And how is a photograph "romanticizing" anything?
Those who choose to apply their own prejudices to innocuous images are idiots.
- Leigh
And how is a photograph "romanticizing" anything?
Those who choose to apply their own prejudices to innocuous images are idiots.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Not an easy subject to light. Nicely done. If my hubby was here, he'd appreciate the subject (he's a ). The blanket adds a nice touch, too.
Those who don't get it, guns are seen differently in the US and especially guns like this. If it were a photo of a Raven MP-25, I might agree with you (cheap street gun), but this is a well-made piece of machinery.
I must editorialize a bit. A thing is not an action. No thing acts by itself, and thus it is morally neutral. An actor, on the other hand, has the power of exercising free will and can be held accountable for his actions. Any tool or device can be used for good or evil, and blaming the thing for the consequences is immature at best, and at worst, such a reaction is a sign of some deep seated neurosis. Fanatics are not attractive, and to be honest, I find them a bit frightening. If "romanticizing" a thing as a symbol of an era is some sign of mental illness, then we must go out and lock up every archivist and museum curator on the face of the earth in the interests of public safety and sanity. After that we can start going through the billions of photographs, paintings, sculptures and artifacts which we as a race have collected in order to make sure none of them "romanticize" such things as the Roman Empire or the decadence of the Greeks, who were the first experimenters with the concept of democracy. Then we can burn the novels and history books, and all that poetry will have to go. Tennyson's Light Brigade must never again interfere with our objectivity about the concept of war.
And since 90% of my work involves scantily clad young women, I must sexualize firearms, right? No, I don't do that. I find the combination of chicks and guns quite bothersome.
As to the technical details of the photograph, I had to shoot on a flat table top, so it was necessary to use front tilt to maintain focus and perspective. It helps that the aperture was f45, certainly, but lighting was difficult. I used a 36" softbox above and behind, with white cards on both sides, thus the heavier shadows on the lower sides of the subject.
Thanks for posting info on the "shoot", it's great to see how other photographers handle challenging lighting situations. My "aim" is to learn as much as I can from these post, and this is a great example of still life work I personally find difficult to achieve. I'm also very much against WMD's (Wanking Minuescia Dolts), and pardon my spelling...
LelandRay, I appreciate your well thought out response to the barely coherent comment on your picture.
Now, let's see some more firearms shots....err...pictures! (hopefully we won't get any more idiotic, judgmental, fanatical comments about them).
Garrett
flickr galleries
Thats OK, it's always better to keep the muzzle end pointed away from than the butt end. I don't think I use the front tilt enough, so this gives me a new benchmark to try and hit. One of these days I'll learn to keep better notes, as my memory isn't what it used to be.
Leland, in reality, is the hammer a different colour than the rest of the gun?
First rule of aiming a camera: "Lens closer to subject than film."
The same applies to aiming a gun.
Nice shot of the SA Army. .45 Long Colt or .44-40?
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Bookmarks