should start with correct focus.
ETC......
You're a complete waste of Carbon 12...
Mike Kohary
>
> Okay, well, here it is. Clarification: I'm not suggesting people don't
> try new things, I think it's extremely important to do this. But to
> throw out *all* the rules in one go, and for no particular reason just
> generates garbage. I know some people will disagree, but it's not
> really *art* if it's random.
Fair enough, but I don't think he was shooting for "art", so I don't think
it's fair to hold it to that standard. He made it pretty clear up-front
that it was pure experimentation. If he (or anyone else) learned anything
from it, then it had value, even if all anyone learned was "don't purely
experiment". ;)
grolschie
"Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:db6l3p$bip$0...@pita.alt.net...
> Owamanga wrote:
>>
>> Okay, well, here it is. Clarification: I'm not suggesting people don't
>> try new things, I think it's extremely important to do this. But to
>> throw out *all* the rules in one go, and for no particular reason just
>> generates garbage. I know some people will disagree, but it's not
>> really *art* if it's random.
>
> Fair enough, but I don't think he was shooting for "art", so I don't think
> it's fair to hold it to that standard. He made it pretty clear up-front
> that it was pure experimentation. If he (or anyone else) learned anything
> from it, then it had value, even if all anyone learned was "don't purely
> experiment". ;)
Original jazz musos broke nearly all of the rules of music that existed at
that time, for example rigid timing replaced with "feel" and a whole new
palette of what notes can be played together. An seemingly large amount of
randomness to both. I still hate jazz, but some love it. ;-)
grol
Mike Kohary
Excellent example - I *love* jazz, and you're exactly right. It broke *all*
the rules and not only thrived, but has become a highly respected art form
in its own right and has lasted for almost a century now. The only "reason"
the early pioneers of jazz had for breaking the rules was to get away from
the status quo. Sometimes, that's the only reason you need.
It's a fine line between technician and art (and truly great art tends to
combine both in equal parts). I think anyone who says you must have reasons
for breaking rules is edging awfully close to crossing that line over to
technician, and is forgetting that sometimes great art is simply abstract -
or even random.
ch...@go.com
>
>http://www.ilford.com/html/us_ english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.as p?ID=1329
Forgive my mirth. But this *is* a very 'good' example of complete lack
of control of mid-dark tones - note the incredible leap that the tones
make as they go from mid grey to.. infinity! Check out the hair, the
shadow (or is it a huge bloodstain?) on 46's left arm, the *horrible*
posterisation + grain in the background. This sort of thing may be
justified if you are going for a 'look', but clearly that isn't the
case here - and of course, the uc-troll doesn't do 'art'. Whatever you
do, don't follow this idiot's example.
What is worse than a troll?
An opinionated, *untalented* troll.
(Or perhaps someone who hasn't yet killfiled Scarpitti, and is silly
enough to respond).
Anyway, Rob, tough crowd here.. (O;
I think they are interesting, I very much like the compositions, and
there *is* something intriguing about the style .. but... somehow it is
a little too jarring and overdone - maybe not quite there. Keep
experimenting though.
grolschie
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1121413549.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >Here's a decent image, to show you what a good tonal range looks like:
>>
>>http://www.ilford.com/html/us_ english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.as p?ID=1329
>
> Forgive my mirth. But this *is* a very 'good' example of complete lack
> of control of mid-dark tones - note the incredible leap that the tones
> make as they go from mid grey to.. infinity! Check out the hair, the
> shadow (or is it a huge bloodstain?) on 46's left arm, the *horrible*
> posterisation + grain in the background. This sort of thing may be
> justified if you are going for a 'look', but clearly that isn't the
> case here - and of course, the uc-troll doesn't do 'art'. Whatever you
> do, don't follow this idiot's example.
>
> What is worse than a troll?
> An opinionated, *untalented* troll.
> (Or perhaps someone who hasn't yet killfiled Scarpitti, and is silly
> enough to respond).
I am no expert, but I found the arms and shorts of the 1/2 person on the far
left border distracting. I would've cropped him out.
grol
Owamanga
wrote:
>Excellent example - I *love* jazz, and you're exactly right. It broke *all*
>the rules and not only thrived, but has become a highly respected art form
>in its own right and has lasted for almost a century now.
I'm not buying the statement that jazz broke *all* the rules. If it
did, there would be a distinct set of logic you could apply to music
to determine if it is or is not jazz.
I'm no music buff, so I'm gonna throw some stuff in the pot of why
jazz and say pop or blues are similar:
Rule1: To make music, use musical instruments.
Rule2: Use musicians to play the instruments, not engineers.
Rule3: To make a hit song, keep the length to 5 mins or less.
Rule4: Music sounds better live.
Rule5: Have a strong bass, or rhythm people can tune in to.
All Jazz, or even most jazz doesn't break these rules.
I'm a Jazz consumer too, but RAP did the same thing (broke many of the
rules) bit it is, and will always remain to me, turd-music. A lot of
other stuff was too bad to be played a second time. Breaking *all* the
rules is not the best way to succeed.
>The only "reason"
>the early pioneers of jazz had for breaking the rules was to get away from
>the status quo. Sometimes, that's the only reason you need.
I don't know, but had always hoped the main reason was that jazz was
fun to play. You can get a group of guys and 'flow' for a bit, not
knowing what you might end up with.
>It's a fine line between technician and art (and truly great art tends to
>combine both in equal parts). I think anyone who says you must have reasons
>for breaking rules is edging awfully close to crossing that line over to
>technician, and is forgetting that sometimes great art is simply abstract -
>or even random.
Art can indeed be abstract or random - and this is true within
photography, but if that's the case, you can't label it something
traditional. I can't seriously get away with an abstract landscape
photo of a swiss mountain and call it a 'portrait', just because I
think it's 'art', because it isn't a portrait, its something else.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Unspam
"grolschie" <grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
Link is dead
Owamanga
>Link is dead
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1329
It works, there should be no spaces when you cut & paste it, but there
is an underscore between 'us' and 'english'.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
UC
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1329
ch...@go.com wrote:
> >Here's a decent image, to show you what a good tonal range looks like:
> >
> >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_ english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.as p?ID=1329
>
> Forgive my mirth. But this *is* a very 'good' example of complete lack
> of control of mid-dark tones - note the incredible leap that the tones
> make as they go from mid grey to.. infinity!
I have no idea what you are talking about. The print looks perfect.
There is shadow detail on the arm and in the hair. There is highlight
detail in the jersey of #22, and you can see his number clearly. The
print looks better than the scan, I admit.
> Check out the hair, the
> shadow (or is it a huge bloodstain?) on 46's left arm, the *horrible*
> posterisation + grain in the background. This sort of thing may be
> justified if you are going for a 'look', but clearly that isn't the
> case here - and of course, the uc-troll doesn't do 'art'. Whatever you
> do, don't follow this idiot's example.
Horrible grain? You cannot be serious. This is HP5. It has some grain,
but the image will always show some graininess in out-of-focus areas.
Remember, this is 35mm with a VERY long lens.
The point I wanted to demonstrate was that skin tones are mid-tones,
not highlights. Notice the difference in tone between the ace bandage
on 22's thighs and his white sersey?
THAT'S the right exposure!
grolschie
"Owamanga" <owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72afd158g3152vjjf...@4ax.com...
> Rule1: To make music, use musical instruments.
Wrong. Ever hear of stomp? Or percussion bands where they use garbage cans,
water coolers, bottles etc?
> Rule2: Use musicians to play the instruments, not engineers.
Wrong again. Some musos seem to be more 'technicians' than 'musicians'. They
might be able to do complex sets of triplets, arpeggios and diminished
scales, etc at 300bpm, but the result doesn't always sound palettable to
many. To others, it sounds awesome.
> Rule3: To make a hit song, keep the length to 5 mins or less.
Plenty of hit songs are well over 5mins. 'Stairway to Heaven' and 'Bohemian
Rhapsody' are just two that come to mind. Not exactly jazz, but breaking
those 'rules'.
> Rule4: Music sounds better live.
Not if you hear most bands that play live these days. Bands that can play
like the record when live are the exception these days. IMO.
> Rule5: Have a strong bass, or rhythm people can tune in to.
Not so. Jazz can be simply a single instrument eg piano or acapella. Any
music can be.
> All Jazz, or even most jazz doesn't break these rules.
Because these are stupid rules that you made up just now.
> I'm a Jazz consumer too, but RAP did the same thing (broke many of the
> rules) bit it is, and will always remain to me, turd-music. A lot of
> other stuff was too bad to be played a second time. Breaking *all* the
> rules is not the best way to succeed.
Rap certainly is dominating the music market for the last 10 years. Sells
more singles than any other type of music. Just look at the top 100, or the
MTV awards, etc. Some might consider this a good way to succeed.
>>The only "reason"
>>the early pioneers of jazz had for breaking the rules was to get away from
>>the status quo. Sometimes, that's the only reason you need.
>
> I don't know, but had always hoped the main reason was that jazz was
> fun to play. You can get a group of guys and 'flow' for a bit, not
> knowing what you might end up with.
You should perhaps read up on the subject.
grol
grolschie
> Notice the difference in tone between the ace bandage on 22's thighs and
> his white sersey?
>
> THAT'S the right exposure!
>
That's a white jersey? It looks a little grey on my monitor. ;-)
grol
Owamanga
<grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Owamanga" <owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:72afd158g3152vjjf...@4ax.com...
>
>> Rule1: To make music, use musical instruments.
>
>Wrong. Ever hear of stomp? Or percussion bands where they use garbage cans,
>water coolers, bottles etc?
Remember, we are talking Jazz here, there's none in my collection that
doesn't have at least one musical instrument.
>> Rule2: Use musicians to play the instruments, not engineers.
>
>Wrong again. Some musos seem to be more 'technicians' than 'musicians'. They
>might be able to do complex sets of triplets, arpeggios and diminished
>scales, etc at 300bpm, but the result doesn't always sound palettable to
>many. To others, it sounds awesome.
At 300bmp, it's not my idea of Jazz. Look, think mainstream Jazz
because I'm sure that's what the Jazz OP was thinking.
>> Rule3: To make a hit song, keep the length to 5 mins or less.
>
>Plenty of hit songs are well over 5mins. 'Stairway to Heaven' and 'Bohemian
>Rhapsody' are just two that come to mind. Not exactly jazz, but breaking
>those 'rules'.
Okay, less than 5% of hit music breaks this rule and hardly any of it
is Jazz (lots of classical stuff does of course). If you read the
thread, the argument is whether you can break *ALL* the rules *ALL AT
THE SAME TIME*.
I can't think of any single Jazz song that does, certainly it's not
the whole Jazz genre.
>> Rule4: Music sounds better live.
>
>Not if you hear most bands that play live these days. Bands that can play
>like the record when live are the exception these days. IMO.
Jazz sounds plenty fine live - I've never been disappointed. If bands
played exactly like the record there would be little point in seeing
them live.
>> Rule5: Have a strong bass, or rhythm people can tune in to.
>
>Not so. Jazz can be simply a single instrument eg piano or acapella. Any
>music can be.
Give me an example of a popular Jazz piece that is a single instrument
yet has no rhythm, and I'll try and locate it to listen.
>> All Jazz, or even most jazz doesn't break these rules.
>
>Because these are stupid rules that you made up just now.
Yet above, you support the argument that jazz breaks all the rules.
What *are* the general guideline rules to music that Jazz breaks but
no other genre of music does then?
Go, on...
>You should perhaps read up on the subject.
Naah, it's boring.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Unspam
"grolschie" <grol...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Owamanga" <owamanga-n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:72afd158g3152vjjf...@4ax.com...
>
>> Rule1: To make music, use musical instruments.
>
> Wrong. Ever hear of stomp? Or percussion bands where they use garbage cans,
> water coolers, bottles etc?
Right, anything that produces sound is an instrument, including garbage cans
and bottles and if you control its tone and dynamics by playing it, you are
a musician.
>
>
>> Rule2: Use musicians to play the instruments, not engineers.
>
> Wrong again. Some musos seem to be more 'technicians' than 'musicians'. They
> might be able to do complex sets of triplets, arpeggios and diminished
> scales, etc at 300bpm, but the result doesn't always sound palettable to
> many. To others, it sounds awesome.
Right again, playing an instrument is technical and requires technique, the
fact that you may not find the results to your liking is not an issue.
>
>
>> Rule3: To make a hit song, keep the length to 5 mins or less.
>
> Plenty of hit songs are well over 5mins. 'Stairway to Heaven' and 'Bohemian
> Rhapsody' are just two that come to mind. Not exactly jazz, but breaking
> those 'rules'.
Stairway to heaven was an album track like all of Zeppelin's output. There
are very few 5 minute hit songs but a massive amount under 3 minutes.
>
>
>> Rule4: Music sounds better live.
>
> Not if you hear most bands that play live these days. Bands that can play
> like the record when live are the exception these days. IMO.
Pink Floyd at the Live 8 gig, they hadn't played together for 20 years, the
sound was great and so were they.
>
>
>> Rule5: Have a strong bass, or rhythm people can tune in to.
>
> Not so. Jazz can be simply a single instrument eg piano or acapella. Any
> music can be.
Jazz is based mostly around rhythm, but listen to the radio, how many tunes
do you hear that *don't* have bass and drums?
>
>
>> All Jazz, or even most jazz doesn't break these rules.
>
> Because these are stupid rules that you made up just now.
Music is a discipline and rules are part of that discipline, they can be
broken and depending on the player, can lead to new rules.
>
>
>> I'm a Jazz consumer too, but RAP did the same thing (broke many of the
>> rules) bit it is, and will always remain to me, turd-music. A lot of
>> other stuff was too bad to be played a second time. Breaking *all* the
>> rules is not the best way to succeed.
>
> Rap certainly is dominating the music market for the last 10 years. Sells
> more singles than any other type of music. Just look at the top 100, or the
> MTV awards, etc. Some might consider this a good way to succeed.
Rap is poetry set to music, you could probably get a rapper to quote
Shakespeare to a sampled track (maybe they have already) but it is still a
musical genre, it's the folk music of the inner city.
>
>
>>> The only "reason"
>>> the early pioneers of jazz had for breaking the rules was to get away from
>>> the status quo. Sometimes, that's the only reason you need.
>>
>> I don't know, but had always hoped the main reason was that jazz was
>> fun to play. You can get a group of guys and 'flow' for a bit, not
>> knowing what you might end up with.
>
> You should perhaps read up on the subject.
Jazz is an extension of folk music, strangers can get together and play
reels or jam because they know the rules, in the same way that you can play
football with a bunch of strangers.
>
> grol
>
>
>
ch...@go.com
How can one explain this gently..
Take a look at the histogram. It has a HUGE peak in the mid-tones, and
then a big 'hole' in the dark tones, as well as the light tones. Some
scenes would justify that sort of curve, but that one doesn't.
Or try this. If you look at a diagram for the Zone System, you will
see that there are tones labelled 2,3,4 and 5. Those are the divisions
from a middling sort of gray, through to almost black. Now look at a
Zone System chart for help... Tones 2, 3 and to some extent even 4
seem to be noticably absent from your example. It just jumps suddenly
from about '3.5' to black, hence the *posterised* grainy effect in the
background and other issues.
Is your monitor adjusted properly, per chance? Maybe that's why you
can't see the HORRIBLE effect at the top right of your image. But of
course, I'm wrong, I'm just imagining it, you are clearly the revered
expert around here.
If it's still not clear, perhaps I should quote you the RGB numbers and
actual pixel coordinates... \O:
grolschie
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1121470960....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Sighs wearily.
>
> How can one explain this gently..
Well, you could've used some classy Michael Scarpitti-isms like "What you
have produced is NOT, I repeat, NOT even worth looking at. It's so far from
acceptable that it is crap", "You're a complete waste of Carbon 12..." or
"GO F**K YOUR CAT".
> Is your monitor adjusted properly, per chance? Maybe that's why you
> can't see the HORRIBLE effect at the top right of your image.
You mean like someone grabbed the photoshop burn tool, and burned heavily
the top right corner? Maybe UC's scanner doesn't pickup shadow areas well.
Some film scanners require multiple passes to do that. Being generous, of
course.
grol
ch...@go.com
>and burned heavily the top right corner?
Well, I know how the uc-troll despises art and artificial interference
with the 'true image', so the thought of him burning something away
just didn't occur to me... But now that you mention it, it does look
like a (very poorly executed) burn... Maybe a big scratch or
thumbprint? (O;
> Maybe UC's scanner doesn't pickup shadow areas well.
>Some film scanners require multiple passes to do that.
> Being generous, of course.
Yes.. (grin) That must be it!
(Although it still doesn't explain the other areas, like the hair of
Mr22 in the white 'sersey' (sic).. Note how it goes from mid grey to
absolutely jet black - in the space of a pixel....
But.............. I'm sure the *print* is g-o-o-o-rgeous..
UC
detail and shadow detail were captured. Maybe the scan could be better.
The POINT is, however, that SKIN TONES are near middle greys, not
white.
I have no idea what the 'histogram' looks like, nor do I care. The
PRINT is what matters, and it looks great!
UC
Your monitor must be off. It looks like a good detailed white on mine.
The other team was wearing green.
Mike Kohary
>>Here's a decent image, to show you what a good tonal range looks like:
>>
>>http://www.ilford.com/html/us_ english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.as p?ID=1329
>
>Forgive my mirth.
Forgiven. It's a very mediocre picture with limited tonal range,
poorly composed (too much grass and he cut off the top of someone's
head), and frankly it doesn't work in black and white. Sports
practically scream for color, and there are few exceptions IMO. This
is not one of them.