|
Sergei Rodionov wrote: Jojo West wrote: His style was called sometimes "porno chic" Feb 01 13 02:30 pm Link i have to say Newton's POV is more interesting... and more voyeuristic. Feb 01 13 02:39 pm Link Newton's is interesting and arresting, for many reasons. The main one for me is that his model OWNS the fucking shot. Yours is just standing there. Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Feb 01 13 02:41 pm Link MKPhoto wrote: I'm not jumping on you. Hell, I started a whole series based on a single image I saw of Michael Ezra's. But you started this thread frustrated because your image didn't look enough like Newton's. I'm just saying that it's ok that it doesn't. Feb 01 13 02:47 pm Link Good Egg Productions wrote:
Feb 01 13 02:54 pm Link I think this is also a great lesson to the photographers who get so absolutely pissed that they contacted a model with a concept and then she "stole" that concept and shot it with another photographer. How could they possibly shoot it exactly as you would? Here, the OP is an accomplished photographer trying to produce an exact replica from an existing photo, and we see how difficult, if not impossible, it is. Even the most minute elements create a huge difference in the final product...and make it a new and different image. Feb 01 13 03:45 pm Link Well... Yes I'm afraid it doesn't work. For all the reasons stated above and probably many others (I particularly relate to those pertaining to the model). But all in all, your photo is just... that, a photo (please sir, don't take it bad). Newton's reaches beyond, to become a "picture". This is extremely well composed scenery. You can enter in there, using your own imagination to come up with some wild stories or whatever. It opens up a tiny world and lures you in. Now, this is interesting you bring this up because if you, and any of us, knew exactly which chemistry is at work there, I guess we'd be even better at it than Newton, simply the very best photographers on earth, ever... Fact is, we can grasp bits and pieces of this elusive alchemy, but fall short if asked to explain it entirely. So we have to rely on instinct, when logic fails. Hope this makes some sense... Again, good thing you brought that one up! Refreshing and thought-provoking. So, at least for this, thanks a lot, really!  Feb 01 13 03:57 pm Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: Thanks...In my own "defence" I have to say that I was recreating the scene from memory. This is one of my favourite Newton's images so I remembered it reasonably well, but shot in the basement and only later on compared with the source. Feb 01 13 04:00 pm Link I'm not a huge Newton fan, but the most helpful observation I can make (outside of technical issues--which can be solved with either equipment or just a bigger budget that allows for more manipulation/options) is the composition. Look at the background of the Newton photo and notice the way each pipe crosses the frame and helps create a solid pic. Notice the angle of the room itself. notice the items in the foreground (the bright sheets crumpled in the immediate foreground and the sink). Notice how the frame darkens toward the top and how the flourescent light is angled and how it cuts the darkening top of the frame. The pipes, the machines, the floor--the image is full of repeating shapes and interesting angles. Even the angle chosen (the placement of the corner of the room) works in this shot. I even think the pattern of the light and dark circles of the machines repeat the shape of the breasts just enough to add 'visual-sense' to the composition. And all of it supports the model--grounds her (visually) in the frame and makes her *part of* the visual field. ...(as someone else already hinted at, in your pic the model is a little at odds with the closet to the left; and the machines, I think, seem more in the way than part of the photo--and the bike, yeah, feels like a genuine mistake). Even if nothing changed technically in your photo, a more solid composition could make a huge, huge difference. EDIT: even the model's shadow in the orig helps add to the comp of th ebackground : ) Feb 01 13 04:14 pm Link MKPhoto wrote: Good idea! Feb 01 13 04:53 pm Link -B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote: Well put. Feb 01 13 05:02 pm Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: They aren't eyes...they are breasts! Feb 01 13 05:07 pm Link MKPhoto wrote: Yup. I am not really huge fun of both and i happen to know people who shoot it extremely well still. Anyhow.. Just try to check you composition next time. Feb 01 13 06:25 pm Link |
