Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Gilles Bensimon  (Read 7242 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Gilles Bensimon
« on: December 25, 2010, 03:40:55 pm »

Now and again one runs across something that stops one short: it just happened for me here:

http://www.wschupfer.com

in the Gilles Bensimon file, Beauty gallery, image 36.

Seen alone, I'm not sure if I'd have said Feurer - probably would have, and been mistaken (again). Whatever, it represents what I see as the very epitome of femininity on/in camera. I wish I'd fathered that shot.

For somebody who has crossed so many decades in the top ranks, it's surprising how Bensimon has remained sort of relatively invisible; must have worked damned hard to retain that lowered profile since he's been so very prolific! I think that, overall, what endears him to me is that he has managed to remain true to a style that simply doesn't need masses of retouching and overlighting and all the usual distracting excesses one sees around... much as Lindbergh seems to do things, but in quite different style.

Rob C

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Gilles Bensimon
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2010, 05:36:25 pm »

Thanks for the link Rob.

Yeah, very little retouching, all lights and tradition.

But god, I'm fed-up of those flash website. It sort of freeze and navigation is not fast.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Gilles Bensimon
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2011, 03:18:31 pm »

The same link takes you to Ralph Gibson; his own website is given there too:

http://www.ralphgibson.com

I found the site quite difficult to make function properly - it seemed to have a dislike for allowing choice of sub-galleries.

What do people make of the work of Mr Gibson? I had always had a less than excited feeling about him, then I looked very closely at the site, and I am now somewhat confused. I think there is a very strong handwriting, but I can't decide if I really like it or not. My opinion swings quite violently from one extreme to the other! Maybe that's the idea.

Strong contrast works for some things, but it seems to be applied to everything; I wonder if that's a wise thing? However, it sure hasn't done him any harm professionally, so perhaps I've answered my own question. Yet, what would be his outlet? I can understand buying a book or two, but never a print for the wall; too damned depressing - suicide comes to mind as a danger!

Rob C

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Gilles Bensimon
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2011, 06:07:25 pm »

I have Ralph's book Tropism and yes some of the images can be depressing. There are however a lot of abstract and close up images that are quite interesting.

I particularly like his series Quadrants. The shots were taken a metre away from the subject with a 50mm lens. His images ended up being tight crops leaving the viewer to fill in the missing pieces which can be very intriguing.

Ralph is into sequencing images which is what I have always been interested in. My web site has been organised in that manner with virtual exhibitions in sequences of 15 images.

I think that his value to other photographers is what you can learn from his from his vision and approach to photography. It is not necessary to like his images to gain knowledge of the process of photography.

A quote from the book:

"I am often unsure about my works but have come to recognize this as a good sign… as though the image is in advance of my ability to immediately understand it."

He's definitely not into creating the perfect image.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: Gilles Bensimon
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2011, 09:45:24 am »

Yes you're right I would have said that was Fuerer. Mainly because the of the tele.

Stunning image, simple. Beautiful light and use of it.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Gilles Bensimon
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2011, 04:43:59 am »

Yes you're right I would have said that was Fuerer. Mainly because the of the tele.

Stunning image, simple. Beautiful light and use of it.


And on the face of it, so simple to produce, except that it's not.

Rob C
Pages: [1]   Go Up