Bruce Wood

AlexSharkAlexShark Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
edited October 17, 2014 in Other Cool Shots
Since choreographer Bruce Wood died a few months ago at the age of 53, I decided to completely rework my previous collection "Uncertainty Principle," and add to it whatever I deem is worthy of the spirit of the man.

This work is taxing and enormous. I have 16,820 frames about his work: studio rehearsals, premiers, tours, the creative process, and whatnot. I practically slept in his studio for 6 months, and my passion for dance photography began right there.

Here are the first 40 in the series, of which not more than 10 will survive the critique. And I will greatly appreciate that critique, and will make use of it on these and the following photos.

Here's the initial set: Bruce Wood: Uncertainty Principle

Here's one you can look at without going anywhere:

060206_BWDC_361-XL.jpg

bacchanalia

Thanks in advance!
Photography is about what does not meet the eye
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography

Comments

  • StumblebumStumblebum Registered Users Posts: 8,480 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    My opinion is not coming from expertise, just pure observations from a layman....
    What I love it the dancing blur! thumb.gif
    I have dreamed of getting those.....haven't had a chance yet.

    For this particular shot, once I am done enjoying the dancing blur, I don't enjoy other aspects, starting with the dust specs, few of them....
    Also some even add graininess and that may be something to do with taste.....here I don't know intentional or not, nose and graininess......not my thing....
    I am personally big on clean edges....the dark bar on the right not my thing...but I understand the speed at which this is happening, comp can only planned little bit, but I think about those things while shooting...
    The blur on left edge...makes it appear accidental or not great comp....and nothing tying it to dancers on right.....too much negative space on the top too....

    I saw rest of your shots.....those don't have some of the issues I mentioned above.
    I like some of the ones without blur as well......certainty has values as well!
    The ones with movement....wouldn't it be nice to be able to make out whole of the dancer and retain her beauty and along with the blurry movement.....I think you may have gotten those too.....that is what I would aim for.......

    Respect your work + BWs. Process them well!
    Cheers!
  • PantherPanther Registered Users Posts: 3,658 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    Howdy Alex,

    I have to say while reading the preface to your image, I was
    taken back by the depth of your devotion to Mr. Woods and to Dance.

    This is something that I must confess that I'm not familiar with, the Image
    that you've presented us with is pure art in my eyes. Love the Tones and
    the Movement. I did check out your other images and while again, I am not
    a person that knows dance I really can't comment on those, they don't hold the
    haunting beauty of the first image.

    For Mr. Woods to have inspired you to produce an image like this, I can only
    say, I think he'd be extremely Proud of what you captured and the influence his
    Art Form had on you.

    Kindest Regards,

    Craig
    Take care,

    Craig

    Burleson, Texas
  • AlexSharkAlexShark Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    Stumblebum wrote: »
    My opinion is not coming from expertise, just pure observations from a layman....
    What I love it the dancing blur! thumb.gif
    I have dreamed of getting those.....haven't had a chance yet.

    For this particular shot, once I am done enjoying the dancing blur, I don't enjoy other aspects, starting with the dust specs, few of them....
    Also some even add graininess and that may be something to do with taste.....here I don't know intentional or not, nose and graininess......not my thing....
    I am personally big on clean edges....the dark bar on the right not my thing...but I understand the speed at which this is happening, comp can only planned little bit, but I think about those things while shooting...
    The blur on left edge...makes it appear accidental or not great comp....and nothing tying it to dancers on right.....too much negative space on the top too....

    I saw rest of your shots.....those don't have some of the issues I mentioned above.
    I like some of the ones without blur as well......certainty has values as well!
    The ones with movement....wouldn't it be nice to be able to make out whole of the dancer and retain her beauty and along with the blurry movement.....I think you may have gotten those too.....that is what I would aim for.......

    Respect your work + BWs. Process them well!
    Cheers!

    I much appreciate your feedback!

    Thanks for seeing the sensor dirt -- my bad, it's fixed now. I'll go through the rest of that day's shoot and clean it up.

    The grain is not necessarily intentional. This was shot with 20D at ISO 800 (sometimes even 1600). Much as I smoothed it out in Lightroom, it keeps reappearing in Photoshop, where some High Pass had to be applied, or the whole deal is an amorphous blob. High Pass gives the sort of sharpness and presence I was looking for, almost an X-Ray quality. It's a compromise deal, and I'll just have to live with it. I might look for a different compromise, though. Losing a stop or two in exposure usually fixes most of it.

    Now, the composition and the crop choice... Here I'll stick by my guns. This is a carefully selected crop. Why this? Well, look at the pillar of light. (By the way, the dance is Chichester Psalms, based on the symphonic work by Leonard Bernstein.) This light is now balanced by the dark piece of curtain on the right. Imagine you crop it off, just hide it with your palm, and you'll notice that the photo becomes unbalanced, as if something was missing. At least this is what my eye tells me. For the same reason there is the dark stripe off the stage at the bottom. I think compositions of this nature need to be anchored down, or they tend to become nothing but abstracts. Here, the stage edge is the only piece of firm reality, isn't it?

    Thanks again for the feedback!
    Photography is about what does not meet the eye
    Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
  • AlexSharkAlexShark Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    Panther wrote: »
    Howdy Alex,

    I have to say while reading the preface to your image, I was
    taken back by the depth of your devotion to Mr. Woods and to Dance.

    This is something that I must confess that I'm not familiar with, the Image
    that you've presented us with is pure art in my eyes. Love the Tones and
    the Movement. I did check out your other images and while again, I am not
    a person that knows dance I really can't comment on those, they don't hold the
    haunting beauty of the first image.

    For Mr. Woods to have inspired you to produce an image like this, I can only
    say, I think he'd be extremely Proud of what you captured and the influence his
    Art Form had on you.

    Kindest Regards,

    Craig

    Thanks, Craig! That's very kind of you.

    Next time I'm in Fort Worth maybe we'll go kick Texas dirt around with our cameras. I know another Craig photographer from the neighborhood. If you are visiting FWCC from time to time, send them my regards!

    Best,
    Alex
    Photography is about what does not meet the eye
    Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    I also know almost zero about this subject matter - although I do use slow ss / blur occasionally within my area of photographic interest.
    The frame shown here would be one of my choices from the 40 - but I'd also wonder about some of the issues previously mentioned, although grain / noise / dust / neg space don't partic. bother me ...

    For my tastes, cropping the LHS thro the light (maybe halfway?) and trying to add neg space to the RHS (and 'correcting, if possible?) the black transition line there would make this even better.

    My pick, btw would be 2, 6, 20, 22, 23, 36 (+ poss 14, 34)

    pp

    edit
    crossed posts.
  • AlexSharkAlexShark Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    I also know almost zero about this subject matter - although I do use slow ss / blur occasionally within my area of photographic interest.
    The frame shown here would be one of my choices from the 40 - but I'd also wonder about some of the issues previously mentioned, although grain / noise / dust / neg space don't partic. bother me ...

    For my tastes, cropping the LHS thro the light (maybe halfway?) and trying to add neg space to the RHS (and 'correcting, if possible?) the black transition line there would make this even better.

    My pick, btw would be 2, 6, 20, 22, 23, 36 (+ poss 14, 34)

    pp

    edit
    crossed posts.

    Cropping into the light... Interesting thought. For me it was kinda sacred. I'll try, thanks!
    Photography is about what does not meet the eye
    Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
  • lifeinfocuslifeinfocus Registered Users Posts: 1,461 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    This will take some time. After two passes, here is my first impression.
    2, 12, 15, 19, 20. 24, 25, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45.

    I will go through them again and try to select my top ten.

    I am just about finishing a presentation for my camera club on composition - rather basic. So, going through these will certainly help me. BTW, the most repeated statement in my presentation is "Break the rules".

    Thanks for posting these.

    Phil
    http://www.PhilsImaging.com
    "You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
    Phil
  • AlexSharkAlexShark Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    This will take some time. After two passes, here is my first impression.
    2, 12, 15, 19, 20. 24, 25, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45.

    I will go through them again and try to select my top ten.

    I am just about finishing a presentation for my camera club on composition - rather basic. So, going through these will certainly help me. BTW, the most repeated statement in my presentation is "Break the rules".

    Thanks for posting these.

    Phil

    Thanks, Phil.

    There really aren't any rules, so there's nothing to break. There are some photos that are "just right!" and then there's reverse engineering to figure what is so right about them. And people come up with all sorts of "paint by numbers" schemes.

    There's a goal, and the only way I can judge success of a photo is by looking at how close or how far the photo is from that goal. Which is subjective as hell, as it should be.

    I was running a couple of PPA SuperMondays. The name of the course was "Breaking the Bounds" or "Zen and the Art of Photography" or "Photo-impressionism" and such. I only had one suggestion during these: remember that you are not taking pictures of objects -- you are taking pictures of your attitude towards them. And then we hit the street.

    Good luck with the camera club!
    Photography is about what does not meet the eye
    Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
  • lifeinfocuslifeinfocus Registered Users Posts: 1,461 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    AlexShark wrote: »
    Thanks, Phil.

    There really aren't any rules, so there's nothing to break. There are some photos that are "just right!" and then there's reverse engineering to figure what is so right about them. And people come up with all sorts of "paint by numbers" schemes.

    There's a goal, and the only way I can judge success of a photo is by looking at how close or how far the photo is from that goal. Which is subjective as hell, as it should be.

    I was running a couple of PPA SuperMondays. The name of the course was "Breaking the Bounds" or "Zen and the Art of Photography" or "Photo-impressionism" and such. I only had one suggestion during these: remember that you are not taking pictures of objects -- you are taking pictures of your attitude towards them. And then we hit the street.

    Good luck with the camera club!

    Oh, I like that statement - "remember that you are not taking pictures of objects -- you are taking pictures of your attitude towards them.".

    To me that fits with "Tell a story" guideline, which to me means -- "What are the emotions you are trying to capture?"

    I would like to quote your suggestion.

    Let me clarify though, when you say taking pictures of objects do you include "people" too?
    http://www.PhilsImaging.com
    "You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
    Phil
  • AlexSharkAlexShark Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
    edited October 17, 2014
    Let me clarify though, when you say taking pictures of objects do you include "people" too?

    Yeah. Look at the majority of portraits here. Different faces, but the same picture. Why? Same with landscapes, cityscapes, architecture -- the lot. Same, same, same... Why?

    Because they are pictures of "stuff out there." The photographer is missing.

    What if you thought that every photo you take is actually a self-portrait, even if it is a photo of a zebra in a zoo? Would you take the same shot?
    Photography is about what does not meet the eye
    Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Sign In or Register to comment.