www.gadsby.net/photoboy.html

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

ya'll tell me what you think please www.gadsby.net/photoboy.html

-- john allen gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 05, 2000

Answers

Bear with me if I'm honest. You have some incredible work on your site - as well as some that is pretty mediocre (technically and artistically). You have done what a lot of photographers (and models) do in their portfolios: collect all the pictures that mean something to you regardless of whether they fit thematically with the style you are attempting to develop. Just learn to be a bit more selective and objective about your work. (If necessary, create separate galleries for other types of images.) But I wish I had the kind of imagination you show in your best stuff.

(As a side note, some of the scans, particularly on the first couple of pages were a bit dark on my pc.)

By the way, are you still in Sarasota as the article mentions? I grew up in St. Pete and live north of Tampa now. (And commute to a day job in Orlando!)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), April 05, 2000.


mr. kantor

thanks for taking the time to look, yes, still in sarasota. do me a favor and point out where you think i'm lacking technically, i pride myself on doing perfect film development, (can't make a perfect print with an imperfect negative) and immaculate printing, granted, i'm not using top of the line enlargers, but i am generally pretty effective in getting what i want on paper. i tend to print a little dark, just a leftover from a teacher that hated grayed out, light, wishy washy prints. i usually strive for and get real high contrast prints. i think maybe some of the ones that are dark to your eyes are because i wanted them that way, though if the majority finds lighter prints pleasing, stuff for public comsumption should be lightened up a bit, don't make any money if you don't sell, right? :) give me some examples if you have the time and the inclination please. i really appreciate you taking the time you have already to look and tell me what you think. i have a hard time sometimes with scans cause i scan them one place and take the files home to put them online, my main workstation at home has a monitor with a gamma problem, all of it looks dark to me, ya know. i keep having to look at the pic, then open it on another box and try to find a happy median. once again, thank you very much for the compliments and yer time. hope to hear back from you soon. sincerely j gadsby

-- john gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 05, 2000.


Okay - here's my opinion with specific references to specific photos. If you don't have a thick skin. read no further.

First off, throw out all the solarizing, sabbatier, high contrast and collage stuff. I could tell you why, but that would just irritate both you and I. Is it sufficient to tell you that such work may be entertaining for the photographer to do once or twice, but for the viewer its boring? If we throw out all the solarized, hi contrast, etc., it gets rid of about half.

http://www.gadsby.net/annsm.jpg --- chopping people up into little artsy fragments shows us nothing about the people -- just their little parts. I'm not particularly interested in nipples and elbows without the people these parts belong to. You may as well be photographing fruit or flowers if you are going to abstract your subject in this way. On some level, to turn someone into an artsy fragmnent -- I think its kind of insulting to your subject.

http://www.gadsby.net/trishsm.jpg --- my rule of thumb: if it's not an interesting picture WITHOUT the hand coloring, it's probably not much better with it. If you want to use a brush, buy some canvas. There is probably no real good way to photograph someone wearing raccoon eye makeup squatting under a dark tree with the background blown out - maybe you should wash her face and bring her out into the light?

http://www.gadsby.net/jenna-jamesonsm.jpg --- is there any reason you like this picture other than the size of those tits?

http://www.gadsby.net/brainiacs_daughter.jpg --- too dark. I know your art teacher told you to print contrasty, but lets face it -- he didn't know what he was talking about. I can't see the woman's feet. I can't see the legs of the guy sitting on the bumper. The lower half of the picture is black mush. Availible light can only do so much when you want to shoot art rockers dressed in black in a garage. The guy on the left - his face is way too dark. These people look too posed for this to be a "casual" shot but not posed enough for this to be an effective group shot - in other words, they look uncomfortable and like they don't know what they are doing but theres this photographer there so... I mean, the way that woman is standing, it looks like there's a pole up her butt. Look at someone like Irving Penn to see how he photographs groups. Every gesture and body in a Penn is as carefully considered as a figure in a rennaisance painting -- and that applies whether he is shooting a garage band or a group of CEOs.

I know I haven't been very nice oin my review -- but I have at least tried to be honest. That should count for something. If you don't like my review, you can retaliate by a savage review of my work on this forum. http://alandale.freeservers.com

-- alan (adale6@excite.com), April 05, 2000.


By technical, I was primarily talking about elements concerned with the taking of the picture: the lighting, composition, and things like depth-of-field in some of your non-manipulated pics. (I can't see your original, but I believe you when you say you take a great deal of care with them.)

For a couple of examples:

The background in verosm seems detracts a lot to my eye. It's not blurred out, yet it's a drab scenes of middle greys which diminishes the impact of the silhouette. In fact the visible portion of the tube isn't much better. Verobeach2a succeeds for all the reasons verosm doesn't. Print verosm ultrahighcontrast and make them a diptych.

With Roen1 and 2, I can't tell whether you failed in what you attempted (an actual glamour look of some kind) - or were purposely creating this effect - as it looks like in steph1. I'd only believe the latter if I saw these in the context of more works which played on similar conventions.

This is the same problem with mj, self2, and the iguana - which seem to be just snapshots - without any subject matter, compositional elements, lighting, or color to give them any compelling interest - or any evidence that you are specifically trying to break some of these conventions.

A lot of your other images (like steph1) are quite interesting, however. In fact, I didn't think anyone could show me a solarized image that didn't look cliched, but bergblue is amazing. You should definitely start by organizing these pictures by stylistic categories, so that your pictures have some context in which to be appreciated. And start winnowing out the ones that aren't outstanding. Overall, people will form their impression of you from only two of your pictures - your best and your worst. It only takes one clunker to bring your stock down a lot.

I also like your website design. It's simple and clean. But the intro text is just a bit pretentious considering your style (and if it's a joke, it's not clear that it is). And I love Braniac's Daughter - but I had to get within 3" of the screen to read the writing (once I realized that it, in fact, was writing) and realize that it was a hotspot.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), April 05, 2000.


cool, have 2 people to answer, start with the first one first. Mr. Dale, thanks for taking the time to look at my stuff, ummmm you were pretty harsh, thats ok, they say everybody has an opinion, right? yeah, the pic of the pornstar is just for the tits, and that i met her, sorry, i work as stage and tour management for rock bands, i meet lots of famous folks, you called that one to a t. about the sabbatier stuff, no, no solarized, all sabbat. i get more good comments about those than just about any other of my work, yours is the first bad one i've ever had. so you don't like the litho posterizations and offset pos/neg litho prints, i do and this is about my art and vision, right? i sell these, they win prizes in shows, where is the part that i'm doing wrong? the inside of the elbow and the nipple, i liked the line in that vision, i was standing over the model and looked down through my machine and saw that, so i captured it :) the scan on brainiacs is a bit darker than the print, sorry, the band loved it, that was who i was shooting for. look, i dont mind criticism, but everything you had to say was negative, that's ok too everyone has their own opinion...... i only have a couple things to say about your stuff, i try not to cut off any of my subjects body, that's the way i was taught to shoot people, all yours are whacked at the waist. i think your pics are nice and pretty and "technically proficient", but i find them boring, nothing makes you look twice to say "what the hell is that" yeah, i'm abstract, i try to push the envelope, jerry uelsmann is my hero, http://www.uelsmann.com/ i find ansel adams boring too, yer in good company most of my own prints are 11x14 and 16x20, they dont fit into my scanner, and i dont trust anyone else to touch my stuff like that, my site is only a fair representation of my work. to me you seem to be a hardcore old-schooler, thats ok, if thats what makes you happy. keep on shooting, that's why we do it, cause we like it............ ............................ .............................................

for the second, Mr. Kantor,

thank you again for looking and your comments, i realize verosm is a far from perfect print, i guess that i was just trying to draw attention to the figure and the circle around her, i have numerous other prints of that, all different, i never stopped to look past what i saw in the pic, i realize now how washed out the rest of the pic is, thanks for pointing that out, i'll try to find a better print or two to put up, give me a week or so, i'll email ya when they're up. yes, mj, self2 and daliguana are just snapshots, i just liked them, the iguana has been used twice by others, self2 is a vanity pic (sorry everyone, haven't done a better one of myself) an mj was for a friend, allthough i kinda like the depth of field on that one, like the framing of the grass too. i think i'll take your advice and reorginize the pics into more definite categories, i would appreciate your advice on how you think i should do this, it's all just my work to me. yeah, the intro java was meant to be a joke, i don't do commision work, :) i make art, and sometimes people rent or buy it, sometimes i show alone or with one or two others, i don't actively seek to, but i do sell stuff. give me a hollar back when you can, here or my email, either is ok. if you would ever like a print of anything, just ask, it's yours

thanks again, hope to hear from you soon

keep shooting...........j gadsby

-- john gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 05, 2000.



i get more good comments about those than just about any other of my work, yours is the first bad one i've ever had. so you don't like the litho posterizations and offset pos/neg litho prints, i do and this is about my art and vision, right? i sell these, they win prizes in shows, where is the part that i'm doing wrong?

"Yall tell me what you think please..."

The problem is I see the technique, not the picture. Start with that thought and you'll eventually arrive at why I don't hold with all that eccentric darkroom work.



-- alan (adale6@excite.com), April 06, 2000.


I had assumed that your splash page picture was Brainiac's Daughter since that's the name that pops up with the cursor. However, the picture is actually neur1. But I like the actual pic of Brainiac's Daughter as well, though I did assume that the scan was darker than the original.

I have to disagree with a lot of Alan's remarks. He seems to be wanting to convert you to his style of photography (which I also like by the way). I liked Trishsm and it looked like you intended the effect you achieved. Annsm is killer.

Another aspect of presenting your work is the audience. Effects like the solarization/sabbatier one (which I don't know much about) are probably quite popular with nonphotographers. It's just that we have seen it all so often before.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), April 06, 2000.


The interesting thing about criticism, is that you can learn more about the critic than you can about the... ah.. victim?... er... perpetrator?... eh... artist?

Hi John, I'm gonna fall somewhere between these two guys. I've also seen too much sabattier to be distracted from the other aspects of an image by it's employment. I haven't identified any sabattier images that I think are well put together.

But that brings up the point Mr. Kantor raises. You need to organize the site better. I haven't looked at every image because you're all over the place and I don't remember which I've seen and which are kinda the same as that other one maybe, but hey... it's the same picture!... but solarized and what's this astrophotography doing here oh it's an oil slick now where was I oh yeh what's this smeary red thing but wait is that girl naked and crawling around in a bathroom?

I get worn out just trying to figure out what I've seen and so I'll come back in a month and try again.

But the elbow/breast picture isn't organzed (composed) well enough, that band picture is too blocked up and (Alan's right) they look unsure. And why even include the shot of the guy in the doorway... totally uninteresting. (Edit!)

The green girls smokin' in the parkin' lot is definately my favorite, very edgy. But lots of the pictures of girls seem kind of trite (the projected pattern should just be on the wall, not the girl. It looks like she's got a rash and who thought of that pose? What is she doing?...speaking of which the crawlin' girl just doesn't work (in an old bathroom?). The light on her face looks accidental, and the dress is blocked up so I can't tell if her breasts are bare or it's a lowcut blouse. John K., would you speak to that issue please: How to make people look like they have a mind of their own (or the photographer/A.D. does) and aren't just doing something weird/aimless for the camera... I'll whine more later, if you want... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 06, 2000.


The key is consistency and context. If you can show a number of pictures in a similar style that exhibit obivious control over the technique, then your viewers will leave with a definite impression of what you can do.

I suggest you create one gallery for your highly manipulated images, another for your more traditional portraits (like Brainiac's Daughter and steph1); another for abstract images like the fragmentary nude, and another for the very avant-garde people shots.

However, if you are really interested in making a living as a photographer, you need to pick a couple of these areas (at most) and concentrate on them. (Keep experimenting and stretching your skills, but don't post a style until you have a true portfolio.)

And you are going to have to solve the problem of getting good representations of your work on the internet - otherwise it's only counterproductive to post them.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), April 06, 2000.


thanks john and tom, i'll probably start working on the new layout this weekend, and be asking yer advice along the way ( if that's ok with ya'll, and u have the time) just to point out one thing that keeps coming up, i don't really have one particular style, nor am i really looking to fence myself in by leaning in that direction, i realize most professional photographers do, but i guess i think of myself as an artist first, i just try to capture or create the visions that i see. thanks again for your input, both positive and negative, thats what i was looking for :) be talking n posting soon........

john gadsby

-- j gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 07, 2000.



As I pointed out in another post (I'm not sure whether here or on the Philosophy of Photography forum), unfortunately, to be successful as an artist of any kind in our society you have to commodify yourself by creating an identifible image by which people can recognize your work (and you).

That doesn't mean you have to limit what you do - just be very careful about how you present it. Pick one of the styles that you like that you also think has a market and emphasize that. (That is, if you want to make some money doing this. If not, then you can do whatever you want.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), April 07, 2000.


Yeah, I think that's very good advice. It's dependant on a good dose of patience, of which this internet thing is the antithesis. If you were presenting this work through a gallery type exhibition, you'd really see the value of developing a style to a higher degree of sophistication before incurring the expense of mounting a "brick and mortar" exhibit, so to speak. Plus, a real gallery, well managed, would never allow such a schizophrenic collection of images to be shown, without an intense edit and careful sequencing and grouping. Self editing is one of the greatest challenges a photographer, or any artist, must face, and a skill that must be either developed, or hired out... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 08, 2000.

thanks again tom and john, i'm starting to develop the new site as you read this, going to scan a bunch of new stuff and catagorize my stuff and layout the site a little nicer, (already changed that presumptious java up front) keep up the comments, will inform you as new things happen and will continue to value your thoughts and assistance

peace........john

-- j gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 10, 2000.


Coming from the anal person that I am, I'm sure most people who know me would be suprised at what I'm about to write. I really like your work. One of the things I like best is the disorganization of everything. So what if there is no theme within the same page of pictures. I think it shows the outside the lines kind of thinking that is important. It is way to easy to organize and judge it is much harder, ala Alan, to step away from the norm: perfect lighting, perfect composition, etc. There are too many "perfect" pictures. I also like that you threw in a few snapshot type pics. They make you seem real and I think really associated the artist with the photos.

Yours are different and it's one of the first photo sites I spent some time on. I've gone through your pages more than a dozen times now. There are some I don't care for, but why would I ever think I would like every single one of someones photos?

I will agree about verosm, that is a great shot, but would be much better with a vastly different background. I'm not sure it would look good with more contrast or blown out, but it has potential.

Keep up the good work!

J.R.

-- J.R. Farrar (jeeperz@home.com), April 15, 2000.


Mr. Farrar,

thanks for taking the time to go and look at my work. thank you also for the praise. it seems that you look at what i do a bit closer to my own vision than most old-school photographers. like i have said before, i guess i'm an artist first, as i go by my vision and inspiration, rather than by the accepted structures of the mainstream photo world. I just choose photography as a medium to express what i see. alas, i am going to tidy up the site a bit, there is something to be said for at least the hint of order. but probably not go as far as to satisfy the majority of my peers. it fills my heart with joy to read a critique like yours, this is the kind of response i generally get, but from john q public, not from adams, walker, etc clones. structure to me is to predictable, boring, yeah, you get good photographs, but it doesn't blow me away to take a perfect pic of a perfect subject with perfect light and composition. i guess a lot of the comments prior to yours will have to be taken into consideration in order to facilitate an accepted entrance into the world of gallery owners and the public shows. that won't stop me from following my heart though, and that to me is what art is all about.

thanks for your thoughts,

sincerely, john gadsby

-- j gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 16, 2000.



You guys are right. The masses just love your pictures so why do anything different? Why even ask a dinosaur like me who is so anal that he bothers to change his chemistry once in a while what I think? What I tell you will just interfere with your very forward looking vision, never mind that it was boring when Man Ray did it in 1920.

-- alan (adale6@excite.com), April 17, 2000.

I'll try it in plain speech....quit concerning yourself with "art" or "artistic photographs" many of the photos on you site would be much more appealing without the manipulations. You simply are not an artist or even artistic yet...you have too much craft to learn. I agree with Alan and t...at some point we've all been through this overly creative stage and it's always soon after we grasp the basics and we know, John Allen, exactly what it means...for both you and Man Ray. It means you are masking poor techniques in the name of "creativity" but Man Ray did it first so you don't have to. I tutor many students and I've seen this trait in nearly every one and I let them do it despite my feelings...I only pray that they don't get stuck there. It can be very fun and invigorating to your work but don't develope a fetish for infrared or others to the exclusion of learning your craft. I'm as guilty as the next...I have one solarization that I'm quite fond of despite it's trite nature....just one. I have hand tinted and labored over gum prints and platinotypes...and I learned some valuable lessons in terms of alt processes...tricks that I use to this day in more "straight" photos but the most important thing I've learned is that you don't need to use these techniques but once in a blue moon and only with an image which might be enhanced by the process and never, ever used to cover poor techniques or in the name of creativity. So John Allen, the truth is that I've seen a million of these types of images. The last thing in the world you need right now is to listen to a photoclub judge, or a critic....you at this point need to learn more than they know and never seek awards or money or praise and realize that when someone coo's over your work.... filter that praise with what they know of photography.

good luck,

Trib

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.


geez, dont you guys have anything better to do than cut people down? i'm going to be putting up more of my straight edge stuff, i'm looking forward to ya'll tearing them apart too :) i have had a lot of input from professional photographers, not an artist huh? look at yourself first before you bust my ass. sorry i don't work for olan mills pthbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

jg

-- j gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 17, 2000.


i have had a lot of input from professional photographers, not an artist huh?

Yep. And one of the professionals you have had input from is me. I have been supporting myself on photo dollars alone for 4 years -- no pizza delivery job, no waiting tables, no government grant, no trust fund, no checks from mom. You can ignore my opinion if you like.

look at yourself first before you bust my ass. sorry i don't work for olan mills pthbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb. Or you can look at my work and respond in kind. I'm not afraid of what anyone can say about it - but its only fair to warn you - I'm not interested in anyone elses suggested changes. http:// members.xoom.com/symmar

-- alan (adale6@excite.com), April 17, 2000.


Self editing is one of the greatest challenges a photographer, or any artist, must face, and a skill that must be either developed, or hired out... unfortunately, grace under fire is also a learned skill. Feeling a little shell shocked? This is all well intentioned criticism, and pretty tame as far as this crowd goes. Believe me, trib's got his kid gloves on. We all get as good as we give, so toughen up and quit whining, it'll only make things worse. Oh, and those little smiley faces are like red flags in the bullpen around here... t

Try this place if you want more compliments

www.photocritique.com



-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 17, 2000.


whoa! I've never been to that site! I meant this one (oops)... http://www.photocritique.net/

sorry... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 17, 2000.


you know, i've thanked you for your time and opinions already, but i'll do it again, thanks trib, john, tom jr. i do respect your opinions and advice and work. i will be redoing my site and it will include a lot more straight photos. this will take some time. alan, i've already said everything i have to say about your work. you can keep adding your opinions if you want, if they're constructive, i'll read them, if they keep being destructive, i won't.have a wonderful day

-- j gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 17, 2000.

we wouldn't waste the keystrokes if we didn't think you were worth it!

cool yer shit and remember...these are our opinions and they shouldn't given undue weight. You start reading every photo text you can and shooting tons of film and then come back here and make us feel like assholes...you can do it...

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), April 18, 2000.


thanks trib, i'm workin on it

-- j gadsby (john@gadsby.net), April 18, 2000.

I wouldn't listen to Alan Dale - he is a complete nazi. He is an old enemy of mine. He has such limited and tight ideas of what photography is and what photographers should do that he should not give advice to anyone. Keep the faith -- stick with your own expression --- fuck alan dale.

My own site is under reconstruction. when I get it up, I'll post the URL here.

-- g debord (gdebord@angelfire.com), April 28, 2000.


When you ask for advice, the best you can get is clear and unequivocal - that doesn't mean you have to agree with it, or take it as a personal affront. You can learn a lot from someone who doesn't like your work; at least you are learning what it is not. You learn nothing from someone who's entire comment consists of "that's nice." Your mom would say that (unless, of course, she's a photographer).

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ