Forums >
General Industry >
Things I Find Revulsive in Photography
We all have our individual styles, our likes and dislikes, but on a short list of HORRORS in photography I have the following: (1) splotchy under-tree shadows on upper torso and face (like a senior picture gone foul); (2) face blackened by shadow because bright light was put behind subject; and (3) white sky in the background. I detest the first two especially, two of the easiest things to prevent in outdoor photography. I recently told a model that too much of her port fell prey to these two cardinal sins, and she said: "Thanks! I'll tell my photographers not to [repeat the mistake] next time." Her photographers should already know and observe this cardinal rule. For outdoor work, the golden rule is: don't allow shadows in unless they enhance the picture. Too many MM and other online photographers are only too proud to offer their leafy-splotchy portraits and dark outdoor silhouettes as proof of their mastery of photography. Apr 30 06 08:48 am Link Ya want white skies? Ya got 'em. http://www.macstein.us/markophoto/portf … t+Thompson Gee, what was I thinking? LOL I'd show you the advertorial catelog I shot last week. White skies and shadows all over the model's face, but you might feint. Apr 30 06 08:51 am Link if you see anything in my photographs, its because i want you to see it... white skys and all..its a mistake to think that because "your" rules were broken, someone doesn't have control of thier craft... now lets talk about tacky cliché photoshop techniques... Apr 30 06 09:11 am Link What were you trying to say here? You find them revolting or you find them repulsive? To each their own, I say. One man's trash is another man's art. I'll stop the cliches there. Apr 30 06 09:15 am Link I hate coffee cup ring stains on photos myself. Apr 30 06 09:20 am Link Speed cameras in dual carriageways (highways) when most injuries are in towns and cities. That is about photography ist it Apr 30 06 09:25 am Link Sunday morning lectures about cardinal rules and the one right way to think -- thanks for reminding me why I left Oklahoma. Apr 30 06 09:30 am Link Y'all may want to pick up an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog..... White skies, blown out images, overexposed by 5 stops, dark faces, bad shadows....... And the photographers are making $15k a day. Unless Bruce is shooting, then its $30k a day (or more). ps Doug, nice shot!! Apr 30 06 09:35 am Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Agreed!!!! Apr 30 06 09:39 am Link I was checking out the OP's bio and with all the negativity in it, well . . . BTW, what is "revulsive?" Is it some weird second cousin to "repulsive?" Apr 30 06 09:40 am Link Revulsive. Not in Websters that I can find. Apr 30 06 09:44 am Link Well I hate Boring photographs and "Photographers" that do not know how to use their equipment, or worse write about things they hate.... Apr 30 06 09:45 am Link as a general rule, I hate people. Apr 30 06 09:47 am Link Eric S. wrote: (doing doing his best elvis impersonation)...thankyou...thankyouvery muchhhh... Apr 30 06 09:50 am Link Justin N Lane wrote: dogs make cool people..."fur people"... Apr 30 06 09:51 am Link KMPHOTOGRAPHY wrote: I find when the peoples of a foreign country repolt, revulsive. Apr 30 06 09:55 am Link KMPHOTOGRAPHY wrote: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.a … =Revulsive Apr 30 06 10:09 am Link it's always nice when a presumed typo is not, in fact, a typo. Apr 30 06 10:13 am Link Main Entry: re·vul·sion Pronunciation: ri-'v&l-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Latin revulsion-, revulsio act of tearing away, from revellere to pluck away, from re- + vellere to pluck -- more at VULNERABLE 1 : a strong pulling or drawing away : WITHDRAWAL 2 a : a sudden or strong reaction or change b : a sense of utter distaste or repugnance http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revulsion Apr 30 06 10:14 am Link Doug Swinskey wrote: I said I hate white sky and I do. This picture is neither splotchy or in deep silhouette as I spoke about, so it doesn't fit my "lecture." Apr 30 06 10:14 am Link Tim Hammond wrote: This shot is mainly about the shadow and the light, not the splotchy, shadowy dark silhouette stuff I spoke about. Funny how I speak about something that I personally hate, then I give a cardinal rule (which you all know is TRUE about not putting the subject in the dark etc), and then I get the counter lectures. Apr 30 06 10:16 am Link BCADULTART wrote: So do I (generally). . . ;-) Apr 30 06 10:18 am Link mrclay2000 wrote: But what if it is something I or others find "revulsive"?! It fits in this thread. Apr 30 06 10:21 am Link Visions Of Excess Studi wrote: Reminds me of my favorite almost-word: "porkulent." Apr 30 06 10:21 am Link We hit you with both barrels of the shotgun. No offense intended, at least on my part. But I just hate camera club mentalities. Nothing good ever comes from rules. Rules are a way to avoid making bad pictures if you have nothing to express. Apr 30 06 10:21 am Link I find general statements that put other photographers, who maybe in a learning curve, down revolting... Aren't there better things to do than focusing on other peoples "faults" and pointing them out? I rather focus on something positive, like doing my thing, while letting others do their thing. Apr 30 06 10:30 am Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Well, I stick with what I said in my post and will answer to what I said in my post. I had intended this post for the English-language forum but forum postings go haywire generally after the first few responses. Apr 30 06 10:30 am Link UdoR wrote: That's good advice, but how do we know they're just "starting out"? I know of many who do the splotch work year after year. If you're entirely right there is no such thing as "constructive critique." Apr 30 06 10:32 am Link mrclay2000 wrote: Well, if someone is asking for critique, that means that person tries to get input from outside talent. Apr 30 06 10:37 am Link UdoR wrote: There are indeed UdoR, the problem is that the general maturity level of most of the posts on this forum is equivalent to that at a seventh grade slumber party. But I'm with you... Apr 30 06 10:39 am Link KMPHOTOGRAPHY wrote: Although I highly disagree with his thread..the word is in the dictionary. Apr 30 06 10:46 am Link Pete Flanagan wrote: I don't mindthis because it means they bought your book! Apr 30 06 10:50 am Link I purposely light behind my background to create dark images... Apr 30 06 10:51 am Link I'm usually hesitant about offering criticism even when asked also. My original post spoke clearly about my personal dislikes. I seriously doubt (despite the majority in opposition here) that what I said is off the mark. When a portrait photograph IS the shadow, is that worth looking at? When splotchy under-tree sunlight checkers the subject, is that worth applauding? These are my points. So far all I read are counter shots. . . No one wants to comment on what I said specifically. No one. Apr 30 06 10:52 am Link "Things I Find Revulsive in Photography" The fact that no one has come up with darkroom safe lights that also work as tanning lights. Then you could have darkroom workshops in beach attire. Co-ed, of course. Apr 30 06 11:19 am Link UdoR wrote: Thanks Udo! NowI have a new dictionary to refer to as well. Although I must admit, this is the first time I've have ever heard the word "revulsive" used. Apr 30 06 11:48 am Link mrclay2000 wrote: You spoke clearly about "cardinal rules" that all photographers should follow in order to avoid your personal dislikes, implying that they are the standard against which all photography should be judged, and you did so with an arrogant, lecturing tone. Did you really expect people to post back and say "yeah, man, you're right - check out my portfolio and let me know what sins I've committed?" Apr 30 06 11:50 am Link OK... I've got one. However, first I'd like to point out that these "rules" shouldn't be considered "cardinal" laws of photography. There are always exceptions to any "rule" thatis declared in art. I tend to agree with the OP's original post, however, it is possible to break these rules and still have a good photo. I think Doug's photograph is an example of that -- the blown out sky actually adds to the atmospere of the photo; it adds a sense of hot sun to the beach photo. Had he exposed for the sky I think the photo would have lost that bit of drama. Also, he didn't make the blown out white sky prominate in the photo; the center of interest is still his subject. So, this is an example of a well used blown out sky, and a breaking of one of the OP's "cardinal" rules. Having said that, one of the things that really bugs me about a photo is when you can see the thin outline shadow caused by an on-camera flash on the wall just behind the subject. If I see that in my own photography I cringe and move on to the next one... I suppose it may work in some cases, but for me it's for the most part considered a fatal flaw in an otherwise good photo. Any others...? -P- Apr 30 06 11:55 am Link Pat Thielen wrote: You'd really hate my photos then . Of course, one of these days, I'll have lighting figured out MUCH better. I'm still learning though. Apr 30 06 11:58 am Link Tim Hammond wrote: Agreed -- I've done some silhouette shots as well and quite liked how they came out. There are *always* exceptions; the idea of "cardinal" laws of photography, or art in general, is ridiculous. And that is my own cardinal law. Apr 30 06 11:58 am Link |