DSLRUsers.com

Last thursday i got a CPL fitler, i thought i would have taken lots of flowers but they were not in full bloom yet, so I shot around Walsh Bay

I tweaked the white balance on the camera from 3700K to 6500K in all shots in concert with the CPL, it produced some arty colour tones which i like, it adds a certain mystique to them













I turned the CPL filter to cut off half the reflection from the golden sun on the no stopping sign, i thought that was pretty cool

Once again Wendellt you've delievered a lovely collection of shots. I'm becoming a big fan of your work, and I really enjoyed your work here. The colour tones as you said really add something to what could be in another light a pretty lifeless subject.

The standout shot for me is #3 the play between light and shadow here creates a really nice affect. Looking forward to see what else your new CPL filter can deliever.

Wendellt.

All good shots carrying mood by interesting lighting, but 4th one is great one. Maybe not particularry about the spring, but has good framing (with composition as well as tones), bit of strory and shows Sydney from slightly different point of view. Well spotted. My only critique could be not having verticasl vertical, but my view at the issue might be twisted

Regards,

K.Polak

Wendelt super images, I simply cannot pick a favourite. You have a good eye.

I particularly like the atmosphere created by lighting with the third last image.

Well I must be the odd one out. Apologies in advance Wendell, but like a lot of your images, I don't get them although I can see why some people might.

Here's my take on them and what kills them for me (but remember I'm a technophile)

#1 - flare on window, lines everyhwere make it too busy and the person and the truck clutter the scene

#2 - nothing here to grab my interest, made worse by the dark foreground

#3 - OK shot, but poorly exposed. I'd clone out the blurry bird

#4 - Terrible lighting. The guy's face is brightly lit and the rest is in full shadow - I keep jumping from this to the interesting view out the window.

#4 - window flare and exposure probs again. I get the feeling the shot was to get the flare since otherwise it would be composed turned a little more to the right to follow the leading lines of the wall

#5 - see #4

#6 - I can see that the fact you could use the CP to get this effect is cool, but it doesn't make for a great shot. Again it's too dark.

Please take these comments as you wish - no offences is intended. There has been some really cool stuff you've done and I like, but I think the arty stuff sails straight past me. There's an aussie photographer/artist whose name I can't recall takes really graining poorly colour balanced pics and gets paid $$$ for them - recently held an exhibition - same story with that all I see is grainy poorly colour balanced....

stubbsy wrote:Well I must be the odd one out. Apologies in advance Wendell, but like a lot of your images, I don't get them although I can see why some people might.

Here's my take on them and what kills them for me (but remember I'm a technophile)

#1 - flare on window, lines everyhwere make it too busy and the person and the truck clutter the scene

#2 - nothing here to grab my interest, made worse by the dark foreground

#3 - OK shot, but poorly exposed. I'd clone out the blurry bird

#4 - Terrible lighting. The guy's face is brightly lit and the rest is in full shadow - I keep jumping from this to the interesting view out the window.

#4 - window flare and exposure probs again. I get the feeling the shot was to get the flare since otherwise it would be composed turned a little more to the right to follow the leading lines of the wall

#5 - see #4

#6 - I can see that the fact you could use the CP to get this effect is cool, but it doesn't make for a great shot. Again it's too dark.

Please take these comments as you wish - no offences is intended. There has been some really cool stuff you've done and I like, but I think the arty stuff sails straight past me. There's an aussie photographer/artist whose name I can't recall takes really graining poorly colour balanced pics and gets paid $$$ for them - recently held an exhibition - same story with that all I see is grainy poorly colour balanced....

Peter thanks for the refreshing critique
I totally agree technically my shots are attrocious, i shoot in manual and manipulate settings to get a certain aesthetic look that appeals to me, like art taste is such a subjective thing.

the artist you may be referring to is Bill Henson fashion photographer for Scanlan & Theodore, and now renowned international photographer

Wendell - yes Bill Henson. So far as the subjective art taste thing - I guess that was what I was trying to say - it's the art aesthetic. I can see it strongly in both your work and Leigh's. This in and of itself is a great thing. There's a consistent feel running through all of it - a unified sense of purpose - that is the artist's vision - I just haven't learnt to see it

stubbsy wrote:Wendell - yes Bill Henson. So far as the subjective art taste thing - I guess that was what I was trying to say - it's the art aesthetic. I can see it strongly in both your work and Leigh's. This in and of itself is a great thing. There's a consistent feel running through all of it - a unified sense of purpose - that is the artist's vision - I just haven't learnt to see it

First thing to do is pick a theme and subject i.e dogfood, photograph dogfood in sunlight, at night, under halogen gels be relentless at seeing beyond the dogfood and finding the intrinsic beauty of the subject, and there lies the meaning behind the artisitc application of photography If you can make dog food look beautiful it's safe to say you can make anything look beautiful.

At the risk of sounding dumb but by "CPL" are we talking a bout a circular polariser by chance?

While I'm being referred to as someone who takes artsy-sort of shots, I've really gotta say that in this instance, I'm not seeing too big a fuss here.

It might be because I've done this before when I started Uni and they told me not to because it's a tad cliched or it might be because I simply think you can do better... I just don't see a good artistic vibe in these images at all...

They were just taken, but, while I normally like shots that aren't planned, these feel like you had to wait for them instead of just pulling your camera out and shooting blindly without any thought to get them.

I also don't think that they're "arty colour tones"... I mean, what the hell is an "arty colour tone"? A colour is a colour, a tone is a tone, and it's irrelevant if you or I class them as arty.

You have colours and tones that I would see as normal, not arty.

Then again, I'm a freak.

Nnnnsic wrote:While I'm being referred to as someone who takes artsy-sort of shots, I've really gotta say that in this instance, I'm not seeing too big a fuss here.

It might be because I've done this before when I started Uni and they told me not to because it's a tad cliched or it might be because I simply think you can do better... I just don't see a good artistic vibe in these images at all...

They were just taken, but, while I normally like shots that aren't planned, these feel like you had to wait for them instead of just pulling your camera out and shooting blindly without any thought to get them.

I also don't think that they're "arty colour tones"... I mean, what the hell is an "arty colour tone"? A colour is a colour, a tone is a tone, and it's irrelevant if you or I class them as arty.

You have colours and tones that I would see as normal, not arty.

Then again, I'm a freak.

Leigh your a true artist.

Your right these are not arty colours or tones it would be more accurate to say the images are shot with a certain 'STYLE' that i strive to get.

Thanks to everyone for their valued opinions and support a true artist constantly re-evalutes themselves and their work changes as a result.

Argh.

I'm not an artist, let alone a true artist.

I take pictures. I'm a photographer.
I write things. I'm a writer.
But damn the whole idea that someone brings by being called an artist.

You are right. They are shot with a style, but I don't think it's your style. Your style is to be experimental... to me, this is you trying to break out of your style, but trying too hard.

If you're going to shoot, shoot.

If you want to get into a new style, don't strive to get into it, just be in it. As long as you like your work and as long as you believe you have a style, that's all there is to it, regardless of what I or any other person thinks.

And an artist doesn't re-evaluate their work and change it for people.
You don't play for people unless you want to get rich.

Art is a freedom of expression. You don't change your expression unless you want to. Granted, world factors can change your ideas and notions, but to suggest that your art will change because a group of people don't like your work is silly and weak at best.

Wendell,

Sorry to say it old bean but I think it is time to forget the toys and focus your attention on opportunities found, presented or contrived.

The search for expression is at once seductive and elusive. You but it is the search that should be the motivation and not the tools you'd recruit for that search.

I have the highest regard and deepest respect for Bill Henson as both an artist and a man but this stuff ain't remotely Hensonesque. Over the years Henson has developed the technical skill to push his medium right to the brink and yet retain or contain the information in the image. Here we havel detailless blown highlights and detailless clogged up shadows with no real harmony of pattern or balance to give it purpose. If you look at a master of stark polarity such as Aaron Sikind you will see that there is invariably a central design or form motif which is engulfed by the sea of black or of white which surrounds it.

You need to slow down and think as you work - just for a while. It is good to be reactive but reactive still needs refinement and refinement only comes through considered evaluation. Once mastered, or in the case of those with an innate sense of content, shooting can be more random and reactive, but in your case I feel you need to try being ordinary and letting your SELF develop and emerge rather than trying to fit a preconception of what might make for different or 'art'. It is like the fashion scene following the release of the movie Blow-Up in the 60s where everybody thought that to make a fashion photograph one needed to perform a choreography-with-camera and to hell with the subject.

Minor White added to Edward Weston's statement of the importance of THE THING ITSELF by saying that THE THING SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN FOR WHAT IT IS BUT FOR WHAT ELSE IT CAN BE. But this was all part of the evolution of the objectivity of Modernism to the subjective ideals of Post-Modernism.

As kids all we old codgers shot at every opportunity and experimented, just like you are doing. But we did not have the benefit of anything so communal as the internet and discussion groups. We also did not have the misfortune of making public our failed experiments or of having the communal NORM foist upon us - we developed as individuals in relative isolation rather than members of a clique. The knocks such as you have had here are the most valuable learning tools that can be had. Vacuous platitudes from the visually illiterate are just a short-term gratification and won't do you any good in the long run. It is not for me, or anybody else, to tell you how WE would have made YOUR picture but it does behove those of us concerned for your development to point out when you fall short of the mark.

Hope you understand and take it on the chin,

Leigh,

While I was deluded by the thought that I am Victor Hugo you wrote your post and I would like to congratulate you on it.

While I did refer to Henson as an artist (a distinction based on the understanding that he is an artist using the medum of photography as opposed to a photographer masquerading as an artist) I am usually very sparing in my acceptance or expression of the 'artist'/'art' precept.

In fact I believe that photography as it is widely practiced by 'photographers' is almost purely a craft as is cinema, painting, sculpture, music .... most things. Often it is with the passage of time and evaluation by the world at large that a work is earns the epithet - ART.

I think another important distinction should be made between ART and the ART MARKET - an industry with which Wendell is intimately acquainted - the former being a noble notion and the latter an exploitaticve commercial enterprise.

There was a lovely doco on the ABC Sunday Afternoon shpow the other week in which a sculptor and performance artist whose name escapes me at the moment expressed a most wonderful notion influenced quite obviously by her close collaboration with scientists. She said that ART and SCIENCE were very similar in that they were both reliant on the practitioner pushing the imagination and exploring the lkimits of understanding. She said she felt luckier as an ARTIST because her SCIENTIST colleagues were burdened by the need for PROOF and she was not.

Cheers,