On Apr 30, 5:05=A0am, Alienjones <Alienjo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Helen wrote:
>
> | On Apr 29, 8:24 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> | I've long been fascinated with the set construction skills and the
> | backdrop paintings of the people who created the scenes for films like
> | "Gone with the wind" and other famous productions.
> |
> Snipped
>
> | I just don't feel that special emotion here. =A0The bride looks like
> | she's about to laugh right in the groom's face. =A0I don't feel the
> | passion, the love, the emotion. The facial expression should tell it
> | all, and her face lacks the emotion of kissing the man she is deeply
> | in love with. =A0It looks too staged on the bride's part.
> | Helen
>
> Maybe that's the case?
>
> Maybe she doesn't feel the same emotion the groom has for kissing? Some
> people don't "feel" anything in a kiss. Who can say? And that is the
> point of the photo. To hold a viewer's interest, to ask a question...
> Create an illusion. The fact you see in the picture what no one else has
> (yet) is an im****tant part of the art in my photography.
>
> Another aspect of your opinion is that this is a "masculine" photo. I
> have some taken on the same day which are feminine and many which are
> gender neutral. You may well respond entirely differently to a feminine
> version of the scene.
>
> My intent with this picture was to raise the expectation of romance in a
> steamy hot scene in as close to a theme of "Gone with the wind" as I
> could make it. The twist is what you picked... Not the groom who
> "frankly doesn't give a damn" but maybe the bride?
>
> Those who see only a photograph with less than 1% not technically to
> their liking are the real losers. If they are photographers themselves,
> then they are destined never to discover how the medium can be used for
> art as well as recording events and static scenes. I blame digital
> cameras for that.
>
> When you think about it, photography is not a very realistic method of
> recording events. A writer can create an illusion with a story, why not
> a photographer take the illusion of a photograph and ask a question or
> tell a story with it?
>
> Embrace that concept and you can also handle that monochrome photos are
> even less realistic so why not forget all about faithful recording and
> take the approach that art should harness the image and take over the
> photograph?
>
> It's all too easy to take technically perfect photos of mundane objects.
> What has always eluded many, many people who take up a camera and set
> about taking photos of birds and ducks and golfers is the art of the
> medium. If I didn't have a camera I would still sketch or paint my
> pictures...
>
> - --
>
> from Douglas,
> If my PGP key is missing, the
> post is a forgery. Ignore it.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFIGDZyhuxzk5D6V14RAtHoAKCixBJUg1SoL9ghCOrD5IqkalkkSwCdEIxQ
> +Ifkt43mREXD+XwG3EPEKYM=3D
> =3DJEYB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I agree Douglas that a photograph should tell a story, or record a
moment in time. Just as a painting or drawing should. This is why
monochrome photography is used by many because they feel color gets in
the way of telling the story. I agree in some cases, but I've seen
plenty of superb pics in color that told a highly emotional story.
I certainly can understand your desire to focus on a romantic
setting. My point is that I don't feel the emotion there, and for me
personally that's very im****tant.
I'd like to see your "feminine" version of the scene.
As for someone not feeling emotion in a kiss, hell I feel sorry for
them. If I were kissing a man I'm in love with, he would see ecstasy
on my face and feel it in the kiss. There is nothing like long
passionate kisses.
Helen
|
