But, it is also short shrift! I want to hear what is wrong. Just saying bad photos and they look like drek won't cut it.
If this is acceptable for a main stream mag...where do we get off...and on?? I'd really like to hear some true criticism or critiques, from an artistic view...where did the artist and Photo director go wrong?
No, not at all....in fact I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone particular. I was just saying that SAYING,"They suck"...or whatnot was short shrift: give a meaningful critique. Or don't!
No, not at all....in fact I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone particular. I was just saying that SAYING,"They suck"...or whatnot was short shrift: give a meaningful critique. Or don't!
"they suck" is a perfectly valid critique. Not everything needs to come in a neatly wrapped package.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Okay, as formal, intimate portraits they fail. They are awkward, raw, unemotional (not all, though), but...that's why I like them. I actually liked a rather lot of them, but then I like things slightly strange and weird. I like that they looked like informal candids caught at the most unflattering moments--that's what people are, not what they strive to be in front of others, or in front of a camera.
I think the hate response is mainly because we don't want to see the people of the next regime in that kind of light. We want to see them strong, capable, confident, ready to lead a friggin' nation. These photos are definitely not that. These photos show people in all their awkward glory. I expected to see someone about to sneeze or something the way the shots were framed, and I would have enjoyed that immensely.
For that kind of showcase--laying bare that people are people, no matter their position of power--the harsh, raw lighting works. It hides nothing. If you naturally stand like you're constipated, well, it's not as if everyone working with you didn't already know it. It's just now that some harsh lighting is going to let the rest of America know it, too.
The one thing I absolutely do find distracting and downright shabby about the photography is those huge shadows behind them. You were in hotel ballrooms, for pete's sake--you couldn't have the subject take a couple steps away from the background?
The one thing I absolutely do find distracting and downright shabby about the photography is those huge shadows behind them. You were in hotel ballrooms, for pete's sake--you couldn't have the subject take a couple steps away from the background?
I'm sure that for me, these were just bad photographs. If the intent is to get raw, the photographer could still have accomplished that goal with more skill--these are the mark of an amateur.
If I contrast them with the pictures of the inauguration you took, I would choose yours because they are good, raw and representative of your subject matter. In fact, I am convinced that given the same people and assignment, your result would have captured the raw nature and made compelling photographs that people would enjoy looking at.
To me it was as if the photographer wanted to be someplace else. Like shooting a Caps game or something.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
When I saw these earlier, I honestly thought they were Photoshopped from images taken elsewhere. The shadows make them look like they were cut from some other photo, and composted on a white background, with a fake shadow to hide the original bits of background. I am honestly shocked to find these are original.
Perhaps there was some art to this, but it was completely lost on me, and I suspect many others. Too bad really.
Personally, I think they're great! So stark and real, in some of them I feel like I really know who the person is. It's like the anti-glamor shot. Very cool. I don't think this is a good style for all types of portraits, but I think it worked very well here.
Well, first time through I did not hate them all. I found the dialogue added to the interpretation of them.
After reading this thread, I had a look at this guys other work, on his web site.
He has a style - it is stark and almost flat, both in his portraiture and his still lifes/landscapes. There are portraits in his portfolio that are not flattering but are quite interesting and certainly provoke some thought about who the person is. One of the differences is that his portfolio shows headshots rather than full body shots like the article.
So, these have lots of "technical flaws", except ... are they if the photographer wanted them there? They are not flattering at all. But they are definitely in the style of this photographer, and in the spirit of what he was trying to achieve, per the dialogue.
Well...this is photography. The picture tells the story...or should. If you have to listen to verbage to "get" what a photo is about then certainly the photos loose merit. In this case all the more.
Btw, this seems like the photographer was trying to show her in her daily elements...except that it doesn't look like crap like those Obama people pictures!!!!
Even if you just look at one frame of that time-lapse, it is shot perfectly. no harsh shadows, the light is very good and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WildViper
From Nikon D70s > Nikon D300s & D700
Nikon 50/1.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8 1st gen, Nikkor 12-24/4, Nikkor 70-200/2.8 ED VR, SB600, SB900, SB-26 and Gitzo 2 Series Carbon Fiber with Kirk Ballhead
Hate to bring this back from the dead but i seriously could not believe some of the comments made here. Esp. from the likes of 'all hail Andy' and this ian guy...
I'm sure that for me, these were just bad photographs. If the intent is to get raw, the photographer could still have accomplished that goal with more skill--these are the mark of an amateur.
Are you kidding me? Apparently none of you know who Nadav is. Forget that he is one of the top advertising photographers out there and that the range of his work is beyond 99.9% of the photographers ever to come out. But he is a photographer's photographer in every sense... always searching for the new, questioning the existence and pushing the limits.
Did you have to like these shots? Of course not. But making remarks like:
Forget the photographer, doesn't NY Times' Editors have taste??? They could have chosen to ditch the whole effort. By putting this online and printing?, they show no class.
No one from their organization could have the "balls" and say, hey, this sucks! no one?
...if this was my finished product, I would be forced to admit failure, and return the clients money.
OK, let me correct this, if one of you were my client I would return all the money, as for the politicians, well I think I would tell them it's hight art, and double my fees, they deserve nothing less.
The best laid plans of mice, and men mean nothing if the result is utter dismal failure.
After pouring over gallery after gallery.... He even manages to make children look unemotional.
These arent just negative reviews - they're ignorant and hateful. And why? Cos he didnt fulfill YOUR standard of what these shots should have looked like? Cos he didnt shown these people in a heroic stand like you expected? Yes, they are a bit awkward, unconventional and even unflattering...
....but they are also real and most importantly lets one linger and question about who these people really are. Becos after all the confidence and big talk these politicians do, they are just humans with very real feelings who go home and probably question themselves and their actions. (unless they're w. bush )
It is obvious that the man has challenged your perceptions and you guys cant handle it. Its funny considering where everyone here's photography level is. But seriously, is all everyone cares about is how technically correct they are or if they make the subject look GOOD? :crazy
Not only is that boring but its not genuine to who that person is. Its better we get a weird photo of someone -vs- one that tries to portray them in a "i'm a happy, confident, perfect person".
Thats the end of my rant (phew) but do yourself a favor and dont judge a musician's work by just one song. Check out this man's site and see where he's coming from and what questions his images force you to ask. You dont have to like it but at least respect his point of view.
Thats the end of my rant (phew) but do yourself a favor and dont judge a musician's work by just one song.
Welcome to Dgrin
Isn't your first post doing the very thing you are objecting to?
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Reading is hard I didn't judge the photographer's body of work, only these shots in the NYTimes Magazine, and in fact, there was one I liked very much.
I'm glad this thread provoked you to join and post - that's the intention, to get discussion going about the photographer and his work. It's what we do 'round here. welcome!
Hate to bring this back from the dead but i seriously could not believe some of the comments made here. Esp. from the likes of 'all hail Andy' and this ian guy...
Why should who the artist is have any bearing on whether or not you like the art? That's like saying the CEO of a company is brilliant because they are the CEO regardless of the fact the company is in the tank.
When someone presents a picture or pictures and that's what I judge and if Annie Leibovitz had done the same thing, I would have the same comments.
I'm sorry you are offended by my comment but I called it like I saw it.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I did find this shoot fascinating for the creepy caricatures captured. Its obvious the results are what the editors wanted since it was tethered and they were behind the curtain. This style is certainly in vogue. It's actually fairly difficult to do well and I appreciate that it is not the standard portraiture.
All that said, it didn't work for me. Platon could have done it much better.
Isn't your first post doing the very thing you are objecting to?
i visit this forum every blue moon so not a complete stranger
Thanks for the welcome (it def. shows the class) and I do have to apologize for some personal attacks for my 1st post...
...sometimes late night spills arent healthy :whew
...sometimes late night spills arent healthy :whew
I guess that's why you opted for that user name.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm really no one to be making opinions, but these photographs are horrible. I started photography with the idea of title and picture.
If you need an entire back story to your photograph, you didn't do it correctly.
A perfect exmaple. For instance, one of my favorite Mega Entries, from our kyoshi Kerry Ellis, was titled Nyx. I have no freaking idea what a Nyx is. But in this photograph, we had an incredibly beautiful model, coming forward from this darkness. She looks scarry, yet approachable, which makes her more scarry. So from the picture and title, I derived that Nyx is some kind of creature that eats men. Lol. I may be way off, but that's what I got from the photograph.
In these photographs, I didn't get the sense of raw casual portraits. They look poorly executed IMHO. He could have done the same with a cellphone camera. Those shadows look like they were put there in post, and if they weren't, even worse. Back story and all, I can't seem to find the connection with these photographs.
And I don't see the 'art' behind it either. Guess that's why I'm still an ametuer...
Comments
I swear to God, this is funny!
But, it is also short shrift! I want to hear what is wrong. Just saying bad photos and they look like drek won't cut it.
If this is acceptable for a main stream mag...where do we get off...and on?? I'd really like to hear some true criticism or critiques, from an artistic view...where did the artist and Photo director go wrong?
tom
Because I don't agree with you it's a shrift? Art is subjective. I think they look like crap. You obviously don't. That's your opinion.
And your explanation of what's wrong is plenty good for me. But I'll add the following; horribly lit, un-flattering & meaningless.
No, not at all....in fact I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone particular. I was just saying that SAYING,"They suck"...or whatnot was short shrift: give a meaningful critique. Or don't!
thanks, tom
I'm posting this quote on my office wall!
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
LMFAO - That is such a good bumper sticker... maybe even a t-shirt...
www.kabestudios.com
I use a little bit of everything gear wise...
Nikon/Canon/Sony/GoPro/Insta360º/Mavic 2 Pro
I think the hate response is mainly because we don't want to see the people of the next regime in that kind of light. We want to see them strong, capable, confident, ready to lead a friggin' nation. These photos are definitely not that. These photos show people in all their awkward glory. I expected to see someone about to sneeze or something the way the shots were framed, and I would have enjoyed that immensely.
For that kind of showcase--laying bare that people are people, no matter their position of power--the harsh, raw lighting works. It hides nothing. If you naturally stand like you're constipated, well, it's not as if everyone working with you didn't already know it. It's just now that some harsh lighting is going to let the rest of America know it, too.
The one thing I absolutely do find distracting and downright shabby about the photography is those huge shadows behind them. You were in hotel ballrooms, for pete's sake--you couldn't have the subject take a couple steps away from the background?
I'm sure that for me, these were just bad photographs. If the intent is to get raw, the photographer could still have accomplished that goal with more skill--these are the mark of an amateur.
If I contrast them with the pictures of the inauguration you took, I would choose yours because they are good, raw and representative of your subject matter. In fact, I am convinced that given the same people and assignment, your result would have captured the raw nature and made compelling photographs that people would enjoy looking at.
To me it was as if the photographer wanted to be someplace else. Like shooting a Caps game or something.
Perhaps there was some art to this, but it was completely lost on me, and I suspect many others. Too bad really.
For another look at the series. See: this
Thanks for the link, Andy!
After reading this thread, I had a look at this guys other work, on his web site.
He has a style - it is stark and almost flat, both in his portraiture and his still lifes/landscapes. There are portraits in his portfolio that are not flattering but are quite interesting and certainly provoke some thought about who the person is. One of the differences is that his portfolio shows headshots rather than full body shots like the article.
So, these have lots of "technical flaws", except ... are they if the photographer wanted them there? They are not flattering at all. But they are definitely in the style of this photographer, and in the spirit of what he was trying to achieve, per the dialogue.
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
Now that youtube video of timelapse is very cool.
Btw, this seems like the photographer was trying to show her in her daily elements...except that it doesn't look like crap like those Obama people pictures!!!!
Even if you just look at one frame of that time-lapse, it is shot perfectly. no harsh shadows, the light is very good and so on.
WildViper
From Nikon D70s > Nikon D300s & D700
Nikon 50/1.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8 1st gen, Nikkor 12-24/4, Nikkor 70-200/2.8 ED VR, SB600, SB900, SB-26 and Gitzo 2 Series Carbon Fiber with Kirk Ballhead
Perfect......
www.edhughesphoto.com
Are you kidding me? Apparently none of you know who Nadav is. Forget that he is one of the top advertising photographers out there and that the range of his work is beyond 99.9% of the photographers ever to come out. But he is a photographer's photographer in every sense... always searching for the new, questioning the existence and pushing the limits.
Did you have to like these shots? Of course not. But making remarks like:
These arent just negative reviews - they're ignorant and hateful. And why? Cos he didnt fulfill YOUR standard of what these shots should have looked like? Cos he didnt shown these people in a heroic stand like you expected? Yes, they are a bit awkward, unconventional and even unflattering...
....but they are also real and most importantly lets one linger and question about who these people really are. Becos after all the confidence and big talk these politicians do, they are just humans with very real feelings who go home and probably question themselves and their actions. (unless they're w. bush
It is obvious that the man has challenged your perceptions and you guys cant handle it. Its funny considering where everyone here's photography level is. But seriously, is all everyone cares about is how technically correct they are or if they make the subject look GOOD? :crazy
Not only is that boring but its not genuine to who that person is. Its better we get a weird photo of someone -vs- one that tries to portray them in a "i'm a happy, confident, perfect person".
Thats the end of my rant (phew) but do yourself a favor and dont judge a musician's work by just one song. Check out this man's site and see where he's coming from and what questions his images force you to ask. You dont have to like it but at least respect his point of view.
Welcome to Dgrin
Isn't your first post doing the very thing you are objecting to?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Reading is hard
I'm glad this thread provoked you to join and post - that's the intention, to get discussion going about the photographer and his work. It's what we do 'round here.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
... and that was all you had to say.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Why should who the artist is have any bearing on whether or not you like the art? That's like saying the CEO of a company is brilliant because they are the CEO regardless of the fact the company is in the tank.
When someone presents a picture or pictures and that's what I judge and if Annie Leibovitz had done the same thing, I would have the same comments.
I'm sorry you are offended by my comment but I called it like I saw it.
All that said, it didn't work for me. Platon could have done it much better.
i visit this forum every blue moon so not a complete stranger
Thanks for the welcome (it def. shows the class) and I do have to apologize for some personal attacks for my 1st post...
...sometimes late night spills arent healthy :whew
good to have joined you guys
I guess that's why you opted for that user name.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
If you need an entire back story to your photograph, you didn't do it correctly.
A perfect exmaple. For instance, one of my favorite Mega Entries, from our kyoshi Kerry Ellis, was titled Nyx. I have no freaking idea what a Nyx is. But in this photograph, we had an incredibly beautiful model, coming forward from this darkness. She looks scarry, yet approachable, which makes her more scarry. So from the picture and title, I derived that Nyx is some kind of creature that eats men. Lol. I may be way off, but that's what I got from the photograph.
In these photographs, I didn't get the sense of raw casual portraits. They look poorly executed IMHO. He could have done the same with a cellphone camera. Those shadows look like they were put there in post, and if they weren't, even worse. Back story and all, I can't seem to find the connection with these photographs.
And I don't see the 'art' behind it either. Guess that's why I'm still an ametuer...
Nikon Shooter
It's all about the moment...
Nikon Shooter
It's all about the moment...