Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,693   Posts: 1,482,431   Online: 844
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31
    Tom Nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    218
    Blog Entries
    2
    I think the "rules" of photography, or even of good and "bad" compositions in Art generally never were intended as exactly "Rules," but more like guidelines. Some things just happen to work better most of the time, and become pseudo rules over time. So we get back to cliché--If you follow rules for the sake of following them, then you are falling into cliché...I just consciously realized this I think. Same thing with Depth of field or any technique.

    Emerson said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Nobody wants to be small-minded

    Just because you do something, doesn't mean it has to be the final product...going against the grain on purpose or emulating the work of others may often look stupid, and end up getting dumb results....but this process is the means to an end, the end which is hopefully a breakthrough in one's art.

    I recently shot a portrait of a young lady where her face was in shadow...maybe a no-no, but it was beautiful never the less.

    WOOHoo..
    Last edited by Tom Nutter; 09-10-2009 at 08:56 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: more

  2. #32
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    Avoiding cliché has become its own cliché, worse really than any of the things it set out to avoid.

    The way I see it, who cares if some people think your technique is cliché or not? Portraiture is ultimately about making a person look good, or at least interesting. You do what it takes to make that happen in each case. Whether your techniques have been used countless times before or in some way are new is, in my view, totally unimportant to the actual photograph.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i think you misread AND misquoted me
    You'll find i did neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i didn't say *never* stop down, i said *I* never stop down ..
    Yes. That was well understood.
    *You* never stop down...

    The question still is why, when you say that you agree completely that "The composition should dictate what equipment and technique will be used. Not vice versa."
    You apparently already know what technique you will use ("never stop down"), before even knowing what the subject or composition will be.

    So how can you agree and use a rule like that?

  4. #34
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Leighgion View Post
    Whether your techniques have been used countless times before or in some way are new is, in my view, totally unimportant to the actual photograph.
    I don't think that's the point that I (and others) were trying to make. I am not advocating the use of different techniques just for their own sake.

    Incidentally, there was a thread around a year ago with a subject something like 'what is originality worth' in which similar issues were raised. I don't think anybody there (or here) was saying be different just to be different.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,260
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    qc

    i am agreeing completely that in theory it is a good rule.
    does that mean i have to follow rules all the time ?


    if you read what i actually wrote, instead of focusing on the first sentence ...

    i never stop down except if i have to
    the best thing to do is play with whatever you have
    and see how shallow focus, front focus, back focus
    putting things infront of your lens ( obstruct it),
    shooting through dirty filters or windows, or pantyhose
    or "whatever" works in various situations.
    was it that hard to understand what i wrote that you have to ask me over and over again ?

    i am advocating learning to master one's equipment and whatever else
    one can use to soften a portrait or still life or landscape or ....

    as i also said or suggested, different things need to be done in different situations
    Last edited by jnanian; 09-11-2009 at 10:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    232
    Images
    7
    I once accepted a portrait commission to photograph the elderly Patriarch of a very prominent Italian family. Only after arriving in Rome and being driven to a large and very old and grand country home, was I told that the Patriarch was in the chapel IN HIS CASKET! The family wanted a portrait of the old man in his casket with flowers and candles all around. It was very dark with only two floor lamps placed on either side of the casket. The exposure was 20sec at f16 on Tri X rated at 1200asa. After ten exposures, I heard soft murmering behind me and turned to see the old mans widow, kneeling, deep in prayer. Then I had an inspiration and left the chapel, leaving my equipment set up and found the old man's son and asked if I could use the large mirror behind the table in the foyer. He removed it from the wall and carried it into the chapel where I had him set it up at the head of the casket. In the ground glass was now the reflection of the old man and ten feet away, the widow, rosary in hand, dressed in black, with only her face softely lit by the candles and the lamps but out of focus. I refocused to expand DOF and stopped down to f32 and exposed for 45 sec and rated the five exposures @ 3200asa. The negs were perfect after Diafine split 4min in A and 6min in B 1:1> I printed 1 20X24 and 50 8x10 on Galerie 3 in Anco 130. All but one of the reflection negs had too much subject (the widow) movement but one was perfect with just enough softness of focus in the widow to emphasize seperation and lonliness. After 15 years, I still get print orders from the family and one of the prints is in the family archive held by the Vatican. I guess the point of the story is that soft focus need not be intentional to be effective... serendipity. Another point, make sure that the sitter is alive when you accept the commission. I was pretty spooked for months after but the very large commission helped me get over it.
    Denise Libby

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,121
    Images
    2
    Shallow depth of field and soft focus could be two distinctly different features. You could have shallow depth of field with a subject in sharp focus and the background or foreground out of focus and control the effect by f/stop and /or focal length of the lens. You could also focus sharply and diffuse either while exposing or printing. I have occasionally focused sharply and diffused while printing by holding two pieces of glass that had baby oil between them and squished around until the desired amount of diffusion was reached. It is effective and controllable and you still have a sharp negative especially if it is a subject that you can't retake. Just hold it under the enlarger lens after you have focused the negative and remember how it was turned, place the paper to be printed in the easel, reposition the "filter" and hit the print button on your enlarger timer. It is easier if you have a foot controller.

  8. #38
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyg View Post
    Shallow depth of field and soft focus could be two distinctly different features. You could have shallow depth of field with a subject in sharp focus and the background or foreground out of focus and control the effect by f/stop and /or focal length of the lens. You could also focus sharply and diffuse either while exposing or printing. I have occasionally focused sharply and diffused while printing by holding two pieces of glass that had baby oil between them and squished around until the desired amount of diffusion was reached. It is effective and controllable and you still have a sharp negative especially if it is a subject that you can't retake. Just hold it under the enlarger lens after you have focused the negative and remember how it was turned, place the paper to be printed in the easel, reposition the "filter" and hit the print button on your enlarger timer. It is easier if you have a foot controller.
    Almost all of my photos are diffused at the printing stage. Of course the effect of diffusion at printing as opposed to taking is different. Make sure it fits the subject.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,260
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    the thick crinkly cellophane that wraps around a box of tea
    works great as a diffuser at the printing stage.
    a pass or two as the image is being exposed works wonders!

  10. #40
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,368
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    154
    I think worrying about what is and isn't cliche is a waste of time. If it feels good....do it.

    If I have a wiry old cowboy in front of the lens, my first thought would be how beautiful the facial display of time will look with a sharp lens. If I have a lovely young lady in the glass I usually think about soft dreamy focus, shallow depth. I could care less if any of those are cliche.

    I will say though, that the natural depth of field in shorter and shorter lenses as image sensor area got smaller for the last 80 years has taken a toll. 11mm lenses on 12 MP cameras make me want to puke. I'm also sick to death of the 1980's too sharp Hasselblad look that is just plain worn out.

    So I started my rant by saying cliche's are dumb and ended it pointing out a cliche I personally am very tired of.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin