Joy, looking all atmospheric. The drizzle and incipient dusk made this noisy, gloomy blurryness happpen, but I kinda like it.
|Date:||April 15th, 2013 11:07 am (UTC)|| |
I agree that the noise/gloomy blurryness looks consistent with the fashion period being depicted, which adds to the photos overall appeal. Film grain of the time has a somewhat different structure (someone whoe blog I follow is obsessive about that detail), but at these relatively small sizes one gets a similar effect. Both these and the photos of Sadie yesterday seem very appropriate to the fashion style.
If I might make a small suggestion for the future, about the last photo of today, and the photo of Sadie yesterday: you may wish to consider paying attention to the negative space around the body. In the photo of Sadie yesterday my eye was drawn to the fact she was visually closer to the left of the stairs than the right; and in the last photo of Joy today I get the same feeling of being drawn to her being visually closer to the left of the stairs. Without the sense of it being a deliberate design choice, because each is only slightly not-visually-centred. (With the last one of Joy today if I pay more attention to it, the next thing I'd probably take away for next time would be to move slightly so as to get the far shoreline crossing somewhere other than hat-line. But these are nitpicks of some lovely photos.)
PS: I feel it's likely that we've met, given I know both of the models, but I can't put a face to your name.
Thanks for the feedback, it really is appreciated.
I agree with you about the line of the hat coinciding with the shore, but not about the positioning within the frame. I haven't quite formulated my argument here, but I think it goes something along the lines of the model having a relaxed posessiveness of the frame.
WRT to the digital grain, the vocabulary of photography is one of technical limitations. A shallow depth of field is something that you never get in real life (unless you are terribly short sighted) but is understood by everyone now to convey information about size, distance and/or importance in photographs and film now.
I am trying to learn to accept noise as part of a current vocabulary of photography - film grain is a limitation of film, and I am not necessarily trying to emulate film. Like steampunk, my images look kinda like the past, but in the details there is a past that never was.
We may well have met - I have a hopeless memory for names, and an even worse one for wireframe cubes. Where do you know our mutual friends from?
Edited at 2013-04-16 12:20 am (UTC)
Geeze I sound pretentious...
|Date:||April 16th, 2013 12:43 am (UTC)|| |
For clarity, in both photos I mentioned I do like the pose of the model, and the way they've "relaxed into the frame". I'd just have moved the steps. (And since the steps are somewhat non-trivial to move, just for a photo, the more realistic option is to consider asking the model to move a touch to the left/right, and/or moving the camera to match.) It is, however, very much an artistic choice. And it sounds like you got the result you wanted.
I saw an experienced photographer point out recently that if lens design had started now -- with our pretty insane by historical standards ISO levels (100-400 was "high" for most of the 20th C; these days 1600-6400 is "high") -- then there may never have been a technical reason to create lenses with really wide apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.9), the focus would have gone into "a bit higher ISO". (For both the original technical reason was "acceptable shutter speed in low light".) But now, as you say, that "shallow depth of field" option has become part of the visual language of photography ("pay attention to this bit, the rest is background"). As it happens I am short sighted (about -7.5 diopter), so shallow depth of field/blur can definitely resonate a lot for me.
BTW, it occurs to me -- just now -- that "digital noise" is the steampunk of film grain. So it's even more appropriate. (Possibly only in that pretentious arty way though :-) )
PS: I know Sadie via a mutual friend from her former country, and Joy from Rock'n'Roll dancing (and via Sadie prior to that). I too have a hopeless memory for names, so it's possible both our brains are refusing to recall a time when we met!
These are great, love the outfit! :)
So I uh deleted Joy's comment by accident. It said:
Wow. This is how it goes for me when taking a photo "stand there, smile, click" and when looknig at a photo "this is pretty, wow!" You guys make me both giggle, cos it is just a little bit kind of arty and pretentious,(which is code for people who don't know anything being annoyed by people who do know something talking about it in special code) but also makes me realise that there is SO much more to this then I am even aware of, and it makes me appreciate you Sarah even more! Thanks for being so wonderful and generous!
I'm not sure I remember ever introducing the two of you, but should the opportuntity arise, I will be sure to do so.