login info join!
Forums > Critique > So I tried to shoot a Helmut Newton.. Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,664
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Sergei Rodionov wrote:
you obviously never watched old german porn then.
Exact match.

Not to mention he described himself like that. Not i.
If you watched documentary you would hear it too.
Jojo West wrote:
I'm speaking strictly of his photography (which doesn't qualify...FOR ME). I guess we can call this differing perception. Of course, the porn I watch is all but conventional lol smile

His style was called sometimes "porno chic"

Feb 01 13 02:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RachelReilly
Posts: 1,696
Washington, District of Columbia, US


i have to say Newton's POV is more interesting... and more voyeuristic.
Feb 01 13 02:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


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  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 14,699
Orlando, Florida, US


MKPhoto wrote:
... Don't jump on me for plagiarism, lack of creativity etc. I know. It was for fun. ...

It was for fun. We did our own shooting mostly. It just occurred to me that the place looks sort of like that, so my "recreation" of the composition was from memory.

Thanks for feedback. I feel like visiting this basement again, despite its shortcoming as a scene/background, and spend a few more minutes of shooting fun there.

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  Quote 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,664
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Good Egg Productions 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.

smile

Feb 01 13 02:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Tangent Pictures
Posts: 43
Montpellier, Languedoc-Roussillon, France


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! smile
Feb 01 13 03:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,664
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
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.

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  Quote 
Photographer
Mosttry
Posts: 1,319
Los Angeles, California, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Toto Photo
Posts: 1,994
Belmont, California, US


MKPhoto wrote:
...I feel like visiting this basement again, despite its shortcoming as a scene/background, and spend a few more minutes of shooting fun there.

Good idea!

I have been trying to re-create some of Newton's most famous photos from his book entitled Big Nudes. See my port to see how well, or poorly, I've done. Unlike you, I've tried to do exact matches of lighting, poses and even film grain. My idea, and it is working splendidly, is to see what I can learn by getting into the head of someone who I consider to be a master, and most certainly not a pornographer.

It has been a tremendous learning experience for me and the lessons I've learned by doing so have completely transformed the way I approach photography. I can't stress enough, how much you'll learn by going back to that basement, perhaps even again and again.

Feb 01 13 04:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Toto Photo
Posts: 1,994
Belmont, California, US


-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
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

Well put.
Before I started my homage to Newton, I hired a stylist to help me analyze his works during his Big Nude period. She basically pointed out the same thing you did. His models' expressions are very powerful. OP, point that out to the model next time before you start shooting. Have his books on hand. To me they look like Masters of the Universe.

Feb 01 13 05:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FiveOne November
Posts: 168
Rochester, New York, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Since others have stated the main issues, I'll just point out one other item that stands out...and it's a major element (to me).

Look at the laundry items (washer/dryer) in the original. Now look at the one you used? It pales in comparison doesn't it? Those two round industrial-type units vs. a piddly Sears unit make a big difference to me.

The original are like huge eyes framing the model and overwhelm her...and align so perfectly with the ominous feel of the lighting and shadows.

They aren't eyes...they are breasts!

Feb 01 13 05:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sergei Rodionov
Posts: 865
Dallas, Texas, US


MKPhoto wrote:

His style was called sometimes "porno chic"

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.

Some  of things that are characteristic of this style are various details that modern glamour would considered messy and lack of attention. Like that blanket of floor, like some pile of garbage that is left in corner, dirty dishes in sink. They add storytelling bit, but not typical for clean glamour shot. Just something to remember.

Feb 01 13 06:25 pm  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers