Honoring Women in Photography

[Ray]

I'm a bit concerned about the following image in the article, "Honoring Women in Photography".

The composition is certainly very nice, but the environment is totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress which assumes a type of shoe appropriate to the dress but inappropriate for the environment..

If she was airlifted to the scene by helicopter, that would explain the situation. Unfortunately, I can't read the text because I've not subscribed to the site (on principle). Was she helicoptered to that site? If so, it's not a particularly impressive achievement for women, but a good shot for the photographer.

[Schewe]

Well, had you actually subscribed to read the story you would have found that the photographer was the model. Michele Sons won the trip to Antarctica...one of her "things" is to dress up and shoot self portraits in wild places. So your concern for her "safety" is nice but unneeded...posting on the forums without reading the entire article is pretty infantile and prone to stepping on one's member...just sayin'

[Ray]

Well, had you actually subscribed to read the story you would have found that the photographer was the model. Michele Sons won the trip to Antarctica...one of her "things" is to dress up and shoot self portraits in wild places. So your concern for her "safety" is nice but unneeded...posting on the forums without reading the entire article is pretty infantile and prone to stepping on one's member...just sayin'

Do you mean she placed her camera on a tripod some distance away, then pressed the remote control button in her hand, whilst posing?

Whatever, the image is incongruous in the sense that a woman dressed as she is, in that environment, creates an artificial impression and is a bit ridiculous.

I'm commenting purely on the image. That I'm deprived of viewing the text is of secondary importance.

[Ray]

Oops! I didn't notice there was already a thread started by John Camp. Sorry for the duplication. My point still stands, though.

[LesPalenik]

Not only it looks artificial, but posing in a low-cut dress with exposed shoulders in that cold place could be also a health hazard.  It may even void the health insurance.
A seal fur coat would be more appropriate.

[stamper]

I am scratching my head wondering why this image was commented on? Unless she was forced to pose there what is the problem? Health and safety issues? If not why worry?

[tnargs]

I'm a bit concerned about the following image in the article, "Honoring Women in Photography".

The composition is certainly very nice, but the environment is totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress which assumes a type of shoe appropriate to the dress but inappropriate for the environment..

If she was airlifted to the scene by helicopter, that would explain the situation. Unfortunately, I can't read the text because I've not subscribed to the site (on principle). Was she helicoptered to that site? If so, it's not a particularly impressive achievement for women, but a good shot for the photographer.

What on earth are you trying to say?

[Ray]

What on earth are you trying to say?

Perhaps I'm saying this is 'just a symbolism to adorn and enrich' as well as 'create an artificial sense of profundity'. 

[darr]

"Ever since I started my formal education in photography, I have had a tremendous respect for women photographers.  Men dominated the field in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s but that has changed drastically since then.  With the advent of the digital camera, photography became a lot easier for anyone with a desire to take good pictures."

This is a most chauvinistic statement. This honors women? I am insulted and will stop there.
This site is ran by a bunch of old men; very old men.

No more funds from me.

[Ray]

It would be so refreshing to see more women contributors here.

Perhaps common sense would then prevail?

Of course! Please rise up ladies and defend yourselves. 

[stamper]

Ray I think you are skating on very thin ice? If memory serves me right this is the third or fourth time that you have disparaged Kevin? You state that on principle you won't subscribe to the main site but you feel free to attack one of the contributors who happens to be a co-owner. What is your agenda?

[Kevin Raber]

Ray, everyone has an opinion and you usually have them and have since I first started at Luminous-Landscape. I am not sure what grounds of principle you are referring to?  We are adding new subscribers everyday and that fee give you access to the whole site and all the videos.  Frankly, I don't know how you can comment on an image or an article without being a subscriber.  I have  business to run.  Expenses and such to be paid and we made a business decision months ago to make the site a membership site.  A dollar a month, is that really going to hurt?  When you are a subscriber please feel free to comment as you wish.

As far as the image goes or any images you are entitled to your opinion but if you read the story about this particular women and what she is trying to do (links in the article) you'd understand. 

[Ray]

Ray I think you are skating on very thin ice? If memory serves me right this is the third or fourth time that you have disparaged Kevin? You state that on principle you won't subscribe to the main site but you feel free to attack one of the contributors who happens to be a co-owner. What is your agenda?

I'm amazed, Stamper, that you seem unable to distinguish between a critique of an image and an ad hominem attack. 

[Ray]

As far as the image goes or any images you are entitled to your opinion but if you read the story about this particular women and what she is trying to do (links in the article) you'd understand.

Kevin,
I believe images should stand on their own. I don't subscribe to the site because I don't make any money from my photography, and am not really interested in making money, which is a separate activity from my enjoyment of taking and processing photos. I pay a monthly fee for the use of Photoshop and that's enough. Sorry! However, I might change my mind if the spirit moves me. 

[stamper]

I'm amazed, Stamper, that you seem unable to distinguish between a critique of an image and an ad hominem attack. 

Your idea of a critique is certainly different from mine.

[stamper]

Kevin,
I believe images should stand on their own. I don't subscribe to the site because I don't make any money from my photography, and am not really interested in making money, which is a separate activity from my enjoyment of taking and processing photos. I pay a monthly fee for the use of Photoshop and that's enough. Sorry! However, I might change my mind if the spirit moves me. 

A strange explanation. Most members probably don't make money from photography but are willing to pay the subscription

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

.... No more funds from me.

It would be great if that would be followed by no more (silly) comments

[Jim Pascoe]

I'm a bit concerned about the following image in the article, "Honoring Women in Photography".

The composition is certainly very nice, but the environment is totally inappropriate for a woman in such a dress which assumes a type of shoe appropriate to the dress but inappropriate for the environment..

If she was airlifted to the scene by helicopter, that would explain the situation. Unfortunately, I can't read the text because I've not subscribed to the site (on principle). Was she helicoptered to that site? If so, it's not a particularly impressive achievement for women, but a good shot for the photographer.

Ray - I can hardly believe what you are saying.  I too have not read the article yet, so I am commenting purely on the image, like you.  What is the problem - why mention the shoes she is possibly wearing?  If she has any sense I expect she has a pair of boots on - or climbing shoes.  So what?  The fact the picture does not make sense to you is fine.  Have you never seen photographers juxtaposing unusual subjects before.  And in any case, many very famous pictures would make no sense without an accompanying background story.  As it stands - I don't rate the picture as being anything special - but then I have yet to read the text.  If it is one picture in a series then it is important to see the complete set to understand it.

Jim

[Ray]

Ray - I can hardly believe what you are saying.  I too have not read the article yet, so I am commenting purely on the image, like you.  What is the problem - why mention the shoes she is possibly wearing?  If she has any sense I expect she has a pair of boots on - or climbing shoes.  So what?  The fact the picture does not make sense to you is fine.  Have you never seen photographers juxtaposing unusual subjects before.  And in any case, many very famous pictures would make no sense without an accompanying background story.  As it stands - I don't rate the picture as being anything special - but then I have yet to read the text.  If it is one picture in a series then it is important to see the complete set to understand it.

Jim

Jim,
My honest critique is probably based upon the fact that I'm such a protective and compassionate person as regards women, and feel that this lady is exposing herself to possible accidents in such an environment.

From personal experience I've noticed that women frequently tend to dress impractically and wear inappropriate shoes for the environment. This image seems to highlight that problem. Okay! 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, dear! Someone better hurry and notify Howard Schatz that Ray is coming after him next