Nude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosmicexplosion

just for public record, i have no gripe against frank, a photo is not a man, in Australia, we take the piss out of people we like, this has many good outcomes, such as keeping it real, not being too serious, and fostering enthusiasm for life, ironically, and i hear its the same in some parts of the u.s?

but i think the main thing to learn here, is not to be too cool for school. this forum is a lot of things, and a good portion is pedagogical in nature, so whilst its becoming normal behaviour on the internet to act like your poking fun of a lion in a zoo, and out of reach of any physical retaliation, its primitive and small minded...the trick is not to confuse the problem with the person. or the photo with artist, every artist in history produces shit, but does that mean they do not produce great art, or their shit is not shit?


so if you are precious you will never allow any one to offer criticism of your work. and you will feel insulted, and may never grow beyond your own desire,

---

I admit I haven't been an active participant on this forum for very long, and I'm a little (ha!) antisocial to begin with, but from what I can tell about forum etiquette: It is quite appropriate to criticize technique, especially if you can bring constructive criticism or some suggestion that would solve some perceived problem, some technique you have found works for you in a particular situation. But it isn't appropriate to question artistic vision. People choose their subjects and composition according to their personal whims and artistic paths, and this particular forum is not geared towards a discussion of those unless someone specifically requests it, or starts a discussion about his artistic muses or starts a "where do I go from here?" thread. And even those don't seem to get enthusiastic participation or an abundance of serious comments.

From what I can see of the level of photographs exhibited on this forum, I'm not sure opening the forum to 'art school' type criticism of images would do anything but start innumerable flame wars. People here have devoted a substantial portion of their lives to perfecting their craft, no one just falls of a chair one day and decides to buy an 8x10 with a bunch of lenses, just so they can post something on largeformatphotography.info.

/getting off my soapbox

Image Sharing & Discussion
(35 Viewing)
Post your own (large-format only) images for sharing and discussion. Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster.

Criticism can be constructive in academic or workshop settings, but its always going to be problematic on a forum where people can make comments without any consequences. In a normal community people stay civil because they know they are going to run into a criticized person in other situations. There's accountability in those situations. Here, people can rip up someone's work and go on about their day without consequences. Personally, I really think its questionable to make a lot of comments without showing any work, period. I don't see how people can make thousands of posts and never let us see whether their words stand for anything.

Not “story” in the sense of a “tale” but “story” of the description or details of how the photo was created?? I’m missing the correct word.

Frank masterfully introduced a curvy model on a curvy country road in no less bright midday sun! All without shallow DOF, without dramatic limbo lighting, and I’m guessing without photoshop, keep looking and the “story” gets longer.

There are things I can learn here.
Candid snapshot? Maybe for Frank not for me. He pulled it off, could I?

When I take my time to look at some of the fantastic fotos posted here or even found fotos at antique shop it’s Free school. What works, What doesn’t.

The foto strikes me as Brave, Unsafe, Refreshing, New, Different, Candid? (gezzz that makes it even better)

Nice foto Frank.

r

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpalm

Not “story” in the sense of a “tale” but “story” of the description or details of how the photo was created?? I’m missing the correct word.

Frank masterfully introduced a curvy model on a curvy country road in no less bright midday sun! All without shallow DOF, without dramatic limbo lighting, and I’m guessing without photoshop, keep looking and the “story” gets longer.

There are things I can learn here.
Candid snapshot? Maybe for Frank not for me. He pulled it off, could I?

When I take my time to look at some of the fantastic fotos posted here or even found fotos at antique shop it’s Free school. What works, What doesn’t.

The foto strikes me as Brave, Unsafe, Refreshing, New, Different, Candid? (gezzz that makes it even better)

Nice foto Frank.

r

---

Ha now that's criticism! love it haha thanks

One of the many things I like about Frank, and his work, is that one can reliably take both at face value. This photo is just what it seems to be -- there is no hidden meaning, no subtext, no symbolism or metaphor, except what the viewer brings to it.

For me, the background is the image. Without it, we have a naked woman on a country road-- kind of boring. With it, we have a photograph of a naked woman on a country road. The background is a stand-in for the photographer-- much like the shadow of the photographer encroaching on the image space in other images -- it announces his presence and changes the meaning of the photo from "look at this naked woman", to "look at me photographing this naked woman".

I just happen to be listening right now to Tom Waits, A Christmas Card from a Hooker in Minneapolis, which includes the sound of a telephone ringing in the background. This changes the meaning of the song to one about the singer, and not about the subject/narrator of the song.

Similarly, the woman acknowledges the brightness of the sun by raising her arm to shade her eyes, the bent arm repeating the angle of the backdrop frame just behind her, and her curves repeating the road's has already been mentioned.

If I was given to referential titles, I'd call this one "Dorothy"

Whoa...

So I want to be upfront here - I mean NO DISRESPECT here to Frank, Jay, or anyone. Okay:

I'm sorry but to me all that is so asinine. At a glance I thought it was a digital snap showing how he set up the next shots. When I saw the film border, I thought, "Why would anyone waste a sheet of film on that?" I mean, if the background MAKES the photo, why? Who cares? It's a tool to help set up a shot. Who cares about the photographer? I mean, if I want to see the photographer, or the existence of the photographer, I would go look at Terry Richardson's photos (okay, not really, but you get the point).

Now one can argue that a naked woman on a dirt road is boring. However, if as Jay mentioned the form of the girl and the road coincided, that would be a compositional element I could get behind. But in my opinion the background does nothing but distract and make me wonder why this photo was even taken.

Okay so this is my OPINION and everyone is free to have theirs. I usually don't speak up in this manner but the flood of praise for that photo has me dumbfounded. And I would like to read more like Jay wrote about what they see in it (even if I disagree). I much prefer the other photos Frank posted, though I like his full-body portraits better as a general rule.

I only speak up because I am honestly curious. I want to know what people deem as "art" and why. I do not have a background in "art" and that always makes me think that maybe I don't see things like others may. This is definitely one of those times.

But if only I used an Aero Ektar or Verito, then it would be OK!

Corran,

Everyone has an opinion regarding art, and it's just that... one person's opinion.

Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy. Everybody has one, and they all stink. It matters only to you, not to anybody else.

A comment that a particular image doesn't meet your standards is self-serving clap trap.

There's absolutely no reason why anyone should "explain" anything to you.

- Leigh

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. How should one expand their viewpoint and perspective on art or anything without hearing other peoples' viewpoints, and how they came upon them?

Furthermore, since you edited your post:

I did NOT say anything "didn't meet my standards." In fact, in terms of just the technical aspects, it is excellent, as would be expected.
You sounds like a stuck-up art professor who, after being asked what exactly his "art" means, responded exactly with that statement - that he doesn't have to explain anything. Not because it's too "artsy" for them, but because at the end of the day he doesn't know either.