Well, the image of the Civil War re-enacters certainly has a retro look <G>, but it don't see it in any of the others. BTW, I really like the framing and composition of that shot! The portraits are very strong and vivid, and certainly belong in the collection of your best of the year. You caught the action exceptionally well in the images of the girl (your daughter?) spinning, skipping rope, and jumping on the pole.
That is a collection of which you can justly be very proud. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Doug Brewer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/31/12 2:53 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 31, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: >> >>> On 12/29/12 1:22 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: >>>> >>>>> year-end survey of representative work: >>>>> >>>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115347824062413314605/posts/dL2uXjoYvRj >>>> >>>> >>>> Very nice. Some of them look downright film like, though it might just >>>> be what I can only describe as "retro composition". >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, Larry. I'm curious which one you thank are film-like. Also: can >>> you explain "retro composition"? >> >> >> Going back and looking, I'd say 3 and 6 are the most film like, 4 also has >> some of it. I suspect that it is a case of exposure issues looking more >> like the weaknesses of film than the weaknesses of digital. >> > > um, thank you? > > >> As to retro composition, some of the photos have the feel of photos taken >> when I was much younger. Looking through, 3,6,&7. I can't say what makes >> them look like they might have been taken forty years ago. I suspect that >> there are two factors at play. One is that any activity where you make >> aesthetic choices will have styles and fashions. People do what they >> see/hear their social circle doing, because that is what seems right. A >> corollary to this would be, if you want to take better pictures, look at >> better pictures. I think that another factor is that the care and thought >> that goes into a photograph is generally in proportion to the cost, in money >> and in effort, of taking that photograph. Also, when each frame cost a >> perceptible amount of pocket change (click, that cost as much as a cup of >> coffee), the people being photographed took a bit more care either because >> they didn't want to screw up the photo and cost the photographer extra >> money, or because they knew that they would > > n't get a second chance and if they looked dorky, that's how they'd be > memorialized. >> >> > > wow, you could have just said you didn't like them. But thanks for typing it > out. > >> I'm not saying that people consciously thought of these things, or that >> everyone did, but over time, photos have become far less formal. People >> don't get dressed up every time someone is going to take a photo of them. >> > > I suspect you don't have a free-spirited five-year-old girl around the > house. Rather than me saying to her to get dressed up so I can take some > photos, it's that I notice she is being a princess so I get my camera. > >> It could be entertaining to do a series of anachronistic photos. Have a >> couple of women dress up in 60's cocktail party fashion and do photos with >> them holding the camera at arms length and making duck face. Get kids >> dressed up in 1980's punk, and pose them like a photo from the 1880's. >> Dress a couple of people up like hippies, in front of a psychedelic VW bus, >> and HDR the photo past all bounds of taste and decency. > > > -- > 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.
