Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mark D Segal on August 10, 2008, 05:27:01 pm

Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 10, 2008, 05:27:01 pm
Michael,

Thanks ever so much for offering us this first-hand insight into James Russel's work on the Phase project. That, combined with studying the fabulous images and interesting commentary on his website, shows  truly remarkable imagination, skill, dedication and organization. I have often asked myself what it takes to get to the top in commercial photography and this answers that question. Wow.

Mark
Title: James Russell
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 10, 2008, 06:17:19 pm
Ditto!

A wonderful piece, great writing: very informative and one of the most entertaining pieces on photography that I've read in a long time!

Eric
Title: James Russell
Post by: Craig Lamson on August 10, 2008, 08:22:35 pm
Quote
Michael,

Thanks ever so much for offering us this first-hand insight into James Russel's work on the Phase project. That, combined with studying the fabulous images and interesting commentary on his website, shows  truly remarkable imagination, skill, dedication and organization. I have often asked myself what it takes to get to the top in commercial photography and this answers that question. Wow.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks James for a great and insightful read.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 10, 2008, 11:39:01 pm
I also found this article from James provided a fascinating insight into the hectic life of a professional photographer working in advertising.

In particular, the nature of the advertisement, suggested by Phase, and their selected shot from the many James took, is quite amazing. What we have here is essentially a chic hugging a giant phallus, in the shape of numeral 1.

I'm certainly no prude, but it does make me wonder why a high tech company like Phase should appeal to such basic instincts. Are such advertisements for the benefit of potential buyers of Phase One backs or for the benefit of clients of photographic services who might be impressed if the photographer they hire has a Phase One back on their camera?

Perhaps one can't separate the two.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 11, 2008, 06:56:14 am
Quote from: Ray,Aug 11 2008, 03:39 AM
What we have here is essentially a chic hugging a giant phallus, in the shape of numeral 1.




Madre de Dios, Ray, I must be slow: it never occurred to me. On the other hand, you might just be too quick?

My problem with the thing is simple: I can´t get the video link to appear. I get a blank page with the Rutherford Paris address but nothing shows. Very disappointing.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: jcote on August 11, 2008, 07:42:10 am
Thank you James for a wonderful article on your shoot. Everything from the text to the video are as well done as the photo. Congrats.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 11, 2008, 07:52:47 am
Quote
What we have here is essentially a chic hugging a giant phallus, in the shape of numeral 1.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe this interpretation of the image is more in the mind of the beholder than that of the photographer or the client.  
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mike W on August 11, 2008, 08:10:52 am
Does anyone know the song playing in the video?
I kinda like it.
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 11, 2008, 08:37:05 am
Quote
Maybe this interpretation of the image is more in the mind of the beholder than that of the photographer or the client. 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=214395\")


I've only blocked one person on a forum in my life and not because I find anything that person writes as that objectionable, other than the words clouds my head with weirdness that I don't have time for.

People can and will see what they want and comment how they see fit.  That's the beauty of a free society, (at least that's what I was told by my 5th grade social studies teacher).

As far as the image selection by Phase it was simple.  The #1 is their new branding and that image showed the #1 most prominently.  

We don't have subliminal message meetings.  Few clients would ever market that way, mainly because viewer rentention is limited to only a few seconds and every advertiser wants to get their main message out in those few seconds.

Another video link is here that will also give an I-phone option.

[a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/paris_production/]http://russellrutherford.com/paris_production/[/url]

*warning.  There is also a photo of the Eiffel Tower and we all know what was on Gustave Eiffel's mind.

JR

I want to thank everyone who has responed for their kind words.
Title: James Russell
Post by: picnic on August 11, 2008, 08:50:33 am
Quote
I've only blocked one person on a forum in my life and not because I find anything that person writes as that objectionable, other than the words clouds my head with weirdness that I don't have time for.

People can and will see what they want and comment how they see fit.  That's the beauty of a free society, (at least that's what I was told by my 5th grade social studies teacher).

As far as the image selection by Phase it was simple.  The #1 is their new branding and that image showed the #1 most prominently. 

We don't have subliminal message meetings.  Few clients would ever market that way, mainly because viewer rentention is limited to only a few seconds and every advertiser wants to get their main message out in those few seconds.

Another video link is here that will also give an I-phone option.

http://russellrutherford.com/paris_production/ (http://russellrutherford.com/paris_production/)

*warning.  There is also a photo of the Eiffel Tower and we all know what was on Gustave Eiffel's mind.

JR

I want to thank everyone who has responed for their kind words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really enjoyed the article as I generally do with James Russell's writings--besides the insight into a shoot, there were pure laugh out loud moments.  

I also got to watch the video last night--and it rather boggles my mind that someone  sees a #1 as a phallus symbol.  I can't see the connection other than it is vertical LOL.  Goes to show you can pretty  much read into anything what you want.  

Diane
Title: James Russell
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on August 11, 2008, 11:04:45 am
Like Rob C, I can't view the video either - IE looks like it's trying to load something, but it sits there "loading" a blank page forever until I kill it.   The existence of  the "iPhone format" link makes me wonder whether possibly the people who can view it OK are using Macs and those of us who can't are using Windows PCs...

Anyway, I'd love to be able to see it.  The text article was extremely informative - it makes me feel better about keeping photography a serious hobby, that I can do when I feel like it, rather than a full-time profession!  Thanks very much for a very enlightening article, James.

Lisa
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 11, 2008, 11:16:09 am
Quote
Like Rob C, I can't view the video either - IE looks like it's trying to load something, but it sits there "loading" a blank page forever until I kill it.   The existence of  the "iPhone format" link makes me wonder whether possibly the people who can view it OK are using Macs and those of us who can't are using Windows PCs...

Anyway, I'd love to be able to see it.  The text article was extremely informative - it makes me feel better about keeping photography a serious hobby, that I can do when I feel like it, rather than a full-time profession!  Thanks very much for a very enlightening article, James.

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Lisa,

Windows or Mac, you just need to update your Quicktime player.  It's free and you must make sure your browser recognizes it.

IE is kind of goofy in the way it recognizes plug ins.  Try Firefox, it's free also.

I think the large movie is mp4 and the small Iphone is h264, but either way, a QT update will let you view it.

JR
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 11, 2008, 11:21:43 am
Quote
Like Rob C, I can't view the video either - IE looks like it's trying to load something, but it sits there "loading" a blank page forever until I kill it.   The existence of  the "iPhone format" link makes me wonder whether possibly the people who can view it OK are using Macs and those of us who can't are using Windows PCs...

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]




Lisa

I, too, have Windows and even James´s other link fails to go beyond a display of the negtive side of the E Tower.

If this is because of Macs, then it´s a shame: nobody that I know personally in Spain uses other than PC - there are specialist wholesalers that I know that do handle Macs but never have I seen one in public.

I have no trouble getting into the general website - which I often do, it is very nice to wander around there - so doubly sad to be denied the video.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: picnic on August 11, 2008, 11:28:30 am
Quote
Lisa

I, too, have Windows and even James´s other link fails to go beyond a display of the negtive side of the E Tower.

If this is because of Macs, then it´s a shame: nobody that I know personally in Spain uses other than PC - there are specialist wholesalers that I know that do handle Macs but never have I seen one in public.

I have no trouble getting into the general website - which I ofen do, it is very nice to wander around there - so doubly sad to be denied the video.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I viewed it on a PC last night--can't remember if I was on main with XP Pro or laptop with Vista, but the first time I tried it I couldn't connect.  I tried later and it went through without issue.   Don't know what the difference was...hmm, now that I think of it, believe I was on XP Pro machine.  I do have the latest Quicktime player because it updated when I updated iTunes.  Meant to say also that I was using IE and not Firefox.


Another addendum.  Just thought I would try the links this morning on my laptop (Vista).  I was able to connect with both the new link James gave and went back and tried the one in the article.  Both worked fine.  Actually the original opened the fastest--went right to the Quicktime logo thingie to play and played immediately.  The second URL James gave took a few seconds to open and then to dl, but worked in fairly quick time.

Diane


Diane
Title: James Russell
Post by: wolfnowl on August 11, 2008, 11:43:22 am
James:  Thanks for sharing this vignette of your life... I forward the article to my son, who works in rigging/lighting in the movie industry as I figured he could definitely relate...

Glad to hear you avoided the Paris buses!

Mike.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 11, 2008, 11:58:46 am
It downloaded and played fine on my WINXP PC with the latest Quick-Time player. Excellent video - including the music. I hope those having trouble with it eventually get to see it.

By the way James, I sympathetically read of your delayed baggage issue in the Phase article. I've had the same experience and I gather it's quite routine from CDG - not helped by all the restrictions the security authorities have been enforcing re carry-ons. I think traveling photographers are getting a rough ride these days, and not from air turbulence.
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 11, 2008, 03:57:13 pm
BTW:

In all my list of credits I have a big omission on my part . . .

I want to thank Michael for Publishing it.

Thanks Michael.

James
Title: James Russell
Post by: ndevlin on August 11, 2008, 04:25:04 pm
I particularly like the video, it really captured the feel of the shoot.

...but what's the music James? We all want to download it to our I-pods :-)

- N.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Quentin on August 11, 2008, 04:27:33 pm
Brilliant.

Quentin
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 11, 2008, 05:12:00 pm
James, I loved the story and enjoyed the humorous manner in which you wrote it.  Very funny.
Title: James Russell
Post by: bjnicholls on August 11, 2008, 05:49:23 pm
Interesting story, you should have included the art director in your credits - if only because I think they failed on concept and direction.

The resulting images, at least as shown inline and in context of the website layout, look rather like a CGI rendering to my eye. Without first reading your article I would have assumed the image was a computer model rendering based on the video-game dramatic style of lighting and contrived poses of the model. I also draw cues from the manipulated look of the mottled background and the graphic quality of the black knockout background. The photography is stellar, but for a product that's marketed to photographers, the resulting CGI look is a miscue in my opinion. As you indicated, Phase 1 is about engineering first and marketing well down the line of priorities. Perhaps I'll see the images differently in context of the website and any related applications. I can't find the web page example on the Phase One website.
Title: James Russell
Post by: sergio on August 11, 2008, 05:51:55 pm
James:

inspiring.


Makes one want to go out and shoot
Title: James Russell
Post by: CJL on August 11, 2008, 06:15:43 pm
Thank you, James (and Michael)... that was a very enjoyable read!
Title: James Russell
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on August 11, 2008, 06:56:55 pm
Quote
Windows or Mac, you just need to update your Quicktime player. It's free and you must make sure your browser recognizes it.

IE is kind of goofy in the way it recognizes plug ins. Try Firefox, it's free also.

Firefox worked fine.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Lisa
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 12, 2008, 06:54:57 am
Quote
Interesting story, you should have included the art director in your credits -.................
The resulting images, at least as shown inline and in context of the website layout, look rather like a CGI rendering to my eye. Without first reading your article I would have assumed the image was a computer model rendering based on the video-game dramatic style of lighting .

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The main intent of this article was to give credit to the still production crew.  It was discussed about putting in Art Direction, Client, Marketing, video credits, but once again, the idea was to credit my still crew.

As far as the look, or direction, regarldess of who conceived the thought, it is the result of budget, time, concept and input.  Always is, always will be.

As I mentioned had the budget been there I would have shot it on location in a foundry with mutliple foggers, talent, wardrobes, but it just wasn't possible,  though the final resulting image looks much different in large reporduction than it does in small web display.

In fact retouching for the web, if we have the option, is usually performed different than for large print.  The two medias often can look that different.

Yes there is retouching, though just about anything shot for commerce has post manipulation and to some extent that is the benifit of a medium format file, to work the file deep and to still hold detail and form.  Some people may agree with that, some won't, but I would imagine 95% of all medium format images shot for commerce have a heavy degree of post manipulation.

It's just the way things are.

Everyone has an opinion and in a way all are valid and in other ways all are not, depending on who buys or is motivated to buy.

Marketing is intersting and in today's 4 second world has changed.  

This year we have won a series of awards and though quite proud, the images that have won have been relatively simple, (all with black backgrounds) where the images submitted that were complicated and organic were passed over, probably just because they took more time for the judges to study them and it seems time is the one element everyone is lacking.

In other words this
(http://russellrutherford.com/sports/thumbs/th_011rr_sports_june_08.jpg)

gets more attention than this
(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/thumbs/th_00012rr_salon.jpg)

Today, if an image is graphic or simple it seems to resonate quicker.  Look at 99.9% of all the magazine covers.

JR
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 12, 2008, 07:40:05 am
Deleted.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 12, 2008, 08:50:14 am
I think to a considerable extent much high quality art is "simple and clean", in the sense that uncluttered graphic language communicates with more impact. I believe this is true whether the purpose of the image is to convey the essence of a landscape or to sell a product. The two images James posted above demonstrate this very clearly. The upper image gets more attention than the lower one because it is uncluttered with emphatic lighting; it is intense and coherent focusing the viewer directly on the subject. The lower one isn't a particularly successful use of graphic language regardless of its purpose. The background is distracting and the lines of vision are contradictory to no particular effect. While one doesn't want to "rigidify" concepts of what makes art that carries impact, there are these "rules of thumb" which generally work.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 12, 2008, 10:31:49 am
deleted.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 12, 2008, 12:44:17 pm
Quote
Today, if an image is graphic or simple it seems to resonate quicker.  Look at 99.9% of all the magazine covers.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]





Simplicity. Yes, that´s exactly why the work of my old favourite Hans Feurer looks so damn good. He achieves it most of the time, in the images of his with which I am familiar, by virtue of a long lens and simple beach/rocks/desert backgrounds which are mostly suggested forms, the colour and design of the subject saying what has to be said.

Don´t forget, he started as a designer...

To me, there are two types of master photographer: the location man who uses a minimum of lighting; the studio man who can light the subject as distinct from simply illuminating it in order to make enough light for an exposure. Not the same thing at all.

As for the location (outdoors) photographer who uses too many tricks - I wonder why.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: sergio on August 12, 2008, 02:57:07 pm
This 4 second world as James puts it what is ultimately doing is pasteurizing things to simple forms anybody can understand. It is a problem of communication. The amount of imagery shot at you everyday is overwhelming, and in the advertising business not getting the message across is death.

The world doesn't have time anymore for anything at all, if barely for eating while watching tv or sleeping plugged to an ipod. We have lost the ability to be amazed.

I have made a good living and had the hell of a good time as a fashion and advertising photographer, but sometimes this makes me sick. I work to live, not live to work.

I started my own personal projects out of a feeling of emptyness and a lack of meaning from my commercial work. I confess that though I make a very good living with photography, I felt that the purpose of my work had to be a little more than merely making someone else richer with it.

I'll stop before I get bluesy.
Title: James Russell
Post by: PierreVandevenne on August 12, 2008, 07:22:44 pm
Quote
Does anyone know the song playing in the video?
I kinda like it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=214396\")

Artemis, on the album Gravity. The song is "La Belle" - the lyrics are taken from "La belle et la bête" (The Beauty and the Beast) by Jean Cocteau

[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast_(1946_film)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_th...ast_(1946_film)[/url]

http://www.last.fm/music/Artemis/Gravity/La+Belle (http://www.last.fm/music/Artemis/Gravity/La+Belle)

Pierre
Title: James Russell
Post by: tho_mas on August 12, 2008, 07:37:36 pm
Quote
I work to live, not live to work.
I started my own personal projects out of a feeling of emptyness and a lack of meaning from my commercial work.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  :idea:  good!
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 12, 2008, 11:56:49 pm
Quote
:idea:  good!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well I've heard the live to work, work to live thing and maybe that's the way its for some.

I don't know, because I just live and prefer to work rather than not, but that doesn't make my way right, or wrong, it's just my way.

The thing is commercial work is just that . . . commercial work.  Sometimes it's inspiring, sometimes it's just professional, but if you do it right it's usually a lot of effort and can be challenging.

I learned a long time ago not to worry too much about any of this.  Some photos I love because I know the complications, the effort and the change I and others made to the raw material.

If those are, or are not noticed it's just not a big deal.  

I also know that sometimes a simple well executed image can be striking, once again, it's not a big deal.

The thing I know is that it's not quite as easy for our clients as we tend to think.   They have to work on a brand, a product or for a specific client for years where we usually just come in for the week.  

An AD will usually present 2 dozen ideas just to get one through the committees and probably have to fight tooth and nail to get the photographer they chose hired.

It is a complicated business and if you take it all to heart it can take a lot out of an artist.

Then again, from my personal experience I have learned to step back and try to see it as the complete process rather than just what is handed me.

It normally makes my day or week a lot easier.

Yes it may be in some instance a 4 second world, but if done well, even those 4 seconds can be very appreciated.


JR
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 13, 2008, 08:08:32 am
Quote
I have made a good living and had the hell of a good time as a fashion and advertising photographer, but sometimes this makes me sick. I work to live, not live to work.

I started my own personal projects out of a feeling of emptyness and a lack of meaning from my commercial work. I confess that though I make a very good living with photography, I felt that the purpose of my work had to be a little more than merely making someone else richer with it.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]






Sergio

I think that if one really loves what one is doing, then the working to live or living to work thing becomes unimportant because one is simply doing that which one loves.

I, too, had a hell of a good time in fashion, not so much so in advertising, but certainly so in calendar design/production and photography where the only bad part was doing the selling, something I never have enjoyed at all. I was doubly lucky in that with the fashion and calendars, I was usually able to travel without clients: they were too busy doing other things to spend time with me on shoots. However, there were also good clients and bad clients, even with the same company, and the bad ones did little for the job, when they trailed along...

I had no problem helping clients make money, just as long as I was making it too. Like you, I have gone onto personal things, but that is far from easy - the main problem is financing the things I really want to do, which always include models. Irony, of course rears its head: when I was working I had no time or interest in girls coming to see me, now that I want them to, there is no work to offer them. Oh for a muse!

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 13, 2008, 09:09:50 am
deleted.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Richard Boyle on August 14, 2008, 10:39:02 am
Quote
:idea:  good!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I remember, years ago on the Galbraith forum, James touted the Leaf backs as being "more film like" even though he derided photographers using film by saying that "film was a romantic notion."

I'm curious as to why you switched to Phase and what about the Phase you appreciate more than the Leaf backs.

Thanks!

Richard
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2008, 03:50:07 pm
Quote
I remember, years ago on the Galbraith forum, James touted the Leaf backs as being "more film like" even though he derided photographers using film by saying that "film was a romantic notion."

Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



James can reply for himself, but I don´t know about film being a romantic notion. Photography might well be a romantic notion, even if its reality mostly is not, but film isn´t much to do with romance, in my book, it is just a medium which is sometimes better than others. Horses for courses, but for me, a well scanned transparency can produce a feeling, a quality, that I can´t see in my own digital captures.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: DarkPenguin on August 14, 2008, 04:35:56 pm
Quote
James can reply for himself, but I don´t know about film being a romantic notion. Photography might well be a romantic notion, even if its reality mostly is not, but film isn´t much to do with romance, in my book, it is just a medium which is sometimes better than others. Horses for courses, but for me, a well scanned transparency can produce a feeling, a quality, that I can´t see in my own digital captures.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The end of the Cretaceous must have been a lonely time.  (Just kidding.)

I do miss konica 50.  I don't miss scanning it.
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 15, 2008, 12:01:14 am
Quote
I remember, years ago on the Galbraith forum, James touted the Leaf backs as being "more film like" even though he derided photographers using film by saying that "film was a romantic notion."

I'm curious as to why you switched to Phase and what about the Phase you appreciate more than the Leaf backs.

Thanks!

Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually, I said film was a romantic notion of the past.   To some extent I believe that.

Cameras, that's another thing as with some cameras there are things you can shoot or shoot  in a way that you can't with digital, i.e. the Fuji 680, an 8x10 camera, a 6x7 RZ or Pentax 6x7.  Those cameras had a certain look that can be emulated by digital but not exactly repeated.

It's interesting, last week I spoke to an Art Director for about an hour about a project.

One question he had, or more a statement he made was most photographers he knows shoots film for themselves or for editorial but shoot only digital for commerce.

He asked if I shot digital and I said I actually embrace digital capture.  I think that answer kind of threw him as he was use to the NY mindset where many photographers or a certain level only shoot digital with an outside tech and turn it over for someone else to process, color, retouch  and purpose.

I said I think digital is a much more intimate learning experience than film.  In the film days I could or wouldn't shoot a film and process it in 6 different labs, with 6 different processing routines.

I would never have looked at hundreds even thousands of frames of film at 100% and learned the nuances.  With digital I have done that.

I think there are very few film looks I can't achieve with digital and better yet, dozens of looks I can achieve that I never would have had the opportunity to try with film.

Also digital offers opportunities film never did, especially in commerce or high pressure situations.  

With digital I can get the base idea into the can and then go on and expore newer or maybe even images with more risk, because I know the base image is covered.

With digital I have a "polaroid" that is way more detailed and accurate than any film proof and I have it in about 2 seconds.

I can adapt, correct and see the results now, rather than even wait 60 seconds and kind of translate the polaroid look into what film will do.

Yes, there were/are some interesting films and like digital cameras and backs some were more suited for some styles than others, but not all films were really beautiful and not all films worked for some situations.

To me film is a romantic notion of the past and though digital has a way steep learning curve and takes a huge monitary and time investment, it's well worth it.

As far as switching from Leaf to Phase.  We'll at first I didn't really switch, I just added a Phase back to my contax's.  The main reason was at the time the Leaf software was "challanged" and the Phase was faster and more stable.  I stay quite busy and I needed stability and speed.

I understand LC11 is a much improved tethering software now.

Also I needed even slightly higher iso.  The Leaf was great at 200 but only up to 200 (the A-22) where the P-30 would go to 400, but not much more than 400.

Had the A-22 gone to 400 iso clean I would have kept it and probably still bought a P-30 but waited for lc11 to become mature.  

Both backs are different and offer different looks.  At times I found the Leaf very "film like" whatever that means at times I find the Phase  quite nice.

They are very different backs.

Now, back to this art director's comments.  I asked him to go onto my web site and pick out the two images he thought best represented film.  The two he slected were shot with the A-22.

Whether that means anything or not I'm not sure.

JR
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 12:12:26 am
Quote
I also got to watch the video last night--and it rather boggles my mind that someone  sees a #1 as a phallus symbol.  I can't see the connection other than it is vertical LOL.  Goes to show you can pretty  much read into anything what you want. 

Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214401\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm also rather amazed that anyone would think my phallic interpretation of that scene is unusal or weird.

Clearly, any shape that is roughly of similar proportions to the erect penis does not have to be considered as a phallic symbol. However, when such shapes are inflated (or deflated) to an unnatural size, and then directly associated with a scantilly clad (or provocatively clad) female, then the sexual symbolism is clear to all, except perhaps those who have never heard of Sigmund Freud, or those who simple don't know what sexual symbolism is.

The symbol for #1 is not usually larger then a female person. The enlargement of the symbol for #1, in relation to the size of the female who is hugging it, is very obviously suggestive of the enlargement that takes place when a penis becomes erect.

The enlargemnt of the #1, in conjunction with its general shape, should make the phallic associations obvious to all except the totally naive.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 15, 2008, 12:37:43 am
deleted.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 01:57:23 am
Following from my previous comment on phallic symbolism, those of you who are particularly naive might find the following quotes informative, and even humorous   .

Quote
Ties which both hang flaccidly from the neck to the groin like a penis, and also point to it, are the very symbol of the phallus, which is so envied by other men and women not for its actual qualities, as much as the social meaning attributed to the gender of its owner. The tie is thus a symbol of the domination of men over women, and of power in general.

To those who wear it to work the tie is a burden, another rule to follow in a workplace dominated by rules and regulations.
It represents the very essence of discomfort, as it applies light pressure to the very tube we all require to breathe, reminding the drones of our life sentence to capitalism by tie-hanging, of how much our lives are owned and controlled by the elite, and how much our very life force is maintained because of our servitude to another class.
Wearing a tie, we don't feel free, or look free, donning an article required of many workers regardless of their individuality or creative abilities.
The very essence of conformity!!

I have never, ever felt comfortable wearing a tie. Not even as a school boy.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 04:17:53 am
Since the demise of the Rob Galbraith Forum, there seems to be a lot of professional photogrpahers who have migrated to LL. That's no problem for me, and I welcome the different perspective. But, I would just like to emphasise in this post that it is a different perspective, not a better perspective. In fact, if I were to indulge in my own prejuduces, I would say that it's an inferior perspective. However, realising that that's a biased perspective of mine, I won't say that. So let's be clear. I didn't say that.

What strikes me about the MFDB 'mob' (if I can describe them as that. It's a term used to describe a group of Kangaroos), is the 'sameness' and 'predicatability' about the images. We're not into fine art, here, but crass art, commercial art, lowest-common-denominatore art, phaliic symbolism art.

That's fine by me. As I've said before, I'm no prude. But an observation I would make, is that an increase in the cost of gear does not seem to translate to an increase in the meaningfulness and spiritual worth of the images produced. In fact, the trend seems to be to the opposite. The more expensive the equipment, the more garish, the more crude, the more blatantly sexual the images. (Michael, of course, is excluded from these comments because he is clearly into fine art.)
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 15, 2008, 04:46:44 am
Ray, most of the time I find it easy to agree with you. Of late - since the #1 episode - I find you seem to have slipped into a parallel universe to your own, normal, one.

It might be the heat, the humidity, even the rice water; it isn´t a comfortable period.

The complaint about professional photography might well be partly true, insofar as I think that much of what I see today, in fashion/beauty, is way too over-produced, too retouched, devoid of much humanity or appeal. But I don´t know if that´s because today´s lensmen over-enjoy playing with their new toys or because art directors or agencies or even cients think that it is cool for women to look like waxworks. I like skin to look like skin; that never means that it has to look unhealthy or pockmarked, just that it should have texture.

I would love to get the female photographer point of view, particularly from any women working in fashion/beauty.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 05:11:47 am
Quote
Ray, most of the time I find it easy to agree with you. Of late - since the #1 episode - I find you seem to have slipped into a parallel universe to your own, normal, one.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, no , no! I'm very stable and always in the same universe.  

The crux of the matter is, if you are working for a client, you have to satsify your client.

If you are working for yourself, as I am, the results will be different.
Title: James Russell
Post by: woof75 on August 15, 2008, 08:29:52 am
Ray, to think that sex and sexuality isn't a subject for an artist really shows an absolute lack of understanding what art is.
Title: James Russell
Post by: picnic on August 15, 2008, 09:14:39 am
Quote
I'm also rather amazed that anyone would think my phallic interpretation of that scene is unusal or weird.

Clearly, any shape that is roughly of similar proportions to the erect penis does not have to be considered as a phallic symbol. However, when such shapes are inflated (or deflated) to an unnatural size, and then directly associated with a scantilly clad (or provocatively clad) female, then the sexual symbolism is clear to all, except perhaps those who have never heard of Sigmund Freud, or those who simple don't know what sexual symbolism is.

The symbol for #1 is not usually larger then a female person. The enlargement of the symbol for #1, in relation to the size of the female who is hugging it, is very obviously suggestive of the enlargement that takes place when a penis becomes erect.

The enlargemnt of the #1, in conjunction with its general shape, should make the phallic associations obvious to all except the totally naive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course I know about Freud, for heaven's sake, but his ideas are looked at a little askance these days.  He saw a phallic symbol in almost everything it seems whereas Jung sometimes sees a thing for more or less what it is.  And---just look how you had to extrapolate that #1 so everyone would 'get it'.  Sometimes a big #1 is just that LOL.   The point, as I understood it, was to get across that Phase is #1---so big was called for---and you can't grab a guy's attention these days without a sexy model (and 99.44% of these cameras will be sold to guys).  Sometimes what is----is.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 15, 2008, 09:34:07 am
deleted.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 15, 2008, 10:34:38 am
Quote
I'm also rather amazed that anyone would think my phallic interpretation of that scene is unusal or weird.

..............................

The enlargemnt of the #1, in conjunction with its general shape, should make the phallic associations obvious to all except the totally naive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you won't be amazed by me, because I thought your interpretation is simply nonsensical. And if that makes me "totally naive" so be it. I'll "naively" believe James Russell's definitive response to this far-fetched notion. This thread has been developing some interesting conversation about the relationship of art to commercial photography and about the demands and expectations of the contemporary business environment as it affects commercial photography. But this purient tangent - as far as I'm concerned - is really devoid of value-added.

Mark
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 10:41:19 am
Quote
Ray, to think that sex and sexuality isn't a subject for an artist really shows an absolute lack of understanding what art is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
It's you who is showing a great lack of understanding. There's not a single sentence in my 5,000 odd posts that could be construed as a disapproval of sex as a subject for an artist.

My comment about James Russell's Phase One phallic symbol does not relate to any disapproval of the sexual connotation, but an amazement at the obvious and blatant nature of the phallic connotation, and as Diane as just written, the fact that it has to be explained to some of you.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 11:06:52 am
Quote
Well, you won't be amazed by me, because I thought your interpretation is simply nonsensical. And if that makes me "totally naive" so be it. I'll "naively" believe James Russell's definitive response to this far-fetched notion. This thread has been developing some interesting conversation about the relationship of art to commercial photography and about the demands and expectations of the contemporary business environment as it affects commercial photography. But this purient tangent - as far as I'm concerned - is really devoid of value-added.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
I am amazed by you. But rather than knock my interpretation, would you care to provide a more meaningful interpretation which you think is not nonsensical?

Just to recap, in case you've forgotten the image, the image selected by Phase is of a giant number one about twice the height of a person. It's on a pedestal, roughly synonymous with a pair of testicles, and has an over all shape roughly similar to the erect penis.

Now, if this monument was surrounded by a group of bespectacled boffins and accountants, it would be just as silly but wouldn't have quite the same sexual connotation.

However, the fact that this mock erection has received the attention of a semi-clad, attractive maiden makes the symbolism as obvious as one could possibly make it without producing a pornographic image.
Title: James Russell
Post by: woof75 on August 15, 2008, 11:19:51 am
Quote
The more expensive the equipment, the more garish, the more crude, the more blatantly sexual the images. (Michael, of course, is excluded from these comments because he is clearly into fine art.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Surely this suggests that you are disapproving of sexual images? You are linking blatant sexuality with crudeness and garishness. Can you give me a list of approved subjects please Ray, just so that I know?
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 15, 2008, 11:20:52 am
Quote
obvious and blatant nature of the phallic connotation, and as Diane as just written, the fact that it has to be explained to some of you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Um, Ray, I think she was pointing it out to you...

However, on a personal note, I think that women are the most interersting things on the planet - well, perhaps challenged by finer Italian cars - but otherwise, my sole interest in photography today, in the rôle of retired pro, is the photography of women. Unfortunately, living on this Mediterranean rock, they (pro models) are in short supply and thus prone to unreal conceptions of self-worth and consequent monetary value.

The direct reslut of all of this is that instead of taking substitute pictures of rocks, trees, the sea, the mountains, I spend the available time on the internet writing to you guys or otherwise waiting about in God´s ante-room for that magical day when a muse will arrive and lift me from my lethargy. Fortunately, I have the sense not to hold my breath.

Are women valid artistic subjects? Seems that they have been considered so from the earliest times, even by the church, though possibly in a hypocritical manner. I have never enjoyed photography more than when in the middle of a great shoot, studio or outdoors. And I have never felt more lonely than at the end of said shoots when the model goes home and I´ve been left in the studio alone to get the processing underway. When it cooks, it´s a wonderful bond of shared emotion, but it can leave you drained for a while. Perhaps I always took it too seriously for a professional.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 11:39:26 am
Quote
Surely this suggests that you are disapproving of sexual images? You are linking blatant sexuality with crudeness and garishness. Can you give me a list of approved subjects please Ray, just so that I know?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It seems logic is not your strong point. I am linking blatant sexuality with crudeness and garishness, but it's you who are linking that to disapproval.

Blatant sexuality is a fact of life. We're no longer in the English Victorian age. I'm just describing James Russell's image as I see it. It's no worse than lots of other images I see from MFDB users, and as a an image that get across a certain message without resorting to outright pornography, it's quite successful.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 11:46:12 am
Quote
However, on a personal note, I think that women are the most interersting things on the planet - well, perhaps challenged by finer Italian cars... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm afraid we disagree on that point, Rob. Given a choice between a fine Italian car and a fine woman, I'll take the woman.

However, I think that many women would choose the fine Italian car in preference to me   .
Title: James Russell
Post by: woof75 on August 15, 2008, 11:56:05 am
Quote
It seems logic is not your strong point. I am linking blatant sexuality with crudeness and garishness, but it's you who are linking that to disapproval.

Blatant sexuality is a fact of life. We're no longer in the English Victorian age. I'm just describing James Russell's image as I see it. It's no worse than lots of other images I see from MFDB users, and as a an image that get across a certain message without resorting to outright pornography, it's quite successful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, everyone thinks of garishness and crudeness as good things Ray.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 15, 2008, 11:58:05 am
Quote
Mark,
I am amazed by you. But rather than knock my interpretation, would you care to provide a more meaningful interpretation which you think is not nonsensical?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, my last word on this tangent, because I can't justify more time on it: My simple, "naive" interpretation is that the number "1" is there so that you associate it in your brain with "Phase 1", and the model livens it up with human interest in order to attract people and engrave it in their memories within that 4 seconds attention span so much discussed here. Other than that, James Russell has very adequately explained the etiology of this image so no more really needs to be said about that.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 12:07:50 pm
Quote
Yes, everyone thinks of garishness and crudeness as good things Ray.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, some people seem to divide everything into either good or bad. Are you one of those?

The Webster's definition of crude, first two words:

Unripe; immature.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete JF on August 15, 2008, 12:20:09 pm
Don't worry Ray, there's a dick in the numero uno, you're not seeing things..well you are seeing "things" but you know...

I also see a stripper pole, complete with stripper(ish) person (the shame of that stereotype of a woman in a mini skirt sort of grinding on a pole..reprimand me). It's a stripper pole would be unwieldly by any stripper's standard...That girl looks like she's about to fall! Her balance is wrong plus she needs some climbing shoes and some chocks to accomplish this. Most strippers would run at the sight of that thing.

Funny how a discussion of the phallus brings on the denials and shushings, general frowning.

Mark DS..nonsensical? It's pretty darn obvious. I could bring you twenty teenage boys, teenage girls, grown up men and grown up women women who would laugh and KNOW what it was they thought was going on here.

Is it wrong that they bring that baggage to it? Not at all and the discussion of commercial work vs. art is an empty one without a long rest on the subjects of sex, eroticism, phallic symbols. On and on, c'mon, what kind of art are you folks looking at??

A huge part of the basic vocabulary of art, throughout history, has much to do with eroticism.

James knows he hasn't invented a new vocabulary here...you could go online right now and find a bunch of images with a monolith, or phallicky looking object with a figure draped over it in a sexually suggestive way. Car ads, a woman's hand on a beer glass..the list goes on and on and most folks GET this right away...it's been beaten to death in discussion, forever,  confirmed and with an official stamp.

Ray is correct, the vocabulary here, whether James intended it this way or not, is pretty damn obvious. We are not in control of how the audience responds to the work and that is the beauty of the entire thing....

Like Bernd and Hilla Becher suggested in there work...we are ALL the same but we are ALL a little bit different. Some folks saw the phallus in their groupings of water towers etc..phallic, manly structures..who gives a flip and I'm sure they got a giggle from that and smiled a bit. they understood that it was exactly what they were suggesting when they compared industrial designs...it was a human thing in the end and it carried through to the various responses people have to their images.

I choose to think it's expected and in some ways a profound statement on the power of symbolism. If you see a phallus in the big number one with the girls leg clutching up..is there anything wrong with that? The image, IMO, begs for that type of, perhaps, over simplification..This is one of those images that you might see discussed in an edition of Sex and Advertising.


James I'm sure when you guys were shooting this project there was more than one joke made by the various crew members..male and female. If your crew didn't make any jokes about it then   might need to look for another crew.    

The subject might be off topic in the context of this thread but when i saw the image i knew immediately it would pop up...if it hadn't i would have been very surprised and disappointed. Amusing to me how a bunch of folks are resisting this and tucking their shirts in very carefully.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 12:24:04 pm
Quote
OK, my last word on this tangent, because I can't justify more time on it: My simple, "naive" interpretation is that the number "1" is there so that you associate it in your brain with "Phase 1", and the model livens it up with human interest in order to attract people and engrave it in their memories within that 4 seconds attention span so much discussed here. Other than that, James Russell has very adequately explained the etiology of this image so no more really needs to be said about that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
I sense a certain censorious attitude. Nobody who is not already familiar with Phase One, associates the number one, an extremeley commonplace and ubiquitous symbol, with a high tech DB manufacturer, without the blatant sexuality that is obvious in this image.

The human interest is interesting primarily to the male because of her obvious sexuality and what she's doing.

Sorry if I've embarrassed you   .
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 12:36:18 pm
Quote
Don't worry Ray, there's a dick in the numero uno, you're not seeing things..well you are seeing "things" but you know...

I also see a stripper pole, complete with stripper(ish) person (the shame of that stereotype of a woman in a mini skirt sort of grinding on a pole..reprimand me). It's a stripper pole would be unwieldly by any stripper's standard...That girl looks like she's about to fall! Her balance is wrong plus she needs some climbing shoes and some chocks to accomplish this. Most strippers would run at the sight of that thing.

Funny how a discussion of the phallus brings on the denials and shushings, general frowning.

Mark DS..nonsensical? It's pretty darn obvious. I could bring you twenty teenage boys, teenage girls, grown up men and grown up women women who would laugh and KNOW what it was they thought was going on here.

Is it wrong that they bring that baggage to it? Not at all and I think the discussion of commercial work vs. art is an empty one without a long rest on the subjects of sex, eroticism, phallic symbols. On and on, c'mon, what kind of art are you folks looking at??

A huge part of the basic vocabulary of art, through history, has much to do with eroticism.

James knows he hasn't invented a new vocabulary here...you could go online right now and find a bunch of images with a monolith, or phallicky looking object with a figure draped over it in a sexually suggestive way. Car ads, a woman's hand on a beer glass..the list goes on and on and most folks GET this right away...it's been beaten to death in discussion, forever,  confirmed and with an official stamp.

Ray is correct, the vocabulary here, whether James intended it this way or not, is pretty damn obvious. We are not in control of how the audience responds to the work and that is the beauty of the entire thing....

Like Bernd and Hilla Becher suggested...we are ALL the same but we are all a little bit different. Some folks saw the phallus in their groupings of water towers etc..phallic, manly structures..who gives a flip and I'm sure they got a giggle from that and smiled a bit.

I choose to think it's expected and in some ways a profound statement on the power of symbolism. If you see a phallus in the big number one with the girls leg clutching up..is there anything wrong with that? The image, IMO, begs for that type of, perhaps, over simplification..This is one of those images that you might see discussed in an edition of Sex and Advertising.
James I'm sure when you guys were shooting this project there was more than one joke made by the various crew members..male and female. If your crew didn't make any jokes about it then  go look for another crew.   

The subject might be off topic in the context of this thread but when i saw the image i knew immediately it would pop up...if it hadn't i would have been very surprised and disappointed. Amusing to me how a bunch of folks are resisting this and tucking their shirts in very carefully.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pete,
Such eleoquence needs repeating. I'm in complete agreement and couldn't have expressed it better.

The attitude of some members of this forum is also an eye opener   .
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete JF on August 15, 2008, 12:46:44 pm
Quote
OK, my last word on this tangent, because I can't justify more time on it: My simple, "naive" interpretation is that the number "1" is there so that you associate it in your brain with "Phase 1", and the model livens it up with human interest in order to attract people and engrave it in their memories within that 4 seconds attention span so much discussed here. Other than that, James Russell has very adequately explained the etiology of this image so no more really needs to be said about that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,

i think your interpretation is a bit thin. The model is a girl in a miniskirt with her leg sort of running up the shaft of this number 1...that "human interest" suggestion that you tossed out is clearly painted with sexual interest. If they had wanted to keep it as literal and human interest-ish as you suggested, they might have used a guy..a hipster dude who looked like a photogapher or whatever...It MATTERED to the people involved in this project enough to cast a slim girl and wardrobe her in a short skirt...in editing there was a decision made as to the gesture. I'm sure they had plenty of other takes that were less suggestive...guaranteed.

You have to keep one thing in mind..the commercial photo industry has a long history of being a man's realm..this demographic still persists. Many extremely talented female photogs but the man thing persists.

 There is no coincidence that this "figure" is a slim wearing a mini...the main demographic here, men, are gonna look a bit longer than 4 seconds..maybe.

I'm also a bit veklempt at the suggestion that no more should be said about this...
Title: James Russell
Post by: Mark D Segal on August 15, 2008, 01:43:12 pm
I see I'm being challenged here, so I'll respond this once more, to make several things perfectly clear:

(1) My interpretation of the image is what I said it is; I'm entitled to that view without being accused of naivete, just as you are entitled to your interpretation, and I'm entitled to say whether I think that iinterpretation makes sense to me - which it doesn't - notwithstanding all the philosophizing over it here.

(2) Personalized notions of "embarassment" have nothing whatever to do with it. As far as I'm concerned it's an objective issue about how one interprets an image, and what one thinks the intention of the montage may have been.

(3) When I said I was entering MY last post on this tangent, that referred only to my self-control over what I do - it has no implications for what other people post; so there is absolutely nothing censurious in this and no reason for anyone to feel "verklempt" about it.
Title: James Russell
Post by: woof75 on August 15, 2008, 02:13:39 pm
Quote
Well, some people seem to divide everything into either good or bad. Are you one of those?

The Webster's definition of crude, first two words:

Unripe; immature.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats very insightful of you Ray.
Title: James Russell
Post by: samuel_js on August 15, 2008, 02:48:58 pm
Well maybe my sex cells are damaged because I never found anything sexual in that image...

Anyway, thank you James and Michael for the article, very inspiring.
Title: James Russell
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 15, 2008, 03:16:34 pm
Hi,

I think that with digital we are striving to get maximum detail. Film had an S-curve which made the images more snappy but lost shadow detail. Also film was clipping the highlight softly. I guess that we could emulate all this digitally, but than we would loose the shadow detail. So my point is that digital is probably more exact then film, we could give up some of the advantages of digital for film look but we probably don't want to do this.

I sort of started to think about this when I was testing some filters, perhaps Alien Skin. I could set different film looks on my images.

- So I spent half an hour to get my shadow detail right.
- Then I applied Velvia look. The picture looked snappy and my shadows went black.

Best regards
Erik

Quote
Actually, I said film was a romantic notion of the past.   To some extent I believe that.

Cameras, that's another thing as with some cameras there are things you can shoot or shoot  in a way that you can't with digital, i.e. the Fuji 680, an 8x10 camera, a 6x7 RZ or Pentax 6x7.  Those cameras had a certain look that can be emulated by digital but not exactly repeated.

It's interesting, last week I spoke to an Art Director for about an hour about a project.

One question he had, or more a statement he made was most photographers he knows shoots film for themselves or for editorial but shoot only digital for commerce.

He asked if I shot digital and I said I actually embrace digital capture.  I think that answer kind of threw him as he was use to the NY mindset where many photographers or a certain level only shoot digital with an outside tech and turn it over for someone else to process, color, retouch  and purpose.

I said I think digital is a much more intimate learning experience than film.  In the film days I could or wouldn't shoot a film and process it in 6 different labs, with 6 different processing routines.

I would never have looked at hundreds even thousands of frames of film at 100% and learned the nuances.  With digital I have done that.

I think there are very few film looks I can't achieve with digital and better yet, dozens of looks I can achieve that I never would have had the opportunity to try with film.

Also digital offers opportunities film never did, especially in commerce or high pressure situations. 

With digital I can get the base idea into the can and then go on and expore newer or maybe even images with more risk, because I know the base image is covered.

With digital I have a "polaroid" that is way more detailed and accurate than any film proof and I have it in about 2 seconds.

I can adapt, correct and see the results now, rather than even wait 60 seconds and kind of translate the polaroid look into what film will do.

Yes, there were/are some interesting films and like digital cameras and backs some were more suited for some styles than others, but not all films were really beautiful and not all films worked for some situations.

To me film is a romantic notion of the past and though digital has a way steep learning curve and takes a huge monitary and time investment, it's well worth it.

As far as switching from Leaf to Phase.  We'll at first I didn't really switch, I just added a Phase back to my contax's.  The main reason was at the time the Leaf software was "challanged" and the Phase was faster and more stable.  I stay quite busy and I needed stability and speed.

I understand LC11 is a much improved tethering software now.

Also I needed even slightly higher iso.  The Leaf was great at 200 but only up to 200 (the A-22) where the P-30 would go to 400, but not much more than 400.

Had the A-22 gone to 400 iso clean I would have kept it and probably still bought a P-30 but waited for lc11 to become mature. 

Both backs are different and offer different looks.  At times I found the Leaf very "film like" whatever that means at times I find the Phase  quite nice.

They are very different backs.

Now, back to this art director's comments.  I asked him to go onto my web site and pick out the two images he thought best represented film.  The two he slected were shot with the A-22.

Whether that means anything or not I'm not sure.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: James Russell
Post by: pss on August 15, 2008, 03:56:39 pm
Quote
Don't worry Ray, there's a dick in the numero uno, you're not seeing things..well you are seeing "things" but you know...

I also see a stripper pole, complete with stripper(ish) person (the shame of that stereotype of a woman in a mini skirt sort of grinding on a pole..reprimand me). It's a stripper pole would be unwieldly by any stripper's standard...That girl looks like she's about to fall! Her balance is wrong plus she needs some climbing shoes and some chocks to accomplish this. Most strippers would run at the sight of that thing.

Funny how a discussion of the phallus brings on the denials and shushings, general frowning.

Mark DS..nonsensical? It's pretty darn obvious. I could bring you twenty teenage boys, teenage girls, grown up men and grown up women women who would laugh and KNOW what it was they thought was going on here.

Is it wrong that they bring that baggage to it? Not at all and the discussion of commercial work vs. art is an empty one without a long rest on the subjects of sex, eroticism, phallic symbols. On and on, c'mon, what kind of art are you folks looking at??

A huge part of the basic vocabulary of art, throughout history, has much to do with eroticism.

James knows he hasn't invented a new vocabulary here...you could go online right now and find a bunch of images with a monolith, or phallicky looking object with a figure draped over it in a sexually suggestive way. Car ads, a woman's hand on a beer glass..the list goes on and on and most folks GET this right away...it's been beaten to death in discussion, forever,  confirmed and with an official stamp.

Ray is correct, the vocabulary here, whether James intended it this way or not, is pretty damn obvious. We are not in control of how the audience responds to the work and that is the beauty of the entire thing....

Like Bernd and Hilla Becher suggested in there work...we are ALL the same but we are ALL a little bit different. Some folks saw the phallus in their groupings of water towers etc..phallic, manly structures..who gives a flip and I'm sure they got a giggle from that and smiled a bit. they understood that it was exactly what they were suggesting when they compared industrial designs...it was a human thing in the end and it carried through to the various responses people have to their images.

I choose to think it's expected and in some ways a profound statement on the power of symbolism. If you see a phallus in the big number one with the girls leg clutching up..is there anything wrong with that? The image, IMO, begs for that type of, perhaps, over simplification..This is one of those images that you might see discussed in an edition of Sex and Advertising.
James I'm sure when you guys were shooting this project there was more than one joke made by the various crew members..male and female. If your crew didn't make any jokes about it then   might need to look for another crew.   

The subject might be off topic in the context of this thread but when i saw the image i knew immediately it would pop up...if it hadn't i would have been very surprised and disappointed. Amusing to me how a bunch of folks are resisting this and tucking their shirts in very carefully.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i don't know where you live but nowhere i have called home (some places in europe, NY and LA) would anyone even think twice about this....or see anything more sexual in it then tons of other advertising....every soda bottle has hot girls/guys around it!
you choose to see a stripper on a pole....great! i guess you would completely loose it on a topless beach....or pretty much anywhere in brazil or in spain or italy during summer vacation.....
as freud said...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

i actually walked by the large standup version of this at samys in LA....right next to a rack of photobooks and the covers on display were SCREAMING sex in comparison....even the portrait books.....

my concern would be more that (as someone here mentioned as well) the 1 actually looks computer generated....which is a pity....but like james said....this really would have called for the location (and the bigger budget) and it probably would have looked more "real" in the environment......and probably less phallic and would have saved some people from having near heard attacks.....

a can of soup can be made sexual and a naked body can be made very unsexual....i think that james succeeded in making drawing the line here quite clearly.....

if someone sees a 1 and automatically thinks penis..well...here is 1 for you.....and another 1....
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete JF on August 15, 2008, 04:31:30 pm
Thank you, PSS... please read more carefully before you post.

You're post is correct but totally misdirected..I don't think that English is your first  language so i wont push..just take the time to read and grasp.

I understand what you are saying but you are responding to me as if I disagree..as If i'm saying that this ad is wrong and immoral, over the top and excessive..I actually think its WAY to tame..I think if you're gonna go for something like this then toss in some copy that reads...

__PHASE 1, THE BIGGEST **** IN THE POOL__  

And then drive the image a bit further..it's kind of watered down IMO...

Oh yeah..thanks for all the 1's you gave me at the end of your post..I could always use a few extra.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Rob C on August 15, 2008, 04:51:47 pm
Hell´s bells, guys, we´re just chatting about a picture.

I might have missed something because I can´t view the video - wrong device in my PC - and all that I can see on the monitor is a small and indistinct image not much bigger than a thumbnail. That being the case, perhaps there was something in the video that made more of the shot than the still pic illustrates on its own, but I doubt it. If anything, on my screen, if it has to look phallic, it looks more like a somewhat flaccid member than one all ears and listening hard to what the lass might have to say.

Perhaps it was just an unfortunate and not particularly inspiring concept. Having looked a few times at James´s site, I hardly think any blame hangs from his shoulder - you know, like a necktie, as was posted - but that´s life.

Rob C
Title: James Russell
Post by: Pete JF on August 15, 2008, 05:23:47 pm
Exactly..chatting about a picture.

I'll speak for myself, I'm not blaming James in any way. I'm offering opinion..personal and subjective. And, it is very much process related.

I agree about the -1- .It doesn't really have the type of stature that I would expect from a company who's holding up their finger and saying we're number one! It's sort of chunky and inadequate looking. The shape and look of that number 1 was talked about quite a bit during this shoot, no doubt..perhaps it was done this way to lessen the possibility of the implications were rattling about?? Perhaps no.

See, the whole article was written about the process..the crew, the client, the folks involved..The process of point A to final Image, retouched and mastered for printing.

Decisions like wardrobe, casting, hair, make up, set building, lunch, editing and coming up with the final select, or selects (if this was a composite) were discussed, batted around. Probably some samples shot and changes made.

All along the way..for most high profile commercial jobs, this is the way it happens. You step back sometimes and say to yourself..."I can't believe I just spent the better part of half a day talking about whether that shirt  implies responsible or irresponsible". Strange discussions that only happen on photo sets or film sets.

Sometimes it works out great and everyone is thrilled..other times it doesn't and things get staus quo'd, homogenized and mediocrified, politically corrected. "Ok, lets go with the fro but we need to make sure the wardrobe doesn't suggest a savage or a hooker, climbing a pecker".  

This goes on every step of the way. This whole process of discussion has every sort of bearing on the phallic discussion here..think through it and use some common sense. This point was brought up somewhere along the way during this project...strike me dead with a monolithic #2 if I'm wrong.

Mark DS, you choose to interpret this the way you like..that's fine..

The only challenge I offer is for you to recognize the validity, even in the slightest sense, of the potential connotations here. If you can't you might be much much older than I and still rooting for the Victorians  
Title: James Russell
Post by: James R Russell on August 15, 2008, 08:52:46 pm
I assume the originator of all this silly talk was started by that one person that runs through all of these forums like an arsonist hiding in the bushes, just waiting to burn down anything he can.

That's why I block him, but then someone quotes his mess or gets caught in the contagion and I mistakenly read it.

So, once again to be clear.

It's just an advertising photograph, plain and simple.  It shows the phase #1 brand, it shows a model in custom wardrobe because we could highlight how well the camera holds color, textures and different fabrics, next to skin tones.

Gender was not a thought.  If there was a way to put a male model in 12 different colors and material and not make him look like he belonged in Cirque Du Soleil we may have gone that way.  

Had there been time or budget for multiple models and sets we definitely would have gone that way.  

In fact nothing mentioned in this thread was ever discussed by the client, the agency or my studio.

The people at Phase One, their advertising agency and my creative staff are way above doing anything that is implied by these strange assumptions and would not have time for it anyway.

We are all to busy for that type of thought.

The people at Phase One are proud of their name, proud of the branding of the #1 and if anyone sees anything other than that then their just making it up.  

I wrote the article for LL to give credit to the people I work with and to give some insight into the process of a commercial project.

I guess that is forgotten now that the sad little arsonist has struck again.

Few photographers would share this information.  Plain and simple.

In fact this is the reason most photographers will not share on an open forum, especially one that allows anonymous postings.

I hope Michael closes this thread because it is going nowhere.

JR
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 09:17:11 pm
Quote
i don't know where you live but nowhere i have called home (some places in europe, NY and LA) would anyone even think twice about this....or see anything more sexual in it then tons of other advertising....every soda bottle has hot girls/guys around it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with Pete's response on this point also. To point out the sexual connotation and underlying sexual significance behind an image is not the same as disapproval of sex as a subject for art or advertising.

You are quite right that such images with obvious sexual connotations are commomplace nowadays and it's true that many viewers do not think twice about it.

However, the photographer taking the shot has to think twice about such matters, if he knows what he's doing. Likewise, anyone commenting on an image should (hopefully) think twice, otherwise the comment is likely to be very superficial, along the lines of, 'Nice! Great shot! Lovely! Neat!' etc.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 09:27:09 pm
Quote
I hope Michael closes this thread because it is going nowhere.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think what you mean, James, is that the thread is not going your way.

That you would prefer a thread to be closed down because it's not going your way, is an interesting reflection on you.
Title: James Russell
Post by: witz on August 15, 2008, 09:28:38 pm
Even if I think long and hard about it, I can't think of anything wrong with the image. Does it do it's job? Yes. Does it complete the requirement of branding and quality? Yes. Does it make me want a new back? Yes. Would I be proud of the image if I had shot it? Yes.

Good work James.
Good work phaseone.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 09:55:26 pm
Quote
Even if I think long and hard about it, I can't think of anything wrong with the image. Does it do it's job? Yes. Does it complete the requirement of branding and quality? Yes. Does it make me want a new back? Yes. Would I be proud of the image if I had shot it? Yes.

Good work James.
Good work phaseone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's certainly eye-catching, and that's an essential ingredient of a good advertisement. People who have never heard of Phase One, or who have only vaguely heard of Phase One, might be tempted to check out what Phase have to offer.

Those who are in the market for a DB will likely already be aware of Phase One, and such an advertisement will probably not affect their decision one way or another.

I would have thought an image with a greater emphasis on high tech qualities and associations would have been more appropriate, but that's not James' fault. He was given a brief. The concept for the ad was from Phase, so I believe.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2008, 10:01:33 pm
Quote
I might have missed something because I can´t view the video - wrong device in my PC - and all that I can see on the monitor is a small and indistinct image not much bigger than a thumbnail. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Same here. After downloading the video file, I just got an unresponsive QuickTime logo in the centre of the screen.
Title: James Russell
Post by: Gordon Buck on August 15, 2008, 10:52:05 pm
Oh man, Ray, don't you ever tire of the symbolism?
Title: James Russell
Post by: michael on August 15, 2008, 11:05:32 pm
Say goodnight Gracie.

Michael