Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,198   Posts: 1,531,445   Online: 777
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 73
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    4
    rfshootist,
    What's up with the nasty tone? Please hop down from that horse of yours.

    Andy K,
    thanks for the links!

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by livemoa
    Ummm, define attractive and unattractive....
    By mathemathic formulae, established by Leonadro da Vinci, and proved lately, beauty (or attractivness if you prefer that term) is ratio 1:1.618.

    Right of this formuale was proven in way that there was made "mask" or "template" based of 1:1.618 ratio on transparent paper. Then were taken photographs of people who are commonly considered as beautifull, like Tom Cruise, Naomi Campbell, Cate Moss, Elisabeth Hurley, some unknown models... Photographs were of theire heads, en face, so that eyes, nose, mouth, jaws... was clearly visible, and taken same space on photo paper (all heads were same sized on I think 15x20 cm or A4 photo paper).

    All heads perfectly mached 1:1.618 ratio based mask. Only Kate Moss as I remember had some tolerance, but insignificant.

    Then it is proven on different live models, that mean actuall people were measured, not theire photographs.

    That mask was made by plactic/corrective surgeon. His mother was deformed in one accident when he was 4 or 5 year old child. So, his whole life was dedicated to explain what beauty is. He made that mask. In his researching he found:

    1. 1:1.618 ratio fits males and females, no difference.

    2. This ratio is not valid only on human head parts, but also all body parts (arms, legs, fingers, etc...)

    2. What is considered as beautifull, and 1:1.618 ratio is valid and is independent of cultural, economical, geographic, weather condition in which people live, or any other differnece between people, including race, religion, etc...

    Conclusion is: attractive is 1:1.618 ratio between different human body parts.

  3. #53
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    .....edit....
    Do you regard Gustave Courbet as a "classical" artist? ....edit.....
    No, he was bitterly opposed to Classical Art. He was a Realist... at least that what HE called himself. He was sort of a pop star of the mid 19th century, a bad boy increasingly devoted to shock value. About as far from "classical" as one could get at the time.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  4. #54
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    No, he was bitterly opposed to Classical Art. He was a Realist... at least that what HE called himself. He was sort of a pop star of the mid 19th century, a bad boy increasingly devoted to shock value. About as far from "classical" as one could get at the time.
    OK... What about Rembrandt? Need I mention Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema? - and the circumstances of his Knighthood?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,065
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    Do you regard Gustave Courbet as a "classical" artist? - I certainly do. The work I cited most closely resembles some of the work in question at Pnet.

    I can give more intense examples of "work that would be banned here - and most probably on Pnet as well" ... one in particular comes to mind ... by Rembrandt van Rijn ... done in 1631. "Rembrandt + 1631". Sounds "classic" to me.

    Hi Ed,

    No Courbet and Rembrandt are not "classical" artists. "Classical" refers to ancent Greece and Rome. "Neo-classical" refers to art done at a later time but in the same general style.

  6. #56
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,863
    Images
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by George Papantoniou
    Well, after careful examination of the pictures I can say the following:

    The lady who shows her genitalia while holding a Schiele book is not so bad (I mean the picture, not herself, for I don't know her). It could've been better executed (if the photographer's intention was to create a homage to Schiele's nudes), for instance the dress she wears could be better suited to the Schiele's painting's philosophy. And her look could be closer to the one the ladies in Schiele's paintings have, although this could be really difficult to achieve.

    ...
    Hmmm. I thought Running's image a very obvious and intentional homage to Schiele at a quick glance. And, I thought it rather well done especially in regard to matching the model, pose, and clothing in the image. (What would you have him do to approximate Schiele better? Use a scratchy-line filter in Photoshop? :o Get an inkjet print wet and smear it? :o It's a photograph and shouldn't look like another medium IMO.) I think the image fine as it is. He's obviously paying tribute to Schiele without outright copying a Schiele image (AFAIK). Why would anyone want to take an image that mimicked a famous painting or drawing closely? How many photos of "Girl with a Pearl Earring" can one stomach? (Actually I must confess to copying a Philip Pearlstein pose once in a photographic image. Once I printed it I grew to hate it and what I'd done, though it taught me a very good lesson. Ahh. "Confession is good for the soul.")

    I do however agree with your assessment of the second photographer. That work appears to be done by someone very unsure about their vision and what they are trying to convey. But, I think we all go through that and so perhaps we are looking at an experiment or experience gone bad, very bad.

    Joe

  7. #57
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by smieglitz
    I do however agree with your assessment of the second photographer. That work appears to be done by someone very unsure about their vision and what they are trying to convey.

    Joe
    This begs the question, if someone was "sure of their vision" why would they be bothering to post pictures on sites like photonet.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    157
    Images
    53
    So, if some one has such images, where he/she should post them? Here, there, or nowhere? I am confused!

    Vahid

  9. #59
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Vahid Naziri
    So, if some one has such images, where he/she should post them? Here, there, or nowhere? I am confused!

    Vahid
    Not to take this off in a completely direction, but I guess it comes down to what you want out of photography.

    If you have a style/vision/calling and produce very nice work, I guess you'd have to decide what to do with it. Most people, I guess would be interested in selling them. If that were the case why post them on photonet? Why not set up a marketing plan and find a way to sell them.

    If a person just took them for fun/hobby then what is the benefit to post them on photonet? To show off, an ego trip, for critique what?

    There are a lot of people that post on photonet and continually post their pictures. What are they getting out of it.

    You tell me.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    157
    Images
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    Not to take this off in a completely direction, but I guess it comes down to what you want out of photography.

    If you have a style/vision/calling and produce very nice work, I guess you'd have to decide what to do with it. Most people, I guess would be interested in selling them. If that were the case why post them on photonet? Why not set up a marketing plan and find a way to sell them.

    If a person just took them for fun/hobby then what is the benefit to post them on photonet? To show off, an ego trip, for critique what?

    There are a lot of people that post on photonet and continually post their pictures. What are they getting out of it.

    You tell me.


    Michael

    Thanks Michael.
    Well, I guess, your reply says "NO" to the "POST IT THERE?" question. What about; here or nowhere? I once posted an image here, which I was almost crucified for! So, I suppose that was a “NO” to the "POST IT HERE?" question! That leaves us with the "POST IT NOWHERE"! Which might not be a bad idea! This way we all will live happily ever after!


    Vahid

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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