Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Rob C on October 18, 2010, 02:15:23 pm

Title: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 18, 2010, 02:15:23 pm
Does everyone know this place?

http://www.photoicon.com/modern_masters/44/

Rob C

EDIT: Snowdon's shot of Helem Mirren must be one of the sexiest ever. I've never forgotten it.


Whilst I'm at it:

http://www.newindustryarts.com

Have a look at the Bruno Aveillan reel for starters...
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: fredjeang on October 18, 2010, 04:00:58 pm
Brilliant!!

Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 29, 2010, 04:47:44 pm
Another one you may enjoy, Fred:

http://www.antoineverglas.com

The 'film' bit is interesting too; Karolina and Georgina Chapman.... what faces! You could spend all day with one lens and one location and not run out of material. No wonder they make so much.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: fredjeang on October 29, 2010, 05:56:46 pm
Very good works Rob. Really enjoyed this photographer. He is in the same spirit as your photography I think.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2010, 05:07:42 am
Very good works Rob. Really enjoyed this photographer. He is in the same spirit as your photography I think.



Fred, there's a lot to be said for your last sentence.

I'm not meaning that I am in his league, of course, what I mean is that by the very fact that I have collected so many photographer sites it becomes possible to see a consistency in 'look' that they all share. Whilst they do, of course, also differ, there is an undercurrent of feeling that's mutual. Were that not so, then I would not have been attracted to putting them into my set of Favourites. There are a zillion photographer sites out there and there is a reason that some are held and most rejected, never to be looked at again.

Rapport. (Again, you French have a word that just fits perfectly.)

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: fredjeang on October 30, 2010, 09:30:44 am
Yes rapport, o avoir rapport avec

Well, I think it has a lot to do with the presentation more than any other thing. What I always missed in your website are a little bigger pictures, specially with the nudes and women's shots.
I know that you did that because of copyrights but IMO a hundred and fifty pixels more of height would dramatically change the visual experience of your images.
I remember other forum members saying the same.
Now that weebly has implemented a non flash slide-show it's worth trying when you have time to loose.
You could just give it a try on one or two pics and see what happens.
Just my 1euro opinion.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: RSL on October 30, 2010, 10:48:05 am
Ah yes... Where would we be without sex? Probably at the bottom of the ocean reproducing through mitosis.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2010, 12:59:10 pm
Yes rapport, o avoir rapport avec

Well, I think it has a lot to do with the presentation more than any other thing. What I always missed in your website are a little bigger pictures, specially with the nudes and women's shots.
I know that you did that because of copyrights but IMO a hundred and fifty pixels more of height would dramatically change the visual experience of your images.
I remember other forum members saying the same.
Now that weebly has implemented a non flash slide-show it's worth trying when you have time to loose.
You could just give it a try on one or two pics and see what happens.
Just my 1euro opinion.

Cheers.



Hey, Fred, a euro is a euro!

I can try going a bit larger, then, with the Biscuit Tin stuff as more comes along; there, it's not as deadly a deal.

Actually, at the moment, it's ants. I watered the pots as well as those of my absent neighbour and some got on my sleeves and, consequently, onto my head, where they hide... outside, I think. I kill them as I find them.

Try this one:

http://www.diegofuga.com

I think you'll like him.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: fredjeang on October 30, 2010, 01:43:13 pm
Yep, another good link. Thanks Rob.
Very good mastering of post prod, interesting overall approach. Creative guy!
Added in favorite.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2010, 05:42:47 pm
Yep, another good link. Thanks Rob.
Very good mastering of post prod, interesting overall approach. Creative guy!
Added in favorite.



Okay - I don't know if you're clued up about the Brit scene of the 60s - but this guy is one of two dead members of the Terrible Three, which consisted of Bailey, Donovan and Duffy. Guess which this one is. (Joke.) Unfortunately, he lost most of his stuff in a self-inflicted bonfire of the vanities, when he destroyed his material in the garden in a bonfire. I know how he felt later on... His Bardot is one of the best I've seen anywhere - thank God it survived.

http://www.duffyphotographer.com

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: fredjeang on October 31, 2010, 04:14:50 am
Rob, there's something wrong. Each time I watch those masters I always have the same feeling over and over again: their images were much more powerfull than what I see today. Today I see extremely well acheived imagery but flat compared to what those guys where doing. It happens to me each time. Is it digital tech? Is it our politically correct society? Can't answer to that.
You pointed also the models and it's the same.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 31, 2010, 05:41:41 am
Rob, there's something wrong. Each time I watch those masters I always have the same feeling over and over again: their images were much more powerfull than what I see today. Today I see extremely well acheived imagery but flat compared to what those guys where doing. It happens to me each time. Is it digital tech? Is it our politically correct society? Can't answer to that.
You pointed also the models and it's the same. Nowdays models are just boring compare to the "golden age figures".

Yesterday I was watching with great interest and surprise interviews of french actors like Lino Ventura etc...it was another story, and I think the imagery reflected that force that lacks so much today in many aspects and not only photography. Who can be at the height of an Ava Gardner now? Madona? She's a happy virgin in comparaison.

What the hell have we all lost in the path?

My italics.

Short answer? Nearly everything. But mostly, I think, sophistication. Now we have street cred as a substitute.

And we are losing species by the dozen all the time.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on October 31, 2010, 03:30:56 pm
To cheer you up, Fred.

http://www.gregkadelstudios.com

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Patricia Sheley on October 31, 2010, 06:01:22 pm
Minotaur-Ex!!!!   I'm enthralled....and  love the way it moved through from bw to an almost tritone cyanotype ....( the wolves took me back to Kurosawa...) thank you for this treat... p.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: feppe on October 31, 2010, 06:58:02 pm
Rob, there's something wrong. Each time I watch those masters I always have the same feeling over and over again: their images were much more powerfull than what I see today. Today I see extremely well acheived imagery but flat compared to what those guys where doing. It happens to me each time. Is it digital tech? Is it our politically correct society? Can't answer to that.
You pointed also the models and it's the same. Nowdays models are just boring compare to the "golden age figures".

Yesterday I was watching with great interest and surprise interviews of french actors like Lino Ventura etc...it was another story, and I think the imagery reflected that force that lacks so much today in many aspects and not only photography. Who can be at the height of an Ava Gardner now? Madona? She's a happy virgin in comparaison.

What the hell have we all lost in the path?

99% of everything is shit (quote from numerous people), but we tend to forget all but the remaining 1% - so when we're watching movies like Casablanca, we forget that it was one of literally tens of similar movies produced just that year alone, and the only one we remember. I think it was Lauren Bacall who said that everything just clicked with that production.

Same goes for models and actors, we forget the bad ones - hell, we don't even get to see them since the bad movies are not even in circulation anymore, unless they're Plan 9 From Outer Space bad.

I guarantee that 50 years from now people reminisce about Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney and Johnny Depp with the same reverence as we do about Ava Gardner, Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant and Bogie. I'd go as far as say that the people in the former list are already at their level - different eras and different styles, of course.

Disappointment in today's culture (and youth) is as old as history itself. It is very difficult to have a bird's eye view of today's culture as we live in it. We will only fully appreciate it when time fades the glaring mistakes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299930/) and allows the casablancas of today (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139654/) to really shine.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 01, 2010, 05:30:10 am
Minotaur-Ex!!!!   I'm enthralled....and  love the way it moved through from bw to an almost tritone cyanotype ....( the wolves took me back to Kurosawa...) thank you for this treat... p.




Nice to see folks enjoy it; sometimes you find these sites and before you know it, the night has turned into dawn. Not often, but enough to encourage one to hope and dream. What else is there?

The 'wolves' almost had me in tears at the end.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 01, 2010, 05:39:23 am
I guarantee that 50 years from now people reminisce about Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney and Johnny Depp with the same reverence as we do about Ava Gardner, Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant and Bogie. I'd go as far as say that the people in the former list are already at their level - different eras and different styles, of course.

Disappointment in today's culture (and youth) is as old as history itself. It is very difficult to have a bird's eye view of today's culture as we live in it. We will only fully appreciate it when time fades the glaring mistakes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299930/) and allows the casablancas of today (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139654/) to really shine.


You might be right, but I don't think so.

To tell the truth, I can't even draw up a mental picture of Scarlett even though I know about her and even about some of her perfume ads, quite distinct and beyond the movies. Jolie? Again, forgotten in the bat of an eye or a swollen lip. It may be a generation thing, but if anything, the immediacy of these people has robbed them of the myth, and it's the myths that travel well through time. How long has Elvis been gone? Yet, even those not then born know about him and the sound; ditto Chuck Berry who is still with us. And that's just pop culture. We have no Shakespeares any more; just Pulp Fictionists.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Patricia Sheley on November 01, 2010, 08:35:27 am
"The 'wolves' almost had me in tears at the end."

Rob...the eye contact and shoulder set of the wolves toward the end was the instant onset of tears for for me...frame by frame raw power...cathartic sobs of nature...
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 01, 2010, 10:48:54 am
"The 'wolves' almost had me in tears at the end."

Rob...the eye contact and shoulder set of the wolves toward the end was the instant onset of tears for for me...frame by frame raw power...cathartic sobs of nature...


I have absolutely no idea how they managed to shoot that stuff; it made me realise just how little I know about photography at that level. If my life depended upon it I couldn't even begin to figure out a 'how to'.

Glad you enjoyed it. A good weep is part of being human, whoever or whatever you are.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: feppe on November 01, 2010, 03:32:14 pm
You might be right, but I don't think so.

To tell the truth, I can't even draw up a mental picture of Scarlett even though I know about her and even about some of her perfume ads, quite distinct and beyond the movies. Jolie? Again, forgotten in the bat of an eye or a swollen lip. It may be a generation thing, but if anything, the immediacy of these people has robbed them of the myth, and it's the myths that travel well through time. How long has Elvis been gone? Yet, even those not then born know about him and the sound; ditto Chuck Berry who is still with us. And that's just pop culture. We have no Shakespeares any more; just Pulp Fictionists.

Rob, you'll soon take the crown from Mr Schewe as the official forum curmudgeon since he seems to have calmed down :P

This is obviously not the forum for this, but it sounds like you're not a film buff. If you were, you'd definitely heard and would remember both of those women from their numerous high-profile movies, as well as some of the less-well known gems they've been in. Anyway, not the point.

One thing that does play an important role in all this is that entertainment is more fragmented than in the past. There are more ways to spend our time and money on during our free time, so niches - such as horror movies, 1st person shooter games, or snowboarding - thrive. Each of these niches have their own celebrities, and some people will only be familiar with their own niche's celebs. That's partly to blame for the lack of truly universal worldwide celebs these days, although the people I listed come close, along with a handful of "super"models from the 90s known by their first name (Christy, Cindy, Tyra, Naomi in that order :) ), and a few sports personas who I couldn't care less about.

As for modern Shakespeares, writers and directors such as Kubrick, Arthur Miller and Philip K. Dick are already studied widely in world's universities. Obviously they haven't reached the same level of universal praise as Shakespeare. Yet.

We'll always have celebs from days gone by who are sooo much better than what we have today, or oh-the-shock-and-horror what the kids today follow. Not to mention cameras, motorcycles, etc.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 02, 2010, 05:37:14 am
Rob, you'll soon take the crown from Mr Schewe as the official forum curmudgeon since he seems to have calmed down :P

This is obviously not the forum for this, but it sounds like you're not a film buff. If you were, you'd definitely heard and would remember both of those women from their numerous high-profile movies, as well as some of the less-well known gems they've been in. Anyway, not the point.

One thing that does play an important role in all this is that entertainment is more fragmented than in the past. There are more ways to spend our time and money on during our free time, so niches - such as horror movies, 1st person shooter games, or snowboarding - thrive. Each of these niches have their own celebrities, and some people will only be familiar with their own niche's celebs. That's partly to blame for the lack of truly universal worldwide celebs these days, although the people I listed come close, along with a handful of "super"models from the 90s known by their first name (Christy, Cindy, Tyra, Naomi in that order :) ), and a few sports personas who I couldn't care less about.

As for modern Shakespeares, writers and directors such as Kubrick, Arthur Miller and Philip K. Dick are already studied widely in world's universities. Obviously they haven't reached the same level of universal praise as Shakespeare. Yet.

We'll always have celebs from days gone by who are sooo much better than what we have today, or oh-the-shock-and-horror what the kids today follow. Not to mention cameras, motorcycles, etc.

feppe

In general, I think you have really agreed with both Fred and me: the fragmentation of the celeb world into minor genres has indeed weakened it, diluted it into a much less strong 'brand' for each individual celeb.

Film buff. Nope, not any more. We even went as far as to cancel our subscription to the Movie Channel... it was almost unwatchable to both of us. Frankly, I spend more time here than watching any tv; movies - you would have to drag me to a cinema today; I used to live in them almost, at one time.

Curmudgeons usually arrive from a broad experience of the alternatives; can I plead that case? Please?

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on November 02, 2010, 03:28:50 pm
Thank you for posting these links Rob. Man oh man the Hellen Mirren photo really talks ( in loud voices) to me. 
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 02, 2010, 03:57:59 pm
Thank you for posting these links Rob. Man oh man the Hellen Mirren photo really talks ( in loud voices) to me. 


I know, I have never forgotten it.

It proves several different things, amongst which: a woman does not have to be beautiful to be extremely attractive; sex appeal comes not only from flesh but from facial expression; that expression must be the single most important factor in the combination.

There seems to be no doubt at all that she is a woman in complete accord with herself; she just knows the effect that she is having.

Wish I'd shot that picture!

Rob C

Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Riaan van Wyk on November 02, 2010, 04:40:15 pm
..a woman does not have to be beautiful to be extremely attractive; sex appeal comes not only from flesh but from facial expression; that expression must be the single most important factor in the combination.
There seems to be no doubt at all that she is a woman in complete accord with herself; she just knows the effect that she is having.

Rob C

So, so true Rob. Having been involved with one of them, may I quote Kris Kristofferson from a song called Me and Bobby McGee: "I'd give all of my tomorrows for a single yesterday "

Maybe that is why it touched me so deeply. But I'm being silly I guess.
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 02, 2010, 06:32:21 pm
So, so true Rob. Having been involved with one of them, may I quote Kris Kristofferson from a song called Me and Bobby McGee: "I'd give all of my tomorrows for a single yesterday "

Maybe that is why it touched me so deeply. But I'm being silly I guess.



Silly? I lost mine two years ago on the 6th of this month... you can't imagine the number of times I've thought that; how about every ten minutes?

In a perfect world, you'd finally check out together, just as always, before the world went sour.

Rob C
Title: Re: Reference Site
Post by: Rob C on November 09, 2010, 12:07:25 pm
I've just stumbled onto a 'Making Of' for Nina Ricci Parfum; can't get the link to work, but I imagine that if you go to the Nina R website it won't be hard next step to find it. In fact, it opens right onto it.

Rob C