Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Close to the Square  (Read 1584 times)

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Close to the Square
« on: September 15, 2012, 05:08:41 pm »

This is recent work on old work.

Bruce
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2012, 12:44:00 pm »

Bruce, Looks as if your camera is overdue for a CLA.

But on a more serious note, it's interesting stuff, but closer to painting than to photography. You probably ought to attach an "artist's statement."
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2012, 04:21:07 pm »

Bruce, Looks as if your camera is overdue for a CLA.

But on a more serious note, it's interesting stuff, but closer to painting than to photography. You probably ought to attach an "artist's statement."

This shot must be from the Minolta CLE I dropped rather than the Leica, I was using back then.  I liked photography, but I didn't print; I shot slides to trace to make rather unsuccessful paintings on paper.  I kept seeing the photos in my head when I looked at the paintings, but other people didn't seem to.  One of nine parts to the no-longer extant painting is attached.  Back then, I also photographed the painting neatly assembled, with much glare on its glossy wrinkles.  That photo as well as the nine somewhat foreshortened parts [the black wedges on the side of the attached are not part of it] are in this stew with the original photo layered.  I have tried to balance the painting against the photo so that they both have their say.  PhotoShop seems to have the loudest voice, however.   The meaning of this work of art is:  Why is that women walking down the street one of the best reasons to believe I can find?

Bruce

 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 09:15:59 pm by Bruce Cox »
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2012, 07:40:42 pm »

I'd kinda like to see the underlying photograph, unaltered. It looks like it might have some of The Stuff.
Logged

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2012, 08:47:16 pm »

Here is the scan I used.

Bruce
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2012, 01:06:59 am »

Interesting... not really my style, but intriguing nonetheless!

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2012, 04:15:04 am »

I think the photograph is better the more you leave it alone! Well, there's probably some stuff I would tweak, but it's definitely got some of the right stuff in it. I like the guy's face, expression, etc.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2012, 04:46:23 am »

This shot must be from the Minolta CLE I dropped rather than the Leica, I was using back then.  I liked photography, but I didn't print; I shot slides to trace to make rather unsuccessful paintings on paper.  I kept seeing the photos in my head when I looked at the paintings, but other people didn't seem to.  One of nine parts to the no-longer extant painting is attached.  Back then, I also photographed the painting neatly assembled, with much glare on its glossy wrinkles.  That photo as well as the nine somewhat foreshortened parts [the black wedges on the side of the attached are not part of it] are in this stew with the original photo layered.  I have tried to balance the painting against the photo so that they both have their say.  PhotoShop seems to have the loudest voice, however.   The meaning of this work of art is:  Why is that women walking down the street one of the best reasons to believe I can find?Bruce

P.S. In the attached I have blended another day's photoshoping fifty-fifty with the first of these postings and likely as importantly did not sharpened this one.



Simple: it is the best reason for spiritual belief; we can see the proof of it everyday, even if some proofs are more pleasing than others. Find the right one and your life can't be better, regardless of what else Life may throw your way. Lose it, and the rest is crap.

Rob C

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2012, 09:25:41 am »

I think the photograph is better the more you leave it alone! Well, there's probably some stuff I would tweak, but it's definitely got some of the right stuff in it. I like the guy's face, expression, etc.


He wasn't my style.

Bruce
Logged

Riaan van Wyk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 812
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2012, 03:41:08 pm »

I think the photograph is better the more you leave it alone! Well, there's probably some stuff I would tweak, but it's definitely got some of the right stuff in it. I like the guy's face, expression, etc.

Hi Bruce. I've looked at this quite a few times and tend to agree with Andrew. I dislike photos with obvious textures added as an overlay- I always get the feeling that the processing is used as a "quick fix" for a badly composed and thought out picture. Others don't so to each his own.

This, in my opinion, doesn't need any fancy stuff to make it good. 

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Close to the Square
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2012, 09:29:43 pm »

With your gentle prompting and a new crop I summoned enthusiasm for processing the photo, though, of course, this gave me another tool to paint with.

Bruce
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 10:56:10 am by Bruce Cox »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up