Recent Professional Works

[yaya]

Foto-z,
       This IS the complete  quote of the Original Post (#1 post)by the "dustblue", so there is no need to be self appointed police. Sergio is right @ posting in this forum.
           Do chill out, please.

I agree...Dustblue specifically suggested that "So let's focus on the technics, not the equipments; the art side, not the hardware side.
In the end you are what you shoot, not what camera you use" but the way things are, most will insist to mention which camera and what lens they were/ are using...

I think that the equipment is relevant only if if it was that specific lens or another part of the kit that allowed to achieve a certain quality or an effect or a look, on one hand, or if a certain image that would logically require equipment X was actually captured with a far lesser/ unsuitable equipment Y on the other hand.

Yair

[revaaron]

is it:
(Medium Format Digital Backs) and (Photography)
(Medium Format (Digital Backs and Photography))
(Medium Format Digital (Backs and Photography))

I always assumed it was: (Medium Format (Digital Backs and Photography))
where the AND is a union (engilsh AND) and not an intersection (logical AND)
Any commercial works I've done is with my nikon D3

[feppe]

Less juvenile bickering and more photos, please (I'd post but I don't have an MFDB).

[jørn.kiel]

wrong forum!

How about to change your name to Graham Marshall instead of Graham Mitchell?


Our faults irritate us most when we see them in others.
    Dutch Proverb

 

[rsmphoto]

How about to change your name to Graham Marshall instead of Graham Mitchell?


Our faults irritate us most when we see them in others.
    Dutch Proverb

 

And you've decided to portray Graham as a Fascist for this rather benign comment! Gotta love some of the people on this forum...

In my opinion Graham's posts on this forum have been consistently useful, at times thought provoking (images), and always on the mark in terms of this forum.

Your comment is neither amusing nor relevant, and borders on offensive.

For most posts such as this one, it's better to just ignore them. This one I could not.

[rainer_v]

How about to change your name to Graham Marshall instead of Graham Mitchell?


Our faults irritate us most when we see them in others.
    Dutch Proverb

 

yoern i dont think this is good taste what you show here.
take your "dutch" sentence ( which is quite known over the world )  and look what does provocate you soo much in grahams comment that you have to react in such nasty way.
i.m.o. this is a heavy violation and over each limit.

[Mort54]

I agree with Graham. What's the point of having a medium format forum if it's not focussed on medium format? There are other forums on this site that are more appropriate for 35mm shots, and probably hundreds of forums on other sites dedicated to 35mm. Finding a decent MF forum is hard enough. This is a good one. We should preserve it as such. Just my opinion. Not trying to be Graham's deputy :-)

[Frank Doorhof]

Come on guys.
I think the title says professional, not childish.
Please not make LL a new forum that goes downhill and scares away the pros.

[thsinar]

Graham is right in his assessment. Nobody can definitively blame him for defending a place for what it has been designed originally.

I find the remark to be over the top and wish it could be deleted.

Thierry

How about to change your name to Graham Marshall instead of Graham Mitchell?


Our faults irritate us most when we see them in others.
    Dutch Proverb

[Mort54]

Well, with the exception of the sniping, it's been a great thread so far. There are some really great images here. It would be a shame to see it go the way of the previous one.

[jørn.kiel]

Ok, i am/was over the limit. You are right, thats childish.

I apologize. To Graham and to you all.

But i have to say that this >wrong forum< writing everytime from mostly the same one makes me so angry over the times that i couldn´t resist to answer in a provocation.

It is like it is, and yes, the dutch quote is for me , too, thats why i added the ;-).

jørn

[haefnerphoto]

Not to change the subject but, here's some photographs!!  I started this project 2 1/2 years ago, it's nice to finally see it completed.  Jim

[attachment=9706:Peugeot_...ormation.jpg]

[dustblue]

Jim:
GREAT works yet again!
I think they just touch the deepest part of a man/boy's love for machines, from the car bones to the shiny skin. I see alot great car photos out there but no one have the power of these. You make me saw the soul in this machine. I really love them.

Regards,
Dustblue


oh and sorry for my shitty English..I should have better words to convey my feeling..

Not to change the subject but, here's some photographs!!  I started this project 2 1/2 years ago, it's nice to finally see it completed.  Jim

[attachment=9706:Peugeot_...ormation.jpg]

[witz]

Not to change the subject but, here's some photographs!!  I started this project 2 1/2 years ago, it's nice to finally see it completed.  Jim

[attachment=9706:Peugeot_...ormation.jpg]

fantastic work!

[haefnerphoto]

Thanks for the encouraging and questioning words!  EpD, keep in mind, I'm primarily a product photographer.  The challenge with the Peugeot was to show it in various stages of restoration, try to make it interesting and read at the same time. Here's the first shot of the unrestored Peugeot, I felt that the other views wouldn't read if the light and background were so moody.  Also, attached is a 1960 Cadillac that I posted a while back, perhaps you didn't see it.  Thanks again, Jim

[attachment=9710:profile_0043_dc4.jpg]
[attachment=9711:downview_2c_dc1.jpg]

[thsinar]

Interesting, how the same touches people differently or not at all.

For me it is exactly this unreal look that touches me, the perfection of the lines, curves and shapes, together with the beauty of these cars.

Thierry

Jim,

I have now seen a lot of your pictures and every time it strikes me that they look particularly synthetic, almost like CAD renderings from a computer. I would like to know what it is that you do to them (and also why you do it), assuming that you do start out with a real photograph. Obviously a lot of people like your style, given the many positive comments found here, but personally the unreal look throws me off. To me it feels as if I am not looking at real cars (or interiors). That blocks me from being emotionally touched by the images. It's a bit like with electronic music: a computer could play Bach with theoretical perfection, but it is the imperfection of real intruments being played by real people that will make me cry. Perhaps you should consider putting a photo in your book showing a really old, oxidized, bobbly car, just as a reference to what a real oldtimer, one that had a life, looks like.

EPd

[samuel_js]

Interesting, how the same touches people differently or not at all.

For me it is exactly this unreal look that touches me, the perfection of the lines, curves and shapes, together with the beauty of these cars.

Thierry

I agree. Love these pictures!

[jjj]

I hope you are not saying that the image in question is compose right for whatever usage. It is one thing to be polite to LL member who posted the picture but quite another to have others who browse LL in quest to learn something about photography to walk away believing that this is how you should shoot for covers.
Http://AndreNapier.com

Eh!??  I simply pointed out that the photo was specifically stated as being shot for a cover, so the blank space may well have been left for the title of this particular cover. I did not say that is how you should shoot a cover or that the photo was correct for every usage. There are many ways to skin a cat or indeed frame a cover shot. People are way too eager to condemn, put people down or post without considering alternatives. I simply posited an alternative, not a manifesto for how to shoot covers.  

And if shooting images that require copy, graphics or titles placed on afterwards, you may well have to have more white space than if shooting a straight photograph. Learning that is also a useful thing. No good taking great photos that would look great on a gallery wall, but cannot be used in a design/layout context, if that is the brief.
Though if presenting such a shot as an image in it's own right and not as a tear sheet, then some cropping may well have been appropriate.

[jjj]

Pictures of cars in studios are to my mind really dreary and uninteresting.
However Jim's work is consistently sublime.
To my mind they look more like gorgeous photorealist paintings than 3D rendering [which I'm not a big fan of either].

[dustblue]

Love the first one! the retouched background give a different look than a usual "worn out cars" shot(though I love usual worn out cars shot too, if well handled), really beautiful!

Thanks for the encouraging and questioning words!  EpD, keep in mind, I'm primarily a product photographer.  The challenge with the Peugeot was to show it in various stages of restoration, try to make it interesting and read at the same time. Here's the first shot of the unrestored Peugeot, I felt that the other views wouldn't read if the light and background were so moody.  Also, attached is a 1960 Cadillac that I posted a while back, perhaps you didn't see it.  Thanks again, Jim

[attachment=9710:profile_0043_dc4.jpg]
[attachment=9711:downview_2c_dc1.jpg]