Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Ivophoto on January 08, 2019, 01:03:05 pm
-
I’m subscribed to Steve’s blog.
He alway touches me with some of his portraits.
This episode: silent language of hands.
https://stevemccurry.blog/2019/01/08/silent-language-of-hands-2/ (https://stevemccurry.blog/2019/01/08/silent-language-of-hands-2/)
-
He's a master, Ivo. No question about it.
-
You might also enjoy the work of Sam Abell, Ivo. One evening talk a few years ago I was able to attend centred around his sentiment that photography, alone in the arts, seems perfected to serve the desire humans have for a moment-this very moment-to stay. Edgy existence of made images and those unmade.
-
You might also enjoy the work of Sam Abell, Ivo. One evening talk a few years ago I was able to attend centred around his sentiment that photography, alone in the arts, seems perfected to serve the desire humans have for a moment-this very moment-to stay. Edgy existence of made images and those unmade.
Tx Patricia, I’ll check it out!
-
I like his work. Despite the fact that he is currently mired in controversy and almost certainly staged some of his most iconic images.
-
Schmaltz
-
Schmaltz
Yes and no.
Some of his work could be guilty to be over sentimental.
Not all however. The picture of the little girl in Rome (see link) is a lovely photo.
-
I like his work. Despite the fact that he is currently mired in controversy and almost certainly staged some of his most iconic images.
Did someone really thought he did not stage his images?
-
Well he kind of denied it for quite a while. He even hired people and arranged props. I thought things looked a little arranged but didn’t expect that level of intervention.
Not saying I subscribe to this view totally but he is mostly accused of creating a post colonial ideal of India. Not the reality but a western romantic ideal.
-
I like his work. Despite the fact that he is currently mired in controversy and almost certainly staged some of his most iconic images.
Oh, gosh Martin, could that actually be true? Staged some of his images? You mean like Doisneau? Or Brassaï? Or Gene Smith? Or just about any photojournalist? Golly! That takes away all his attaboys. Right? Knowing that, we'll never again be able to look at his work and enjoy it.
-
Well he kind of denied it for quite a while. He even hired people and arranged props. I thought things looked a little arranged but didn’t expect that level of intervention.
Not saying I subscribe to this view totally but he is mostly accused of creating a post colonial ideal of India. Not the reality but a western romantic ideal.
My limited experience of India is there is no, one, reality, which is a large part of its appeal.
-
My limited experience of India is there is no, one, reality, which is a large part of its appeal.
I have to agree with that. So choose your India I guess. But he chose one that went out of fashion. Bad luck I suppose. Still as I said in my first post. I admire his work. I have book.
-
My limited experience of India is there is no, one, reality, which is a large part of its appeal.
I think everyone's reality is mired within their own social experience, which is often not much more complex than their class status.
My reality is a million miles removed from that of wealthy people; making the crossing as a friend is not the same thing as having the same reality as do they, and I guess was summed up neatly a long time ago in that old one about big fleas having little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, and little fleas having lesser fleas - and so ad infinitum.
Live in the middle of the desert and you don't share the life experience of the ocean fisherman.
As I recall, even Glasgow had a huge range of differing realities. The scope for India is unlimited.
Of course, photographers tend to create their own realities, which is cool, just as long as they don't sell them on as fact.
How did we get here, again?
:-)
-
Of course, photographers tend to create their own realities, which is cool, just as long as they don't sell them on as fact.
How did we get here, again?
:-)
Because we live in a tear them down world. Steve’s first claim to fame was that large eyed beautiful Afghan girl. I don’t know the circumstance, but when you point a large camera, 35” from someones face no matter what happens next there is a degree of manipulation, because she’s aware and awareness always alters reality.
If you put your camera on a tripod with a 300mm lens and shoot a mountain range you are altering reality. Nobody sees 300mm with their eyes, except Superman.
I very briefly viewed what someone said about Steve’s latest “altered” photos. Who cares? Most of them didn’t look that altered to me except from one cloning mistake. The thing is he got his message across and I like the photos.
I get creative briefs all the time and they say “make it look real”. What’s real? When we shot this advertising gig I think I probably only “directed” 20% of it. All I said was, do what you do.
These were people working and that’s all I wanted to show, from fields, to ships, helicopters, atv’s and a blackhawk. It was impossible to direct the atv’s because I was riding on bak of one and nobody could hear me no matter what I said and the blackhawk I was too busy being tossed around like a ping-pong ball to say anything.
https://russellrutherfordphoto.com/Artist.asp?ArtistID=45435&Akey=9F9HTDWN&ajx=1#!pf166995
Yes I had AD’s (bosses) but we shot so fast, moved so quick, they never knew what I was doing until the DIT man showed it to them on screen and by then it was too late.Yes I did some post processing, mostly in lightroom for color and tone, but rarely took out or moved anything, but this was an advertising gig and I could have I just didn’t want that look where I shot background plates and assembled the images.
Yesterday my producer and I took a day off and went to the Taylor Wessing portrait prize show at the National Portrait Gallery.
https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/twppp-2018/exhibition/prize-winners
I’m sure looking at the huge body of work from many photographers, that the majority was staged, but I don’t care. The photos were beautiful, especially large, and the humanity was intact. They all did their subjects well and I’ll bet 90% or more that viewed it didn’t care if a color was changed, a blemish removed, or a soft drink sign was cloned out. It’s great work and deserved to be shown and much of it was for editorial publication.
I’m all for truth but as long as the post work change doesn’t really alter the narrative then?
IMO
BC
-
https://russellrutherfordphoto.com/Artist.asp?ArtistID=45435&Akey=9F9HTDWN&ajx=1#!pf166995
Love the film of the patrols in action!
Rob
-
+1
-
Steve has made so many beautiful photos. His body of work is amazing and I'm still a fan. I think the Photoshop controversy happened because he had been a photojournalist, and viewers naturally thought that the rules of photojournalism applied. At some point he needed to change his branding to make clear that some photos weren't exactly as captured by the camera.
-
Steve has made so many beautiful photos. His body of work is amazing and I'm still a fan. I think the Photoshop controversy happened because he had been a photojournalist, and viewers naturally thought that the rules of photojournalism applied. At some point he needed to change his branding to make clear that some photos weren't exactly as captured by the camera.
There you go: both the advantage and tyranny of genre in one fell swoop!
;-)
-
Steve is one of those photographers who, when you've been to an exhibition, make you want to throw away your camera and leave it to the professionals.