- This topic is empty.
Moher Light
-
No, absolutely miles away from this guy’s pictures-
There is a rigour and acetism to his approach,
which is more than offset by the lushness of his prints,Nearly all his seascapes are split horizontally,
half sea, half sky,
and while you might think that this approach would lead to a lot of repetition,
the opposite is the case.perhaps its the elemental nature of the subject-
I saw the exhibition in the Serpentine Gallery,
none of the pictures were labelled-I was particularly taken by one,
it looked exactly like a stretch of water I found myself completely becalmed in once,
in the middle of the Aegean Sea-The engine had packed in,
and Mick, the skipper, was replacing the lift pump.It was warm, and a mist obscured the far horizon.
There was no sound,
except for the sound we made ourselves.This picture looked exactly like that sea,
and when I checked,
it turned out that that black and white picture was taken in the Aegean.Crazy, huh?
My picture was taken on a little digital camera,
and it just doesn’t have the tonal range available on a big film camera
The pictures are completely incomparable.Add that to the fact that his pictures are a set that includes locations from all around the world,
and are optical enlargements on toned paper,
beautifully presented,
and hanging in a beautiful space.no comparison.
Sorry,
Long-winded again-j
A brief revisit to post an “in the style of”…
An earlier pic of Howth which I decided to process and split 50/50…
:?:
That’s all.
D.
hello again Dave-
I’m not entirely sure what to make of this one,
it does follow the rule,
but the sea in particular does seem a little flat.A little Holgaesque Vinaigrette may help too-
one major difference between your picture and his
is the size of the image,
which is related to depth of field-your’s is sharp throughout,
with a larger film that may not be the case-I think,
if it shows anything,
it shows that its not easy-j
JB, I didn’t comment on this one initially as I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it. However, it has grown on me and well….I like it!
(Just one thing…..did you consider a long exposure? :lol:)
jb7 wrote:
the sea in particular does seem a little flat.
A little Holgaesque Vinaigrette may help too-
if it shows anything,
it shows that its not easy-Agreed :-)
I thought about vignetting (or were you hungry?) but decided to keep it a little flat intentionally.
After I realised it couldn’t be anything else ;-)
D.
Thanks for the comments gentlemen-
a long exposure wasn’t really an option at the time-
I was using a 3x teleconverter on a Nikon E5000 without a tripod-
There is something not quite right with the combination,
the highlights at the bottom of the picture seem reasonably sharp
(though probably helped by in-camera sharpening),
while the far horizon is not in focus at all.But in this case,
I think it probably helps the picture.The Vinaigrette was concocted by Paddy Joe from Strabane,
when he attempted to fake a Holga picture on this forum a while ago-
and it kinda stuck,
especially when used to describe the salad of effects inherent in images from that type of camera-Thanks again for the comments,
much appreciated-j
jb7 wrote:
The Vinaigrette was concocted by Paddy Joe from Strabane,
when he attempted to fake a Holga picture on this forum a while ago-
and it kinda stuck,
especially when used to describe the salad of effects inherent in images from that type of camera-:lol: :lol:
… and I still laugh about that one.Sorry JB, I have a different opinion.
I normally critique based on what I see rather than what I imagine and unfortunately that is the limitation of posting on a web forum. However, if I try very hard and imagine this hung big on a gallery wall, I just see a wallpaper. That’s not to say that wallpaper cannot be art. It can still evoke a mood and emotion in the people that sit in a room.
I certainly feel that I could walk into a room with this image and feel a sense of calm. However, I could walk into a room painted a calming plain blue and feel exactly the same thing. I’m all for minimalism, but I don’t find this concept photographically interesting I’m afraid. With the absence of a focal point, I feel a photo at least needs an interesting framework to avoid it becoming what I would term a wallpaper. The structure in this one does seem a little off balance and out of proportion with that brighter band in the foreground and the horizon placed awkwardly. Sorry I can’t be more positive.
Saying that, it is great to see something different and a bit more experimental posted on here and this debate is a very interesting one.
I think Bono will be on the phone to you today for the next album :lol:
Have you tried a square crop?
Well Frank, funny to see this one again-
The U2 album cover has been discussed in General Chat already,
in the context of them having copied somebody else’s cover-Imust admit, I was surprised to discover that an original Sugimoto had been used-
I suppose I shouldn’t have been, but I might have been less surprised had I discovered that Wonka had taken it-
(sorry Alan, it’s just that you posted something in a not dissimilar style around that time)I haven’t seen the U2 cover, but I know what a cd looks like-
I wonder if they had decided not to release a 12″ would they have even considered this level of minimalism?U2 fans will undoubtedly have seen it and held it,
and will be happy to know that their cd cover is a reference to the more beautifully printed and presented album sleeve.Most of them will never have seen the original print,
and frankly, to most of them, it doesn’t matter-Fintan, haha, very funny-
I must have tried some crops, but it’s so long ago now-Andy, I’d agree about the composition-
looking back now, my choice of horizon position does seem very clunky.
I was already conscious of the Sugimoto reference when I posted it,
and that distracted me from putting it where it should be-I don’t know where you saw the reference to this picture hanging on the walls of a gallery,
that idea is patently absurd. You’re imagining things, as you said.I’ve printed it to A3, and it looks alright at that scale-
but I’ve drawn away from the bombastic nature of big prints for my own work-
Must be the recession.Wallpaper comes in many forms, as you well know.
A repeating pattern can be one of it’s hallmarks-I’ve seen you use this ‘wallpaper’ word a few times now,
I’m wondering how I should interpret it-
Cliche? Something cheap printed by the roll?
Not great Art? Something you might hang over your couch,
or rather, over somebody else’s couch?
Something somebody else does?Anyway, to get back to why Frank bumped this one up,
it’s not really about this picture, it’s more to do with Sugimoto’s picture,
and how it has entered public consciousness in the meantime.I was extremely fortunate to have seen original prints from the series in the Serpentine Gallery in London,
absolutely beautiful work. Originals, not cliche’s or copies.If you ever get a chance to see an exhibition,
you should go, don’t take my word for it.However, saying that, there were some who didn’t like it…
Thanks again-
joseph
Sorry, I didn’t notice that this one was originally posted in 2007.
Interesting discussion anyway.I think I’ve tended to use the word ‘wallpaper’ where I am describing a photograph which has no real focal point or even a general direction for the viewer to look within the frame. Much the same way that when you are admiring the wallpaper, then you don’t really need to look in any particular direction. Perhaps they could be described as directionless.
Not necessarily cheap, but printed by the roll? Yes maybe. Perhaps great art to some, especially if it is pasted in the right place and to the right audience.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
