Pages: 1 ... 211 212 [213] 214 215 ... 220   Go Down

Author Topic: Recent Professional Works  (Read 1235719 times)

ChristopherBarrett

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4240 on: January 22, 2013, 07:31:05 PM »

from the latest short film we just wrapped yesterday...



Several more here...

The story is, uh... interesting.

:)

CB
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1555
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4241 on: January 22, 2013, 07:45:00 PM »

Quote
It's a bit different from what you might be used to; I try to shoot what is the architect's choices and also what I like in architecture.

Isn't it always that way? Always has been for me.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM
LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4242 on: January 23, 2013, 05:11:25 AM »

Rob, one word keeps coming to my mind looking at your photographs: organic. That is to say, all natural, sea, sand, sky and a girl. No "pesticides" in the form of a production crew and plastic post-processing. And no silicone (I presume). Nature at its best.



Mr Smith, Slobodan.

Thanks, yes, all natural and fake-free! There's something about plastic tits that I find to be a total turn-off. I neither have the slightest wish to see them nor do they raise a glimmer of interest in my psyche - nor anywhere else, though that might be partly due to beta-blockers or age - not sure. But I am sure that they make me sad. Sad for the person who thought she needed the process, and if she did, then perhaps a poor career-choice was made?

That cosmetic surgery is a huge benefit to those who have suffered natural or medical disaster is something totally different, and I applaud the efforts of those involved in rebuilding some form of mormal life for such victims. Power to them.

The natural look of models was always there, for everyone, up until some few years ago, really. Of course makeup was used and often overused in the past, and badly applied straight lines of terribly contrasting blusher looked damned stupid even then; but despite all the makeup, girls still managed to look human, and thatís a vanishing blessing. But, itís probably not even makeup thatís the main difference today, and it needs others still working to explain the truth, but my take is that itís all down to overenthusiastic embracing of whatís digitally possible: the process has taken over from the intended, subtle improvement some skins need in some areas.

If you dig back into the ancient chronicles of fashion (okay, old fashion mags, but chronicles gives it some added class, no?), look at Jean Shrimpton, Twiggy, Penelope Tree, Marie Helvin et al. and thereís all the makeup you need, plus, of course, the essential humanity that still gives it all credibility. And for me thatís key: maximum impact but believable. Itís why those girls became icons: it was about them and not what was done to their pictures. (Yes, I know Vogue also retouched back thenÖ a certain Mr Boxall did splendid work. But he knew where to stop!)

And Playboy was no different: the editorials were beautiful  but the centrefolds the weakest links in the chain: all over-production, over-lighting, over-retouching and obviously so. And in those days, when I still subscribed, pre-PS!

Riaan posted a response to a website Iíd linked for the benefit of anyone who enjoys photography, where he remarks that he understands what Iíve been saying for ages, which is exactly what a friend of his also declares: without the human element, landscape doesnít do it for everyone (meaning, in my case, myself).

http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com

Thereís a dramatioc shot of a brooding sky, sea, log, and a girl. Subtract the girl and what do you got, as they say on tv? I find it impossible to escape that trap. Ever.

So maybe thatís where the Ďorganicí concept comes from, but I have to thank you for the definition as applied to what I did: Iíd never thought of it like that, but now that youíve mentioned it, itís become all so clear to me, and why I always looked for non-studio solutions to photographic challenges/ assignment whenever I could. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

Rob C

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • Website
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4243 on: January 23, 2013, 05:21:04 AM »

Rob, yet another lovely shot.

I do worry that you're posting images without imbedded metadata - potential orphan works. Drop me a line if you need help with the metadata.
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4244 on: January 23, 2013, 06:01:58 AM »

This forum needs an orphan works thread. I think people need to be made aware of what the (U.K.) government has planned for intellectual property/photography.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2226121/proposed-uk-copyright-changes-spark-worldwide-protests

http://stop43.org/

Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • Website
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4246 on: January 23, 2013, 06:33:27 AM »

Thanks, that missed my radar.
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • Website
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4247 on: January 23, 2013, 07:34:41 AM »

from the latest short film we just wrapped yesterday...



Several more here...

Chris, really good to see some humanity here on RPW.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4248 on: January 23, 2013, 09:27:40 AM »

Rob, yet another lovely shot.

I do worry that you're posting images without imbedded metadata - potential orphan works. Drop me a line if you need help with the metadata.

PM sent!

Rob C

P.S. I've tried to attach Metadata to this jpeg: has it come through with it? Outwith Nikon's NX2 I have no idea how to check, beyond right-clicking on the image...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 08:34:08 AM by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • Website
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4249 on: January 23, 2013, 12:32:10 PM »

Rob, yes, title, author and copyright metadata all embedded.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4250 on: January 23, 2013, 02:17:18 PM »

Rob, yes, title, author and copyright metadata all embedded.


Thanks for that, but from seeimg this on LuLa, as here and now, how can you tell? If I right-click and go to properties I just get size and date. Does the image have to be in Photoshop for the Metadata to be seen?

Rob C

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • Website
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4251 on: January 23, 2013, 02:50:37 PM »

Does the image have to be in Photoshop for the Metadata to be seen?

Rob, yes, as I said in my PM, you need to open the image in Photoshop and then go to File and then File Info.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4252 on: January 23, 2013, 06:26:27 PM »

Rob, yes, as I said in my PM, you need to open the image in Photoshop and then go to File and then File Info.

Oh - right, thanks, Keith.

Rob C

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4253 on: January 24, 2013, 04:55:24 AM »

Chris,

Nice screen grabs.  Looks like Wes Andersons, Moonrise Kingdom.

________________________





BC
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 11:00:27 AM by bcooter »
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4254 on: January 24, 2013, 05:35:21 AM »

He's not a cyclist. Too much upper body and an overdeveloped six-pack   ::)
Hairy legs too.
Logged

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 617
    • H.Bowman
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4255 on: January 24, 2013, 06:14:21 AM »


Thanks for that, but from seeimg this on LuLa, as here and now, how can you tell? If I right-click and go to properties I just get size and date. Does the image have to be in Photoshop for the Metadata to be seen?

Rob C

Hello Rob,

To answer your question, not really.

If you use Firefox, you should try this add-on : https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/fxif/

After that, all exif can be available via you browser only via a right click :)
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4256 on: January 24, 2013, 09:08:25 AM »

Hello Rob,

To answer your question, not really.

If you use Firefox, you should try this add-on : https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/fxif/

After that, all exif can be available via you browser only via a right click :)




Thanks, I currently use Explorer and did download Firefox once, I think, as well as Chrome or something that sounds similar; wasn't too thrilled though, so reverted to the Windows standard...

Ciao -

Rob C

P.S. As a thought: if even embedded info. can be removed at the tickle of a mouse, what's really the point? I always add a copyright line within my published shots - that can be removed easily too, so where the advantage of one removable device against another? Perhaps the real solutiuon is as with those anti-copying devices built into new recorders etc: all software, PS included, should be designed not to allow the stripping away of EXIF/Meta stuff.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 09:18:22 AM by Rob C »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13716
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4257 on: January 24, 2013, 09:19:54 AM »

Sorry to have caused this section to drift off-topic with my personal problems!

;-)

Rob C

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8789
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4258 on: January 24, 2013, 09:50:41 AM »

Sorry to have caused this section to drift off-topic with my personal problems!

I would say this section drifted into "anything goes" as of recently, by apparently "popular demand." It's neither predominantly medium format, nor professional, nor recent works  anymore anyway.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • Website
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4259 on: January 24, 2013, 10:13:47 AM »

P.S. As a thought: if even embedded info. can be removed at the tickle of a mouse, what's really the point?

The metadata means that folk can identify the owner/copright holder; this would include potential clients.

I and - and many others - have been able to see that metadata, i.e. ownership and copyright info, has been deliberately removed. With this knowledge we've been able to take the transgessors to the cleaners.

If you - or anyone else - post images without at least the copyright details embedded in the file you are in effect creating orphan works of your own works. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 211 212 [213] 214 215 ... 220   Go Up