Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: popnfresh on February 22, 2011, 05:13:08 pm
-
Here's a list of things I will not shoot under normal circumstances for one reason or another. These are subjects that either have been photographed ad nauseum in the past by both myself and others or, in the case of homeless people, I feel that using them as photographic fodder is ethically questionable. By putting them on this list it helps me to move on to new photographic territory.
The list is neither final nor absolute, because under the right circumstances pretty much anything can be part of a compelling image.
The List:
Birds
Fire Hydrants
Standpipes
Mail Boxes
Homeless People
Handicapped People
Babies/Puppies/Kittens
Clouds
Sunsets/Sunrises
Artwork
Trash/Trashcans
Graffiti
Zoo Animals
Flowers
Doors/Windows
-
Ah, nearly 5 years ago we had the infamous "101 Cliches of Photography" thread going quite strong, see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=12710.0
Unfortunately, everyone had to stop photographing and just a couple of years later we entered economic recession.
... but I'm still searching for my ideal: A pictorial showing a red barn, green tractor, golden hay bales and a small lake/pond with rotting wooden pier -- in sunset! A white wooden fence would be nice, but optional. Likewise, a heron on the pond.
-
The only thing on your list that I agree with is shooting art. I feel like it is a form of plagiarism. If it is great art in its own right, then my photograph breaks no new ground and only attempts to co opt the original artist's accomplishment.
As for all the rest. I try not to give myself too many rules. There are enough of them already. Certainly many of those subjects are cliched, but all photographers are victims of that crime. As Gordon suggests, if we all avoided cliches, we would stop photography.
-
Here's a list of things I will not shoot under normal circumstances for one reason or another. These are subjects that either have been photographed ad nauseum in the past by both myself and others or, in the case of homeless people, I feel that using them as photographic fodder is ethically questionable. By putting them on this list it helps me to move on to new photographic territory.
The list is neither final nor absolute, because under the right circumstances pretty much anything can be part of a compelling image.
One of the luxuries we have as amateurs is the ability to decline photographs that we just simply do not want to make, so I have no issues with your post....almost.
I do see a possible problem though. You say its ethically questionable to photograph homeless people and then quickly add that you'll do it if it makes a "compelling" image (whatever that is)
Does making a great photograph free you from your own ethical standards, or have I misunderstood you?
-
One of the luxuries we have as amateurs is the ability to decline photographs that we just simply do not want to make, so I have no issues with your post....almost.
I do see a possible problem though. You say its ethically questionable to photograph homeless people and then quickly add that you'll do it if it makes a "compelling" image (whatever that is)
Does making a great photograph free you from your own ethical standards, or have I misunderstood you?
People are in a different category than the other things on that list and I wouldn't photograph a homeless person without their consent merely because I thought it would make for an exceptionally good (compelling, if you will) picture. I don't like to photograph homeless people on the street any more than I would want to poke my camera into someone's living room window and record their private lives without their permission. Beyond the fact that it's illegal, I think it's also unethical. Homeless people are living on the street mostly because they have no other place to go. Photographing them without their consent puts them in the role of zoo animals. It's debasing and I don't think it's right. That said, I can envision scenarios in which photographing a homeless person would be perfectly ethical. For example, if they agreed to have you document their life. There's no reason a homeless person couldn't enter into that kind of collaboration. That's completely different than treating them as prey for your portfolio.
-
[provocative thesis]
Its almost completely unimportant what you shoot, but not how you shoot it.
[/provocative thesis]
I remember a school mate who applied for a place at the art academy and was rejected.
He could do almost perfect copies of things in the style of van Gogh, Monet and other great painters.
After being rejected for one year he was drawing and painting only his own foot in various ways.
After that he got accepted.
-
The only thing on your list that I agree with is shooting art. I feel like it is a form of plagiarism. If it is great art in its own right, then my photograph breaks no new ground and only attempts to co opt the original artist's accomplishment.
As for all the rest. I try not to give myself too many rules. There are enough of them already. Certainly many of those subjects are cliched, but all photographers are victims of that crime. As Gordon suggests, if we all avoided cliches, we would stop photography.
My list is just for myself. I'm not suggesting that anyone else should follow it. I made it as way to remind myself that if I'm going to shoot any of those things on the list it had better be a damned interesting photograph.
-
Ah, nearly 5 years ago we had the infamous "101 Cliches of Photography" thread going quite strong, see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=12710.0
Unfortunately, everyone had to stop photographing and just a couple of years later we entered economic recession.
... but I'm still searching for my ideal: A pictorial showing a red barn, green tractor, golden hay bales and a small lake/pond with rotting wooden pier -- in sunset! A white wooden fence would be nice, but optional. Likewise, a heron on the pond.
I like it. Giving yourself the assignment of shooting the greatest number of cliches in one scene. Brilliant.
-
I would turn the tables around and make that a list of challenges:
try to make a fresh, interesting, non-cliche, photograph of each subject...
-
I would turn the tables around and make that a list of challenges:
try to make a fresh, interesting, non-cliche, photograph of each subject...
I like that. The list is a high bar. It can be taken as either a barrier or a dare.
-
I would turn the tables around and make that a list of challenges:
try to make a fresh, interesting, non-cliche, photograph of each subject...
Agreed. Giving up on shooting something is an indicator that the mind is dead and any creative processes have stopped working. To me anyway.
-
The List:
Birds
Fire Hydrants
Standpipes
Mail Boxes
Homeless People
Handicapped People
Babies/Puppies/Kittens
Clouds
Sunsets/Sunrises
Artwork
Trash/Trashcans
Graffiti
Zoo Animals
Flowers
Doors/Windows
On the other hand, this is a pretty good list of things to attempt to photograph in new and more compelling ways.
Think about it. What can you offer in a sunset photo that is new and different? It would seem to me that this might be more of a challenge than resisting the urge to photograph these things altogether.
-
Pop,
Seems strange to me that anyone aspiring to be a photographer would truncate his alternatives that way. Here's the kind of thing you might be missing:
This guy -- you'd call him "homeless," I'd call him a "hobo" -- saw me on the street with a camera and said, "Take my picture." So I took his picture. Back in my office I made a 3.5 x 5 print, stuck it in a plastic cover, and stuck it in my pocket. I carried it with me on the street for a week or so until I saw him again. When I gave him the picture he started to cry. Finally, he said, "That's the first time anybody's taken my picture in twenty years."
-
I can not say that I have made a list as yet.
But there is one subject matter I try to avoid..
Children.
It is a shame as the energy and innocents of children makes for good photos.
These days however you get yourself in all sorts of arguments if you photograph other's children.
And who can blame them.. we live in a crazy world.
o.. did I need to say it? I am a man.
I wonder if woman also have this problem.
My solution is to take photos of other's pets.
Very much the same energy and innocence are found there.
You will not get the same scorn thrown your way, instead you might even be paid in smiles.
The exception to my own rule comes in by photographing my sister's children.
But that is for my sister's benefit and by no means for publication.
That is my thoughts..
-- Will
-
Pop,
Seems strange to me that anyone aspiring to be a photographer would truncate his alternatives that way. Here's the kind of thing you might be missing:
This guy -- you'd call him "homeless," I'd call him a "hobo" -- saw me on the street with a camera and said, "Take my picture." So I took his picture. Back in my office I made a 3.5 x 5 print, stuck it in a plastic cover, and stuck it in my pocket. I carried it with me on the street for a week or so until I saw him again. When I gave him the picture he started to cry. Finally, he said, "That's the first time anybody's taken my picture in twenty years."
Russ, I think under those circumstances taking his picture was perfectly ethical.
And my list is not so much an absolute limitation on myself as it is a reminder for me to pause and think about how I could take an interesting picture of a cliche subject before I start snapping. The list is just something I keep in the back of my mind. I haven't bothered to write it down until now. But trust me, I produced more than my share of cliche images before I made the list. So yes, for someone starting out I would agree that they should just take whatever pictures they like and worry about mediocrity later.
-
I don't consider any subjects you mentioned off limits, but I do try to approach everything from a different angle, exposure, etc. For example, my main subjects are wildlife, but instead of standing way back with a 3,000,000mm lens, I work to get close and use nothing longer than 200mm.
I don't shoot homeless, but do see something special in some of the older characters I encounter.
A good arguement for shooting homelss people, is that society in general tends to ignore them and what they indicate about our "affluent" society. People don't look them in the eye or stop to talk to them. To me this is more morally deficient than taking their picture and maybe exposing their plight to the masses.
There's always a number of ways to look at things--and that's what photography is about.
-
Certainly many of those subjects are cliched, but all photographers are victims of that crime. As Gordon suggests, if we all avoided cliches, we would stop photography.
As I think it was Sam Goldwyn observed, "What we need now are some new clichés".
If it wasn't Goldwyn, it should have been.
Jeremy
-
Russ, I think under those circumstances taking his picture was perfectly ethical.
Pop, I didn't tell the whole story. For a long time back in the early teens I'd shoot hobo pictures on the streets of Colorado Springs, make prints, and give them to the drifters when I saw them again. At first I was just shooting on the street without warning, but it didn't take long before the drifters started asking to have their pictures taken. Here's another example. It's a little soft because the light was fading fast. Two years later I saw this same guy with a white cane. He'd drunk some methanol and gone mostly blind. Frankly, I don't think any of my hobo pictures are cliches, though, as always, that evaluation is in the mind of the beholder.
-
Mail Boxes ?
Do you really have a list that says "don't shoot Mail Boxes" ?
-
Mailboxes… here's some from Australia.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ffdIOaF8Hrg/TJGlJMrDu4I/AAAAAAAAAls/ZSGGmMcOvy4/s1600/burrill.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ffdIOaF8Hrg/TJGkHzCjKkI/AAAAAAAAAlk/rYTazJCVjno/s1600/ginmara.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ffdIOaF8Hrg/TJGWmLBKyHI/AAAAAAAAAlU/CSRq_fYYuEo/s1600/phantom.jpg)
Cheers,
-
Wow, this is really useful - a list that is neither final nor absolute. Dare I ask what the point is?
-
Mailboxes… here's some from Australia.
Wow, if we had more mailboxes like those in the USA I'd probably take mailboxes off my list! :D
-
Wow, this is really useful - a list that is neither final nor absolute. Dare I ask what the point is?
I think I explained that earlier.
-
Here's a list of things I will not shoot under normal circumstances for one reason or another. These are subjects that either have been photographed ad nauseum in the past by both myself and others or, in the case of homeless people, I feel that using them as photographic fodder is ethically questionable. By putting them on this list it helps me to move on to new photographic territory.
The list is neither final nor absolute, because under the right circumstances pretty much anything can be part of a compelling image.
The List:...
So what you're saying is that you don't like other peoples' pictures of what's on your proscription list, but your photos of said subjects are OK because they are made "under the right circumstances" and thus in "new photographic territory" ?
-
So what you're saying is that you don't like other peoples' pictures of what's on your proscription list, but your photos of said subjects are OK because they are made "under the right circumstances" and thus in "new photographic territory" ?
No, I'm not saying that at all. Let me repeat: the list is only for myself; it's not what I think others should be doing. There of lots of great photographers who can produce interesting photos of those things on my list better than I can. In a way my list is a recognition of my own difficulty in rising above mediocrity when confronted by certain subjects.
-
Great!
You made one man happy...
Best regards
Erik
Pop,
Seems strange to me that anyone aspiring to be a photographer would truncate his alternatives that way. Here's the kind of thing you might be missing:
This guy -- you'd call him "homeless," I'd call him a "hobo" -- saw me on the street with a camera and said, "Take my picture." So I took his picture. Back in my office I made a 3.5 x 5 print, stuck it in a plastic cover, and stuck it in my pocket. I carried it with me on the street for a week or so until I saw him again. When I gave him the picture he started to cry. Finally, he said, "That's the first time anybody's taken my picture in twenty years."
-
No, I'm not saying that at all. Let me repeat: the list is only for myself; it's not what I think others should be doing. There of lots of great photographers who can produce interesting photos of those things on my list better than I can. In a way my list is a recognition of my own difficulty in rising above mediocrity when confronted by certain subjects.
List, or no list--if it helps you to take better pictures I say go with whatever works for you.
-
Whether it was stated or not, I suspect that the OP suffers from a similar condition as do I: the difficulty in finding anything that really, honestly, seems worth the trouble shooting.
It is oh so easy to point and make a picture; the difficult part is fnding one that, before you shoot it, you can believe is worth the hours of boredom in front of a computer. There's a big difference doing something because you wonder if you can, and doing it because you know you can but wonder about its value.
I think you have mainly been off the mark in trying to nail the OIP for his thoughts. In fact, I even start to wonder if being open about how you might feel is a good idea; if you can't be that, here, what's the bloody point?
Rob C
-
..I even start to wonder if being open about how you might feel is a good idea; if you can't be that here, what's the bloody point?
Good point.
-
(http://)Michael has an essay "Been There, Done That" that talks about this subject. It starts with animals...every species has been photographed, do we need more?
Do any of us think we can improve on Ansel Adams' "Yosemite Valley Clearing Storm" or Edward Weston's "Dunes Oceano"?
By this logic we can all unload all of our cameras and gear and just buy postcards or reproductions.
The essay points out that the making of the photograph is often the purpose. Face it, most of us will never be famous or have our work selling like Lik (most of us will never understand why his sells for those prices)....get over it.
Enjoy the process, if you don't want to shot birds, great. Shoot concrete blocks against orange walls, what ever motivates you to get out of the house and forget about work for a few hours.
I don't usually shoot birds but....
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5481955112_914d5e3965_m.jpg)
-
There is an old saying that goes: "There are no dull subjects, just dull writers." The same thing could be a applied to photography.
Cute racoon shots have been done to death, but this one won a cash contest and appeared on the covers of two magazines.
Don't shoot the same thing, shoot the same thing differently.
-
There is an old saying that goes: "There are no dull subjects, just dull writers." The same thing could be a applied to photography.
Cute racoon shots have been done to death, but this one won a cash contest and appeared on the covers of two magazines.
Don't shoot the same thing, shoot the same thing differently.
Hmmm...looks like we have another "Lik"...
-
What is an "Lic...?"
-
I ask:
What are the consequences if you get it wrong?
Tip:
If a police officer ever tells you you should not photograph something, tell him that, if a photographer shoots first and ask questions later, nobody gets hurt.
-
What is an "Lic...?"
Sorry Ron...with the sensationalism lately about all Peter's Galleries I couldn't help myself.. (Lik )
-
Regarding what to shoot, there's only one rule I follow, in the main.
I shoot whatever I find interesting, or curious, or enchanting, or unusual, or specatular, or confronting, or revealing, or memorable, or fascinating, or exciting, or deplorable, or disgraceful, or newsworthy, or meaningful in any way, or simply beautiful.
There are occasions when I may humour someone and take an obligatory shot of a scene that doesn't interest me.
-
Regarding what to shoot, there's only one rule I follow, in the main.
I shoot whatever I find interesting, or curious, or enchanting, or unusual, or specatular, or confronting, or revealing, or memorable, or fascinating, or exciting, or deplorable, or disgraceful, or newsworthy, or meaningful in any way, or simply beautiful.
There are occasions when I may humour someone and take an obligatory shot of a scene that doesn't interest me.
So that's why you prefer digi to film...! Wise man.
Rob C
-
Regarding what to shoot, there's only one rule I follow, in the main.
I shoot whatever I find interesting, or curious, or enchanting, or unusual, or specatular, or confronting, or revealing, or memorable, or fascinating, or exciting, or deplorable, or disgraceful, or newsworthy, or meaningful in any way, or simply beautiful.
There are occasions when I may humour someone and take an obligatory shot of a scene that doesn't interest me.
+1
-
Here's mine:
Little persons who have lots of snot.
Animals that bite or are larger than myself.
Brides.
-
Here's mine:
Little persons who have lots of snot.
Animals that bite or are larger than myself.
Brides.
I would tend to include little people bereft of snot, too, as well as grooms as in bride. Especially if in brides.
Rob C
PS You can tell I'm bored, can't you?
-
Wow, if we had more mailboxes like those in the USA I'd probably take mailboxes off my list! :D
The "backstreets" of my little town of Fairfax CA has a mini-plethora of such mailboxes.
-
As for sunsets, that's like saying "Avoid these 10 million beautiful scenes because the sun happens to be setting."
I would say : "Avoid sunsets where there is nothing much other than a setting sun in the shot." But avoiding
what is almost always the prettiest time of the day is nutty. I would much rather avoid high noon. No scenery
looks very good at high noon. And there's no emotion in such scenes, although there can be activity, as in a
shot of racing sailboats.
-
Russ:
that's a nice picture and was a really nice gesture to make a print to gave it to him!
+1
-
1. Homeless people, definitely. In fact, I avoid almost all street-photography scenarios.
2. Ringflash as the only light.
3. Babies and children.
4. Couples.
5. local wildlife of any kind.
6. pets.
That's about it.
-
That lets out just about everything. So, the only thing you shoot is landscape? Have you considered learning to paint?
-
...
This guy -- you'd call him "homeless," I'd call him a "hobo" -- saw me on the street with a camera and said, "Take my picture."
I had the same experience in Rome a few years back: I was fiddling with my new lens and a homeless guy asked me to take two pictures, a "head and shoulders" and a "Full figure". As soon as I took the second shot he walked away.
Here is the result:
(http://www.hiero.ru/pict/767/2133794.jpg)
-
The "do not shoot" list is a cliché. However the rules you break with a twist, often yield the most creative work. Not to mention the most rewarding.
Peter
www.peterfiore.com
-
I had the same experience in Rome a few years back: I was fiddling with my new lens and a homeless guy asked me to take two pictures, a "head and shoulders" and a "Full figure". As soon as I took the second shot he walked away.
Here is the result:
(http://www.hiero.ru/pict/767/2133794.jpg)
Damned nice shot!
Rob C
-
A don't shoot list. Hmm. Does that not assume that it matters what you do or do not shoot? Matters to whom?
I have no problems of YARYAT or cliches as long as my photos appeal to me. Thank God they do, because they don't seem to interest anyone else. Hard as it is to believe, few people like looking at aircraft engines.
After thousands of iterations of the same shot, culture does not care what is in a photo. Enough that the image has value to you and, perhaps, the people who share your very specific interests.
There is one major exception. Although I find unposed pictures of people interesting, I hate having my picture taken and would regard my inclusion in a street scene, for example, as an invasion of privacy.
So, back to the question about who it matters to. Unposed photographs matter to some (many) of the people in them, and I have met many people who detest photographers because they feel their privacy has been violated. As a matter of personal ethics (note that word personal), I do not shoot unposed pictures.
-
I photograph whatever I think will make a good photo. Sure, I have my own things I avoid, but they are never absolute. We all have our own cliches we cannot avoid. I call them guilty pleasures.
-
Although I find unposed pictures of people interesting, I hate having my picture taken and would regard my inclusion in a street scene, for example, as an invasion of privacy.
In the street you are on public display, so I don't understand how photographing your public display could be an invasion of privacy?
-
Ah, nearly 5 years ago we had the infamous "101 Cliches of Photography" thread going quite strong, see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=12710.0
Unfortunately, everyone had to stop photographing and just a couple of years later we entered economic recession.
... but I'm still searching for my ideal: A pictorial showing a red barn, green tractor, golden hay bales and a small lake/pond with rotting wooden pier -- in sunset! A white wooden fence would be nice, but optional. Likewise, a heron on the pond.
Couldn't you just make something out of stock pix and photoshop? ;D
-
Popnfresh, why do you have fire hydrants on your list? Just curious, as I really enjoyed one of our local hydrants.
-
Are you sure it's not just a funny-looking beer tap?
-
Popnfresh, why do you have fire hydrants on your list? Just curious, as I really enjoyed one of our local hydrants.
Landscapes aren't on the list though....or street.....or portraits....or bugs.....or cars....
Lets face it, EVERYTHING is cliche now and isn't worth the bother to putting any thought into it. Shoot what you like and to hell what anyone thinks.
-
Here's a list of things I will not shoot under normal circumstances for one reason or another. These are subjects that either have been photographed ad nauseum in the past by both myself and others or, in the case of homeless people, I feel that using them as photographic fodder is ethically questionable. By putting them on this list it helps me to move on to new photographic territory.
The list is neither final nor absolute, because under the right circumstances pretty much anything can be part of a compelling image.
The List:
Birds
Fire Hydrants
Standpipes
Mail Boxes
Homeless People
Handicapped People
Babies/Puppies/Kittens
Clouds
Sunsets/Sunrises
Artwork
Trash/Trashcans
Graffiti
Zoo Animals
Flowers
Doors/Windows
Landscape, seascape, sand, and beach should be added to the list. If one calls himself a fine art artist, then he/she should create some real fine art stuff that at least reflects his/her own personal worldview.
-
Michael Frye has some excellent Clearing Storm images taken from inspiration point. It is cliche but easy to get to and at times irresistible.
Now I have a whole classroom of kids with runny noses. Some of my most priceless images are of children in the classroom learning. My students understand that I like making my own photographs so they are not phased when the camera comes out.
Regarding flowers and plants, I don't care for the photography of introduced species that don't belong in a particular environment. I do wish I had the energy to photograph all the native plants I can find in the Merced River canyon, but more for science than art.
A few years back I went to the wedding of some friends not planning on being the wedding photographer. The light turned out to be so gorgeous and I was curious how well I could photograph a very white bride next to her black husband. The photos turned out better than expected so I sent them for a gift about 10 of my favorite prints.
-
... If one calls himself a fine art artist, then he/she should create some real fine art stuff that at least reflects his/her own personal worldview.
Hmmm... What view of the world can you create when you excluded practically everything in that world?
Alternatively, why doesn't someone come up with a list of still permitted subjects? At least it would be shorter than this laundry list (or shall we call it the new Index Imagorum Prohibitorum?)
-
Hmmm... What view of the world can you create when you excluded practically everything in that world?
Alternatively, why doesn't someone come up with a list of still permitted subjects? At least it would be shorter than this laundry list (or shall we call it the new Index Imagorum Prohibitorum?)
What I mean by worldview is what Edward Hopper defines art, in his own words, "Great art is the outward expression of an inner life in the artist, and this inner life will result in his personal vision of the world."
-
Worldview, personal vision of the world... Same difference.
My question remains: how can you photograph a "personal vision of the world" if you exclude practically all worldly objects?
What's left? Hallucinogenic state of mind? Still have no cameras to capture that. Pure abstracts? Sure. But how many "white squares on white canvas" can you photograph and still express yourself? And who's to say that my personal vision of the world shouldn't include, say, a sunset?
-
Worldview, personal vision of the world... Same difference.
My question remains: how can you photograph a "personal vision of the world" if you exclude practically all worldly objects?
What's left? Hallucinogenic state of mind? Still have no cameras to capture that. Pure abstracts? Sure. But how many "white squares on white canvas" can you photograph and still express yourself? And who's to say that my personal vision of the world shouldn't include, say, a sunset?
The world consists of more than what is on the list, plus four more items that I added. Your worldview is your worldview, and there is no right or wrong worldview. If your worldview is that sunset, so be it. After all, most use camera as a documentation medium.
-
I refuse to photograph people candidly eating or drinking. It's hard enough to get a photo of someone talking without the distortion of their face/mouth. Once they fill their trap with food, it's much worse.
-
The world consists of more than what is on the list, plus four more items that I added...
Judging by the list so far, hardly.
Throwing down the gauntlet again: come up with the list of permitted subjects.
As for sunsets, Monet painted them, among others.
My bottom line: there are no cliché subjects, only cliché interpretations*, thus the list is utterly ridiculous.
* And even those can be quite lovely, within their intended purpose (which probably would not encompass the cutting-edge, esoteric, modern fine art anyway)
-
Okay, think of it like this: you've seen it once, would you then refuse to look again?
http://youtu.be/rE5P79m7pzI
Rob C
-
It doesn't get any worse than that.
-
It doesn't get any worse than that.
That's evasion.
;-)
Rob C
-
Exactly, Rob. I "evaded" it as soon as I could get my hand on the mouse.
-
Okay, think of it like this: you've seen it once, would you then refuse to look again?
http://youtu.be/rE5P79m7pzI
Rob C
Goodness gracious, I used to have so much contact with Tina and then it occurred to me that it was about 30 years ago. First through her commissioning me to photograph her and subsequently through her wigmaker who was a neighbour. You've brought back a flood of memories Rob. Thanks.
W
-
Goodness gracious, I used to have so much contact with Tina and then it occurred to me that it was about 30 years ago. First through her commissioning me to photograph her and subsequently through her wigmaker who was a neighbour. You've brought back a flood of memories Rob. Thanks.
W
De nada, hombre, glad to be of use!
She has still got pretty good pins - they were even better in some concerts with Jagger and Stewart. She just knows how to use her legs to music. You look at fashion girls walk and you have to laugh; I watch Tina and I realise, every damned time, that I'm just sitting there quietly with a huge grin on my face. She seemed to blossom from the minute she was away from her ex., the late Ike.
http://youtu.be/JLBuTkIPbSA
http://youtu.be/YaKl2ec4J_w
http://youtu.be/jQGGlMRBKHs
Any pix you want to show...? ¿
Rob C
-
I do mostly street photography and I try to avoid identifiable people (for legal reasons) and any animals, as I just don't care for that type of photography.
Regarding the below quote, you may be interested in something Man Ray developed called Photolithography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography) which would accomplish the look your seem to be describing.
Worldview, personal vision of the world... Same difference.
My question remains: how can you photograph a "personal vision of the world" if you exclude practically all worldly objects?
What's left? Hallucinogenic state of mind? Still have no cameras to capture that. Pure abstracts? Sure. But how many "white squares on white canvas" can you photograph and still express yourself? And who's to say that my personal vision of the world shouldn't include, say, a sunset?