Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photographers' started by Jorge, Jun 30, 2005.
I think they are absolutely beautiful!
I agree, wish I could see them in person!
Too bad they are $3,000/11x14" print
Here are two of his portfolios from which prints are for sale at www.photoeye.com.
Here also is another note about this photographer:
"Don Hong-Oai's evocative landscapes, produced from multiple negatives are idealized scenes. As such, in the tradition of Chinese landscape painting, they do not represent a specific time or place. Each sepia-toned, gelatin silver print bears a distinctive Chinese inscription by the artist. Don Hong-Oai passed away a little over a year ago, yet a limited number of these exquisite prints are still available."
--From the photoeye.com Illustrated Newsletter
His pictures have a nice feel to them. My partner has "Three Friends" in 16x20 and a 20x24 Sandstorm picture.
Thanks for posting this link. Wonderful images, a legacy of beauty. tim
They are especially beautiful when one takes into consideration that several were taken at the height of the Vietnam War. It is hard to believe that there would be scenes of such tranquility let alone someone who would find and share them.
I agree. I like the Winter Fog one.
Agreed. I saw a reference to him in the Photoeye newsletter.
The remind me of the Japanese\Chinese silk scrolls with the chop in the image, a title or something related to the scene, I suppose. I don't care for that artform very much so I don't know much about it.
As far as the photographs go, I have always had a problem with prints from multiple negatives - a sky from this one, a foreground from that one, etc. Bruce Barnbaum does\did this and it's always given me the creeps. Old time postard photographers used to do this with scenes of the west and then send them back east to dramatize the west and encourage western expansion. Always seems like 'cheap parlor trick' to me and I don't respect the work, even if it produces a pleasant image. Just one guy's opinion.
He manipulates his images by combining a number of different negatives so he can get the perfect composition.
Works quite wonderfully
Ah, big deal he took 8 good pictures since 1986.
He's a conservative Uelsmann marinated in an Oriental esthetic which loosely translated means "safe" or "cliche to work on any wall". I think it is perfectly ingenuine, fundamentally a worthless noncontribution to photography... but then 99.9999999999% of photography is worthless, including my own, and if it makes you feel better, then you are of the exceptional .00000000001%.
It's pretty. It's crap. It's pretty crap. He's making money. Choose your path, be happy.
While I agree with you totally about this guy - consider that the same applies VERY much to adams.. of whom I am CERTAINLY no big fan, either. However - what do you think of the possibility that MOST 'great' photographers/artists have done the same thing... seems kind of hard to get your name into 'brand' status unless you're something of a one-trick pony... i.e. wegman, winogrand, lots of others.
You know, I am well aware that some people might not like what I like. Everybody has a right to their opinion and with simply saying they dont like it is good enough. But then every once in a while you get the horse's ass that thinks just because he has a right to his opinion and free speech he has the right to try an bring down talented photographers. Perhaps this is a defense mechanism for their lack of talent and most likely their personal failures, but it would be nice if we did not have to read the vitriol. In the end on one hand we have a photographer whose prints are selling for $3000, on the other we have one who does not even have the balls to post a single picture in this forum. I think this should be a pretty good indication of the value of his opinion.
Jorge wrote: "You know, I am well aware that some people might not like what I like. Everybody has a right to their opinion and with simply saying they dont like it is good enough. But then every once in a while you get the horse's ass that thinks just because he has a right to his opinion and free speech he has the right to try an bring down talented photographers. Perhaps this is a defense mechanism for their lack of talent and most likely their personal failures, but it would be nice if we did not have to read the vitriol. In the end on one hand we have a photographer whose prints are selling for $3000, on the other we have one who does not even have the balls to post a single picture in this forum. I think this should be a pretty good indication of the value of his opinion."
Isn't jj's opinion worth exactly the same as everyone else's opinion? And what has the monetary value of a photographer's print got to do with the value of their opinion? Is there to be some hierarchy based on how much your prints sell for? There might be some surprises.
I read nothing in jj's post that approaches vitriol. I read an honest opinion that was well expressed and that avoided personal comment on the photographer or on the people who like that kind of photography - in fact he showed great self control in the face of the enemy. No need to then reply with derogatory personal remarks.
PS "I think it is perfectly ingenuine." jj: did you mean 'ingenuous' rather than 'ingenuine'?
You are saying that because you believe the photographer in question is talented, and especially because he is marketable, then one should not criticize his work. Something else is happening there, Jorge.
And I have posted a couple snippets/photos... and my dog is bigger than your dog, so there.
That's not even a proper dog.
More like some sort of mutant polar bear.
Probably drools all over the house.
Blansky - you crack me up, man!
Yeah, well bear-like appearance is considered a positive point for the Great Pyrenees. He was oversized: Six-foot tall standing on his hind legs, 32" at the shoulder, 185 pounds and fit. He was a livestock guardian when we lived on a farm. He passed away last year at 11 years-old, two years past the mean. We miss him a lot.
On Topic - Dog pictures are more difficult than kids! I was never good at dog pictures. This is him at 30 months old. The fellow is a visitor making friends. (Yes, it's a horrible scan done in the Old Days.)
I always thought drooling was how you determined if a dog was a proper dog
These are proper dogs:
Photo 1...The one on the right is blind and the one in the middle is a seeing eye dog. The one on the left doesn't give a shit.
Photo 2...The bitch and missus. (careful now)
Auchhhh. Michael! Made me smile again.
Good studio work, Michael. Thanks.
Does the seeing-eye walk the blind one?
You all know about retievers that will run for the ball forever, well I was dreaming up a Throwing dog. Sell them as a pair. Perpetual toss-n-retrieve. They would probably sell like point-n-shoots at a nudist open house.
Actually the blind one, I had to put to sleep a couple of months ago. I got tired of the tap, tap, tapping all over the house.
The seeing eye dog only worked outside and even then if she saw another dog she would chase him and drag the blind one behind her.
So now it's real quiet around the house, mainly because my wife won't speak to me.
Hmmmm...... I kind of like it.
Not what I am saying, you may criticize all you want just like Michael Witting did. But to call anybodys work "unimportant" just because it does not conform to your idea of a great photograph is just plain nasty. But then that seems to be your preferred attitude in this forum.
BTW Helen, the price is just an example of how some people are not only willing to disagree with this guy, but are putting their money where their mouth is. The market price of a print might not be the best indication of how "good" something is, but then it is one of the few parameters we have to make a distinction.
PS. What the hell does a cow on Rogaine has to do with anything?