My recent works

[Wolfgang]

A lil long winded, but seen too much pictures without a reason, guess I'll get it off my chest... Won't do this again

No no, in fact, please do. Much too often, there will be photographers taking pictures and creating pictures of little or not visual impact or even trying to pass off snap shots as something extraordinary.

It doesn't help that their peers help masturbate their ego in making them believe it's a good/great shot were it's merely mediocre so your comments are indeed a very timely reminder about which direction one should head towards if they wish to aspire to move onto the next rung.

 

[pointblankshots]

No no, in fact, please do. Much too often, there will be photographers taking pictures and creating pictures of little or not visual impact or even trying to pass off snap shots as something extraordinary.

It doesn't help that their peers help masturbate their ego in making them believe it's a good/great shot were it's merely mediocre so your comments are indeed a very timely reminder about which direction one should head towards if they wish to aspire to move onto the next rung.

Yup, point to add. The cameras and lenses cost quite a bomb. It's no way to spent big money on images that's killing your time. but then again, if that's the money one can afford to spend and wake up feeling a happy man, I'll rest my case. Photography is an lifelong education, it's not equivalent to a ferrari on Singapore Roads. The camera is not an exhibit, oh well, at least it doesn't get more expensive in the span of its life. Without the eye that created unspoken visions, it's pointless lurking the useless weight, bruised your shoulder, and bring home mediocre stuffs. Imagine using a whooping long fishing rod to fish a catfish, what for??? Time to think...

 

[student]

There are all kinds of reasons for a person to make photographs. And I think they are all valid, even if nothing more than just snapping away for the heck of it!

However, there are some like yourself who wants to make something a little different, a little more "meaningful" ( I do not for a moment belittle the snaps shots of the birth of one's first born or grandmother's birthday. I think these are VERY meaningful! "Art" they be mostly not - but damn meaningful!)

I am referring to images that are that goes beyond mere documentation. Or mere beautiful. Granted, I think there are few that will be able to make images that changes the way we see things. Few are Brandt, Avedon, Watson, Gibson, Millea, Newman (these are a few of my inspirations, others have theirs), but surely with some effort, we all can make some more meaningful images.

And your "long-winded" writing for some of us, may hopefully point us in a direction that leads to more fruitful endeavour.

But I think it is damn difficult to write what you wrote in a very concise manner. I might be able to shave a few words off, but not much!

Thank you!

 

[Wolfgang]

Yup, point to add. The cameras and lenses cost quite a bomb. It's no way to spent big money on images that's killing your time. but then again, if that's the money one can afford to spend and wake up feeling a happy man, I'll rest my case. Photography is an lifelong education, it's not equivalent to a ferrari on Singapore Roads. The camera is not an exhibit, oh well, at least it doesn't get more expensive in the span of its life. Without the eye that created unspoken visions, it's pointless lurking the useless weight, bruised your shoulder, and bring home mediocre stuffs. Imagine using a whooping long fishing rod to fish a catfish, what for??? Time to think...

Well, thats insight. But lets see if it does make any difference to anyone here.

But the point is, there are good photographers and good pictures that are being shared. It's just that there is this pervasive obsession with gear/lenses that seems to overwhelm.

 

[espn]

There are all kinds of reasons for a person to make photographs. And I think they are all valid, even if nothing more than just snapping away for the heck of it!

However, there are some like yourself who wants to make something a little different, a little more "meaningful" ( I do not for a moment belittle the snaps shots of the birth of one's first born or grandmother's birthday. I think these are VERY meaningful! "Art" they be mostly not - but damn meaningful!)

I am referring to images that are that goes beyond mere documentation. Or mere beautiful. Granted, I think there are few that will be able to make images that changes the way we see things. Few are Brandt, Avedon, Watson, Gibson, Millea, Newman (these are a few of my inspirations, others have theirs), but surely with some effort, we all can make some more meaningful images.

And your "long-winded" writing for some of us, may hopefully point us in a direction that leads to more fruitful endeavour.

But I think it is damn difficult to write what you wrote in a very concise manner. I might be able to shave a few words off, but not much!

Thank you!

Well said

 

[Pro Image]

There are all kinds of reasons for a person to make photographs. And I think they are all valid, even if nothing more than just snapping away for the heck of it!

However, there are some like yourself who wants to make something a little different, a little more "meaningful" ( I do not for a moment belittle the snaps shots of the birth of one's first born or grandmother's birthday. I think these are VERY meaningful! "Art" they be mostly not - but damn meaningful!)

I am referring to images that are that goes beyond mere documentation. Or mere beautiful. Granted, I think there are few that will be able to make images that changes the way we see things. Few are Brandt, Avedon, Watson, Gibson, Millea, Newman (these are a few of my inspirations, others have theirs), but surely with some effort, we all can make some more meaningful images.

And your "long-winded" writing for some of us, may hopefully point us in a direction that leads to more fruitful endeavour.

But I think it is damn difficult to write what you wrote in a very concise manner. I might be able to shave a few words off, but not much!

Thank you!

Well said again.....!

PBS.....There are days which I want to totally give up photography and try something new. Your work, especially in the commercial area have shown to many CS members that photography is not just a form of art. It's also form of communication media to reach out to everyone out there about yourself.

 

[mattlock]

maybe you give the snapshot too little credit
snapshots are meaningful in many ways
there are all sorts of meanings involved in taking a snapshot, that's why so many people are intruiged by it and creating work copying the aesthetic of the snapshot
I don't think visual impact or strong formal aspects define a good photo
I think a picture of your wife in the wallet that brings a flood of memories and feelings to you is a strong photo

 

[espn]

maybe you give the snapshot too little credit
snapshots are meaningful in many ways
there are all sorts of meanings involved in taking a snapshot, that's why so many people are intruiged by it and creating work copying the aesthetic of the snapshot
I don't think visual impact or strong formal aspects define a good photo
I think a picture of your wife in the wallet that brings a flood of memories and feelings to you is a strong photo

I can't agree more. Seems to me that professionals, or freelance professionals are very hyped about photos meeting their standards and forget that most of us here are snappists and hobbyists.

And whilst they can comment here that they don't like such shots, I see no help in offering any constructive comments or suggestions in improvements when others posts.

I guess "WOW, great pics" goes both ways for the amatuers like me and the professionals.

Like Ian mentioned, paraphrased, "everything takes talent".

Just that I've less of it I guess. will not try to show off my lousy, medicore snapshot skills anymore.

 

[pointblankshots]

There are all kinds of reasons for a person to make photographs. And I think they are all valid, even if nothing more than just snapping away for the heck of it!

However, there are some like yourself who wants to make something a little different, a little more "meaningful" ( I do not for a moment belittle the snaps shots of the birth of one's first born or grandmother's birthday. I think these are VERY meaningful! "Art" they be mostly not - but damn meaningful!)

I am referring to images that are that goes beyond mere documentation. Or mere beautiful. Granted, I think there are few that will be able to make images that changes the way we see things. Few are Brandt, Avedon, Watson, Gibson, Millea, Newman (these are a few of my inspirations, others have theirs), but surely with some effort, we all can make some more meaningful images.

And your "long-winded" writing for some of us, may hopefully point us in a direction that leads to more fruitful endeavour.

But I think it is damn difficult to write what you wrote in a very concise manner. I might be able to shave a few words off, but not much!

Thank you!

Pictures are pictures taken for memory sake, keepsake, like you mentioned, birthday's, annivesaries, new born. These are pics we can relate to sharing joys. These are however not to be put in the same wavelength as portraits. Snap shots are snap shots. In whichever way we turn it, it never measures up to that of a Photography Portrait. One where countless behind the scenes put a face to a crime.

I have never belittle any forms of pictures, never did in my years of the trade. I see umpteen joy in a pic snap by point and shoot, but then again, I never could have term the people who shot these as 'photographers'. Take it literally, it is. I believe many would think would agree this is a portrait forum, a forum where one would learn tips on photography and perhaps give good critics to improve., and not just showcasing how cute a baby is, whether the baby is bathing or eating. I appreciate the efforts put in by people in this forum that painstakingly upload the images for us to linger on memories, but it's not feasible in this part of the forum, even the moderators would agree.

As a photographer by virtue, I've been on diving trips for the past 8 years and have shot many underwater images which I thought they were well done, but you don't see me putting images in the underwater forum, because I have nothing to share, or nothing to showcase for others to learn or critic. My equipment is going to 'WOW' people for sure, but am still thinking I've more to go. Being a good photography on land doesn't mean I'm a natural at it.

My point here is if that is photography, I don't see a point being in this industry where I was taught precision, and that if my pictures are not good enough, I ain't close enough...

Am not here for any forms of arguments, just thought we put things in the right perspectives.

 

[espn]

Sad that this part of the forum is no meant longer for showing portraits. Rather for showing art & professional works.

I thought the forum was a place for all to post their shots and learn from one another rather than be taught that only posed photography is allowed and that the moderators in this part of the forum agrees with it.

I'm really saddened.

Now I'm beginning to see why folks have been actively posting their images in the newbie sub forum.

No doubt, not being angry or anything, I thank pointblankshots for sharing his insights and beliefs.

Maybe, perhaps, one day I reach this kind of standard(s), will I dare to show my shots in here again.

Thank you this shall be my last post in P&P subforum.

 

[Wolfgang]

Oh well, at the end of the day, it's quite silly if we were to compared apple & orange or snapshots of new born child against a portrait shot or a fashion shoot that requires alot more than a piece of fancy gear.

So at the end of it all, PBS has basically hit the nail on it's head.

Pictures are pictures taken for memory sake, keepsake, like you mentioned, birthday's, annivesaries, new born. These are pics we can relate to sharing joys. These are however not to be put in the same wavelength as portraits. Snap shots are snap shots. In whichever way we turn it, it never measures up to that of a Photography Portrait. One where countless behind the scenes put a face to a crime.

I have never belittle any forms of pictures, never did in my years of the trade. I see umpteen joy in a pic snap by point and shoot, but then again, I never could have term the people who shot these as 'photographers'. Take it literally, it is.

So, the way i see it, you shoot what you want to shoot and share what you want to share. Just don't be pretentious abt what you are trying to accomplish or claim to be shooting at a level you are not. Feigning humility doesn't really say alot for anyone at all.

 

[mattlock]

wao. this is getting interesting
What do you think of Terry Richardson then? he takes "snapshots" with a yashica point and shoot and he's very very very well paid.

Precision is more than technicalities
why was the Blair Witch Project so successful?taken with a video camera, really bad quality, almost no "proper" acting
Precision is about capturing what you want to capture and using the technical elements which enhance the sense of what you're capturing
the best people photographers are paid so much not because of their technical skills but because of their ability to capture with precision the moments that are affecting. I can't think of a better example than Peter Lindbergh offhand, many of his pictures are 35mm and I never get tired of the sensations his pictures give me.

One of the most exciting photographers I've met shoots with a polaroid camera at rock parties, I can feel the sweat and stench of those parties through her out of focus, screwed up polaroid shots. I'd say she's been precise in her shooting.
I think you CAN compare a shot of a newborn and a fashion shot. it's not about the equipment (of course that helps)
it doesn't matter if you're a amateur or a professional, both have similar aims, in creating images that have some sort of resonance, with themselves or with other people.

If you want to make it more complicated and sleek and shiny, that's fine
if you want to make it simple and straightforward and lo quality with a nokia handphone camera, that's fine too
They're just different aesthetics that may or may not work to give a picture its intended effect
I don't see this problem so much in movies, look at the movie Traffic. all blown out and grainy, low quality look to the film, and it's great, it works, I don't see anyone complaining about the "low quality" of the film itself because it works right for the movie. that style wouldn't work with Star Wars because it doesn't suit the sci fi aesthetic in Star Wars.
I love the way the lo-fi acoustic quality of my old Joni Mitchell CDs give a sense of innocence and warmth, while I also love the sleek and perfectly produced sound of Missy Elliot.

I think it's worth considering that some of the most highly paid photographers in the world are those who seem to have bad technical skills (look at Ellen Von Unsworth's head on flat lighting in her Guess? ads, look at Terry Richardson, look at the heavy grain and the blurred shots of Peter Lindbergh)

 

[Wolfgang]

wao. this is getting interesting
What do you think of Terry Richardson then? he takes "snapshots" with a yashica point and shoot and he's very very very well paid.

Precision is more than technicalities
why was the Blair Witch Project so successful?taken with a video camera, really bad quality, almost no "proper" acting
Precision is about capturing what you want to capture and using the technical elements which enhance the sense of what you're capturing
the best people photographers are paid so much not because of their technical skills but because of their ability to capture with precision the moments that are affecting. I can't think of a better example than Peter Lindbergh offhand, many of his pictures are 35mm and I never get tired of the sensations his pictures give me.

One of the most exciting photographers I've met shoots with a polaroid camera at rock parties, I can feel the sweat and stench of those parties through her out of focus, screwed up polaroid shots. I'd say she's been precise in her shooting.
I think you CAN compare a shot of a newborn and a fashion shot. it's not about the equipment (of course that helps)
it doesn't matter if you're a amateur or a professional, both have similar aims, in creating images that have some sort of resonance, with themselves or with other people.

If you want to make it more complicated and sleek and shiny, that's fine
if you want to make it simple and straightforward and lo quality with a nokia handphone camera, that's fine too
They're just different aesthetics that may or may not work to give a picture its intended effect
I don't see this problem so much in movies, look at the movie Traffic. all blown out and grainy, low quality look to the film, and it's great, it works, I don't see anyone complaining about the "low quality" of the film itself because it works right for the movie. that style wouldn't work with Star Wars because it doesn't suit the sci fi aesthetic in Star Wars.
I love the way the lo-fi acoustic quality of my old Joni Mitchell CDs give a sense of innocence and warmth, while I also love the sleek and perfectly produced sound of Missy Elliot.

I think it's worth considering that some of the most highly paid photographers in the world are those who seem to have bad technical skills (look at Ellen Von Unsworth's head on flat lighting in her Guess? ads, look at Terry Richardson, look at the heavy grain and the blurred shots of Peter Lindbergh)

Now this getting us somewhere.

I think we can both agree to disagree amicably on how we view certain shots yes? But i think there is some form of parallel between your views and PBS, if i interpret it correctly.

Nonetheless, since you did mention photographers like Ellen Von Unsworth and Terry Richardson, may i ask whats your take on Bill Henson then?

 

[student]

What do you think of Terry Richardson then? he takes "snapshots" with a yashica point and shoot and he's very very very well paid.

I can't think of a better example than Peter Lindbergh offhand, many of his pictures are 35mm and I never get tired of the sensations his pictures give me.

I think it's worth considering that some of the most highly paid photographers in the world are those who seem to have bad technical skills (look at Ellen Von Unsworth's head on flat lighting in her Guess? ads, look at Terry Richardson, look at the heavy grain and the blurred shots of Peter Lindbergh)

You seem to equate popularity of images and financial successes with "meaningful art". By your measure, one of the greatest photographers would be a bad photographer - and I refer to Edward Weston.

Sex always sells, and Hustler is making a roaring business. People who buys Hustler never seems to tired of looking at similar images again and again. I think the photographers making images for these magazines may even be making more than Terry or Ellen. Just less pretentious and more direct.

Terry Richardson? Well, in our last "conversation" I remember you gave a link to a photographer whom you thought highly of. Well, I am aware of what makes you tick! That photographer's images were basically voyeuristic. Terry Richardson? In the same mould. Erotcism. Never fails. Like Ellen's.

What has using a 35 mm got to do with what PBS is talking about? Certainly Ralph Gibson uses a 35 mm, and mostly one lens! PBS is talking about something quite different. And the images of Linberg are taken with great sensitivities. Not hiding a camera and pointing them at women crouches.

Blurred shots are not necessarily reflective of bad technical skills, and I hope you do understand that. Sometimes blurred shots may even be more difficult than sharp images which says nothing but sex!

 

[student]

Since this is a forum on portraits, allow me to show something which I received today from portrait photographer whose works are in the collection by more than 60 museums worldwide. He has recently been named by his univsersity as alumni of the year for a lifetime of achievement.

I am not at liberty to name him, because it was a private conversation to me. But what he said may be of interest to some.

" I spill blood over these prints. My veer sould is in tis work.... each print is made with sweat and love.... I do it for love and knowledge that this is my path and I must be true to that path."

"i must talk to you about the portraits I am doing now. They are not simple portraits. Anyone who thinks they are photo's of people are simply not understanding what I am doing...."

These few statements showed tremendous passion and intensity and honestly in his pursuit of his vision. He could have made a lot of money if he succumb to the wishes of galleries owners or the media. he remained steadfast to his vision. And remained poor, very, very poor.

By some people's measure, my friend is a bad photographer. But museums and his own university seem to think otherwise.

 

[mattlock]

actually Hustler is suffering from really bad sales. trust me, I subscribed to it for a year
There are much more erotic photos around... my work is subconsciously influenced by porn actually. there's a reason why so many people like to view porn. Some porn photographers are better than others of course. My favourite porn images are those exact moments and angles which just cause you to get a hard-on. not all porn images actually do that.
I feel qualified to talk about the porn stuff because it's something I really enjoy
maybe we should have a topic on porn! then every male can contribute. you know you've been viewing too much porn when you actually start to dissect the lighting and expressions and poses of each porn picture.
Actually if you think about it, pictures of sunsets are kinda like pornography too
it's photography pornography, if that makes any sense
I think my reaction to another bad picture of a sunset or a bird in midair taken with a 500mm lens is the same as my reaction to a bad porno picture

I don't think Terry Richardson's a porn photographer btw, his work goes beyond that in many ways. it's really interesting how easy it is to point out a terry richardson photo nowadays. he shoots the covers for this magazine called America, and it's really recognisable due to his distinct ability to capture a certain seedy glamour of his subject (last month was Usher, a really good shoot). That's his schtick, I have to respect him for the vision he pursues wholeheartedly (through his photos and his lifestyle)

nah I don't equate financial success with meaningful work
I was using those names in response to being a commercial photographer
I think being a commercial photographer doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a good technician. sometimes technicalities even get in the way of things.it's something good to know though.

yeah I went abit off -track earlier, I think what I wanted to say without offending anyone is that...you don't need technical skills to make a good picture (although it can help). There are many people taking great camera phone pictures and posting them on flickr.com . That's why I think it's abit unfair to deem a snapshot as being less worthy. I'd like to think that there are some photographers who are more in tune with movie directors, and some who are more in tune with cinematographers, one deals with bringing out human character and one deals with bringing out the character of light.
personally I'm more of a technical person but I highly admire the ability of my friend to take her low quality rock party polaroids.
So, I really don't think it's good to seperate photography into "higher" or "lower". why can't a snapshot be as difficult as a portrait, what makes a portrait more worthy than a snapshot? Why is porn less worthy than a "fine art nude" done in black and white? I mean, take away all the social pretensions about the status of high-brow art and low-brow art, and really when we don't define things it makes things much more difficult to judge as good or bad.

I tried to figure out how to phrase my idea on "good" and "bad", I do believe I didn't say any photographer was "bad" but I do list ones whose works I think are good. Goodness and Badness are absolutely relative and are terrible words to use without context. I made no definition of what a bad photographer is in any earlier posts so I want to make it clear that I never defined any photographer as "bad". I get excited easily by work I enjoy so I will take liberties with using positive words to describe photographers I like

I think equating good work with hard work and passion's also....kind of not something absolutely true. I respect people for their passion but there are alot of people who create great work without even caring much about it. hey, what do I care about their process right? if the work's good the work's good :bsmilie:

Bill Henson is bloody bloody fabulous
I remember seeing that book of his work with teenagers in darkness against the city lights in the background, fabulous work. You can't deny that those images are full of tension and psychological drama, and you must be gay if you don't find yourself getting turned on by those beautiful teenagers.heh heh heh

 

[mattlock]

actually I'd also like to suggest that porn pictures are actually really successful photos in the sense that many many many people can relate to them, and some leave lingering impressions. Pornography causes people to view the world around them in the way pornography views it (come on, how many here can say our sex lives have not been enhanced in some ways by pornography?)
How much more affecting can you get?
I'd say that that is much more meaningful than a few people getting influenced by a Diane Arbus picture
I'm biased, I don't believe in "beauty", I don't think people are necessarily interested in "beauty", beauty is a real luxury and it's nice, but it's not really what life can be about
I think life is dirty, exciting, boring, sometimes beautiful, many times ugly
And never technically perfect, never like a postcard print on the wall.

So, who's up for a porno thread?

 

[fotoudavid]

i have been shooting portraits for quite some time, and learning day by day, to me, the most important issue is to bring out stories behind them, their lives, so, i now adays don't focus on cropping etc, its the expression, the stories i wanna bring out.

Its good to see more interesting portraits out here, rather to see some meaningless shoots, whereby some technically no fault, but rather plain pictures.

And, to add in, some shots i see in this portraits and poses are rather weak, in a sense that wats there to comments?

Good lens, good camera, wa equipment so much better then professionals i know, but a plain photo is a plain photo.

You may be good in theory, can explain like pro, but can you see things as a pro?

Some threads i see only have the same ppl comments to each others, but some times, strangly, only good comments, and if some ppl comments xtra things, ha, he was bombard by the same groups, and i believe, the groups should be good friends in a way. They will always says things like "if you so good, show me the pics you take", but, do they need to show?

I am a nobody, shooting pics, portraits that i believe in, but how many understands?

Snap shots are always snapshots, terry richardson may use a point and shoot camera, but how many ppl can process the techniques in dark room as he do?

Conclusion: Everyday is a learning day, made the best out of it, if you are the one using damn expensive lens, cameras etc but always GETTING plain, weak photos, well, you can carry on, but i don't think you can progress far, newbie or not.

Well, some may disagreed, saying wah i enjoy shooting, meeting friends for a shoot etc, good, at least its a hobby to you, but you really want to improve, do accept harsh citiques.

THE PROFESSIONALS ALWAYS WELCOME HARSH COMMENTS, WHY, SO THAT IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE. SO, POST YOUR SHOTS, AND LEARN FROM COMMENTS THAT YOU MAY FOUND HARD TO ACCEPT, AND LEARN.

 

[pipefish]

I don't shoot portraits, but I think the point being made by PBS, Student, etc is applicable to photography in general. I agree with most of the points they have made.

There is nothing wrong with taking snapshots, etc, if it makes you happy. Certainly, in a forum like CS where amatuers and professionals post, anyone should feel comfortable to post his or her shots (and on the flip side, take brickbats or criticism gracefully).

If photography to you is primarily a means of self-expression, then it is important to focus first on the message that you are trying to convey, and discard any obsession with gear/technique/theory - they are all servants of the final image. And I think this forum needs a little more of that kind of direction. In this forum, there is incredible expertise with gear and technical stuff, but not enough discussion on how a photo expresses something you are trying to say in your own way. There is a world of photography beyond portraits/macro/street/etc that opens up to photographers if one goes that way.

But I stress, there is nothing wrong with preferring to take the sharpest, most well-exposed photo, with the latest gear. To each his own. It is only if you treat photography as primarily a means of self-expression that the above applies.

On Terry Richardson (since so much has been said of him), I personally don't like what he does. But he manages to capture in all its lo-fi glory the eroticism that we sometimes cannot help but gravitate towards (like a squashed cat on the road). Btw, I think most of the people who mention his use of low-tech cameras are us gear-obsessed photographers (wah, so lousy equipment can make so much money!!!).

Alan

 

[pointblankshots]

I've seen good postings. Wolfgang's, Imagine's etc. Simply because their postings made me see how I could altered my images next time I hands on camera. Sure those pollys shot on surface magazines were good.

I thought also that the Blair Witch Project was a total hype up A&P, wasn't worth the time sitting in there. I have not introduce the movie, neither will I watch it again. Too painful to watch because of the camera shakes. Sorry, but that's like a 'bubble tea' thing, it's like make the money and RUN....

Terry Richardson and Araki is good, surely they're good with the point and shoot, and I would have wish I see it in the forum, but have you read about how experiences these guys have? Besides, I believe part of our eyes in this era is getting more customed to porn. Nice picture?? Think again? Good on ya for for bringing this up because it ain't about the equipment but the eye that sees it.

So much debate about this all. This forum of posting portraits for probably setted up for amateurs to learn from better ones and let's hope we'll have that and make this forum a place with more light for learning. I'll follow up with more postings soon