I read through the full comment thread - it would seem that most of the posters need to read the "how to critique" item referenced here recently. I was amused by a couple of posters who were going on and on about wrinkles in the backdrop. I went back and looked, and sure enough, if you looked for them there were wrinkles in the backdrop. And who cares? The pictures are good captures, good in that they tell me something about the person and make me want to know more about them and wonder how they might do in their chosen competition(s). To do this well in a production-line setting, 2 minutes per subject, seems commendable to me. And I like that many break the "rules" about how to use a wide-angle lens in portraiture, how to balance lighting for 3/4 frontal portraits, etc. He produced a set of images that don't look like they had all been produced by the same cookie-cutter in a mindless exercise of good rules of portraiture.
I remember looking at the first or second gallery of wedding shots that tv posted here, and I recall how impressed I was with his work. A very different style and point of view, not at all what I think of as common wedding photography. I had the same sense looking at these images. stan On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > > I would not say that I like all of these photos. > Moreover, I am not compelled to like something because of the famed > person (actually, I am not sure I've heard this photographer's name > prior to this story, - but I am bad with names). > I'd say my personal impression of them that is probably closer to > that expressed by Christine: "overall, I think they're all right in a > quirky, whimsical way". > > By the [rather provocative] subject, I was referring to the reaction > like "These images are terrible", "What a disgust.", etc. > E.g. comment #7 represents the essence of some of those: > "From KameraDude - 06/07/2012, 12:12 " > http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/07/05/Pixels-and-piety%3A-Photographing-Olympic-icons#c734 > > The entire story with all the buzz around it is rather funny and I > thought it was worth a read. In my mind, it raised some interesting > questions about what is customary and accepted as "celebrity" photos > (portaits). > > > Igor > > > > Sat Jul 7 07:22:46 EDT 2012 > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> Or perhaps just honest. Are we compelled to like them because they were >> taken by a photographer who is esteemed by critics, and whose work must >> therefore be high art? I think the shots are just okay. i find some of >> them clever and nicely lit, but others strike me as trite and >> simplistic. A couple of them which combine large heads with tiny feet >> left me wondering why he chose that shooting angle with what appears to >> be a somewhat wide lens. And I'm neither serious nor wearing blinders. >> I'm merely expressing an honest, subjective opinion. >> >> On Jul 7, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: >> >>> >>> ... people who are criticizing on these Olympic athletes' photos: >>> http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/07/05/Pixels-and-piety%3A-Photographing-Olympic-icons >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Igor >>> >>> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
