- This topic is empty.
Jade
-
facets series #1 – tampered
no photoshop – in cartridge manipulation of polaroid 600 with nd gels
d
This is absolutely incredible David :) , unbelievably well executed and although the image is quite provocative you’ve kept it the right side of tasteful – something alot of photographers just can’t do. I don’t have anything else to say other than I love it :) Well done .. again :)
Yep..what the Lady said ;-) Really interesting and imaginative use of photography David. Really like.
thank you so much guys :D
must admit was a bit nervous about posting it on here as was worried it might not be appropriate for the forum
and ali .. what can i say!! you are too kind, your comment has made my day :-)
d
Really really really well executed. Serious pat on the back there!
Apart from the technique, its a great image too. Good lighting and colours.
Really really like this one alot!!!
…….really!
Great collage!
Have looked back at this several times and it really just gets better. Brilliant intersections, and I like how you used the filters to tone the light.
:D
Sharoncan’t thank you all enough :-D
flipflip – .. really .. really appreciate it ;-)
dave – enough said sir .. thank you :-)
sharon – i really do appreciate that you took the time to view it many times, and see that there was a plan behind the intersections and light – thank you so much!d
Ha! Tried this a good few times myself, fun to do, but pretty darn expensive!
Like Sharon, I’ve been back to view this several times, and I’ve
tried to like it as much as everyone else. I’ve almost succeeded at
this stage – but not quite.I love the idea. I like the toning in each of the separate elements.
It’s possibly the arrangement of the separate elements that just isn’t
sitting right with me. The two segments to the left seem to be
independent or separate without any overlap, apart from their
individual frames, whereas all the other sections overlap into
the actual images. Does any of what I’m saying make any
sense. Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m just not seeing what everyone
else is seeing. I want to like it more, but it’s just not
happening for me. Sorry.Rob.
Like Rob, I’ve been coming back. I didn’t comment because I thought I probably “didn’t get it” due to my own shortcomings. I admire the technique enormously. I feel like I’m looking through separate panes of wonky old-fashioned glass – which seems very clever. But the model’s behind is so much more prominent than her face that I keep wondering if she has Zackery syndrome i.e. it’s not a very nice photo of a lady. I think she is in a humiliating/humiliated position somehow, and that makes me uncomfortable.
Rob – no need to apologise sir :-) .. and thanks very much for taking the time to comment .
you are an individual .. we do not all like the same things :-) .. and that is exactly how it should be.
Pete again really appreciate you taking the time to comment .. i am disappointed however that you see this as a ‘humiliating to model’ image .. and that may very well be my shortcomings .. (although i must say i think the rather sexist zackery reference would be more humiliating to Jade than her position in this image)
this was meant to an uneasy erotic image that made the viewer think – questioning sex and sexuality, on one level she is in a highly sexual position, yet the setting and her make up are anything but, a tampon lies on the floor and the images are arranged in a very abstract manner .. it was meant to challenge and provoke thought .. and i am very very glad that it has.
best
d
David_S wrote:
.. it was meant to challenge and provoke thought .. and i am very very glad that it has.
Fair play to you. Looks like your intention was met by my reaction. The zackery syndrome reference was not intended to be rude to the lady, but to point up the fact that her face is so hard to see. My choice of the word ‘humiliate’ was probably a poor one – I was sympathising with her undignified position.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
