Summer Afternoon (Erotica Aftermath)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

I've got nothing to say, but it's okay... good morning, good morning, good morning... t



-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 30, 2000

Answers

I like it. I like the crop straight through her nose, I like the composition where the recently-used bed is almost the focal point, I like the siluette-without-being-a-siluette effect (just the right amount of definition in her image).

The only thing I don't like is the nasty compression artefacts in the image (see the wall). Use a better compression quality next time: your images deserve it!

Good stuff.



-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), June 30, 2000.

siluette = silhouette. I'm still jet-lagged or something. Need more champagne :-)



-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), June 30, 2000.

The feel of summer really comes across well (too hot for clothes!).

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), June 30, 2000.

Tom, do you realize that you have cut your subject's face in half?

:-)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 30, 2000.


one of the few photographs displayed herein to date that really communicates something beyond the image itself. excellent work.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), June 30, 2000.


I can certainly understand someone liking this photograph a lot, maybe more than all the others here, it's a wonderful photograph, but to just come in and diss all the others seems like a bullshit move to me. Comment on the others and then say it, but praising by damning everything else strikes me as the ultimate in pointless posting. You seem to have not commented on any recent postings other than this one, and if you think about what you say here...well draw your own conclusions.

Tom, no reflection on you. You know how I feel about your work...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 30, 2000.


hmm, I'll just let it be (sorry about the Beatles jag, it's really accidental).

I wouldn't know how to alter the compression quality. There's actually a little more shadow tonality, I wouldn't call it detail. Thanks for the comments... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 01, 2000.


I didn't read Wayne's comment as being necessarily negative (though it certainly is open to more explication). This picture, with its almost abstract subject and strong composition, has much more of a traditional "fine art" sensibility to it than most of the other posts. (I don't know which ones he's actually seen).

Most of the posts here have been (following the theme of the forum) more along the lines of photojournalistism, portraiture, or what I'd call photo viriti (which is the term I'd use for your photos, Jeff). Of course, I think that categorizing like this has a number of limitations, but it does provide a frame of reference for discussing themes and techniques.

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


erotic math

On my screen the half person doesn't stand out well at all so maybe this is moot. The idea I see is really good and I like it. If the subject is cut in two right down the middle I feel it is strong. If not cut down the middle, to me, it lessens the impact. It becomes too loose. I wish I could see it better. But I like it and the message is clear. Sultry aftermath on a warm moist morning. Emotion plus. Meaning clear. Not all of the images here are this suscinct. I hope all of you are still here when I get set up and start posting. Soon I hope. One more window, a little plaster and I'll be here. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

This image first strikes me as thoroughly geometrical: squares and rectangles contrasting boldly with one another. A defocusing of the eyes and stepping back reveals this dramatically. Then my focus zeros in on the wavy hair, the curves of her body, the wavy wrinkles in the sheets, the rounded corners of the [fan|screen] in the window, and then the pillow. I also really like the backlighting of her body showing her curves.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), July 02, 2000.


mr. spirer: i am somewhat puzzled why you feel the need to criticize my critique. it was my understanding that this forum was provided for the purpose of offering critical observations of the various images offered. i also am bemused by your presumption that there is some sort of minimum postings per week, or that one must respond to all (or a large number) of the images supplied, or else risk your disapproval. i can assure you that if i did post my response to each and every image, the chances are excellent, based upon the heightened degree of sensitivity you have exhibited in your response to my post, that you would indeed wax eloquent in your displeasure with me. i say this because, quite frankly, your last two offerings have been hopless wastes of good film; one is a well exposed example of a surprised cook, and the other is a vague and ill-composed mystery, complete with blown out "highlights". in short, mr. spirer, the chief cause of my hesitancy to review each submission is that i have a distaste for pointing out the absence of excellence. i intend to follow that policy in the future, whether or not you approve. wayne harrison

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), July 02, 2000.

Well, before this escalates any farther: Wayne you need to take a look at Jeff's site (www.spirer.com). No matter what your personal tastes or critical perspective may be, you'll have to admit that the pictures are stunning.

And to all of the lurkers out there: I don't think many pictures are being posted here out of hubris. Most of the time, the creator is just sharing an idea or an approach - not looking for gratuitous accolades (or even well-intentioned criticism for that matter).

My most recent posts (of the bridal model) aren't very good. I know that, and I know how to fix it during the next shoot. But I thought they were relevant to the thread and that people might be interested in seeing them. I'm glad that no one either praised them for qualities they don't have or wasted their breath to tell me their obvious faults.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 02, 2000.


"exaggerated pride or self-confidence"... indeed Mr. Kantor, you speak for me.

I like to take pictures. I like to look at pictures. I like to talk about them. I generally like photographers, at least in small doses, even (or especially) those who have intense, well informed opinions I disagree with.

I do concur, with slight modification, with a comment by Mr. Harrison, i.e. I have a reluctance to point out the absence of excellence. If I have something to say that might prove enlightening, I'll say it, if not...

I was married by a couple of Sikhs, who attempt to improve the lives of anyone they meet, no matter how briefly. An admirable code of conduct, if somewhat open ended... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindsppring.com), July 02, 2000.


I don't really understand Wayne's comments. His comment on Tom's photo is about communication, yet his comments about "hopeless waste of good film" talks only about exposure.

The cook wasn't surprised.

John seems to understand the nature of the forum. I posted the one that I assume is referred to as "blown out" seeking comments about shooting faceless people. I was upfront about that in the posting.

Finally, "blown out" is something someone may or may not like. It's kind of like saying that band is lousy because it distorts the guitar sound. If I could play guitar, I would learn all the nuances of incredibly distorted sound. But "blown out" is not good or bad by itself.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), July 02, 2000.


one of the few photographs displayed herein to date that really communicates something beyond the image itself. excellent work.

I don't agree with the assesment but don't dispute the author's right to hold that view.

If something you read in here offends you, wait an hour before responding. Chances are, whatever it was that got up your snoot won't matter that much anymore.

One of the reason's I'm feeling less and less compelled to check the online forums is that I'm losing interest in them --- maybe I'm getting jaded, maybe the forums themselves are less interesting because more and more time seems to be spent squabbling over details of personal opinion, amybe a little of both.

Tom -- it shouldn't matter to you if I like this picture or not. In all honesty, I don't like it. The cropping that others like I find rather affected---why chop her off like that? Too "artsy-fartsy" in my book. I'm not going to try to tell you how to do your own work, however or tell you that you should have included more of the figure even if she stayed out of focus(even though I just did while telling you I wouldn't --- sneaky, huh?). The fan, the window, the bed -- those I like.

... communicates something beyond the image itself... Yeah, well, I don't understand why a more straightforward picture wouldn't "communicate" to me as well or better.

All that said, understand that my opinion should mean nothing to you.

-- alan dale (adale66@excite.com), July 03, 2000.



She's cropped and out of focus because I wanted to make an erotic image that wasn't an objective rendering of a specific woman's body. I wanted the viewer to have access to the sensual nature of the situation without distracting them, or restricting them with details about a specific individual. To be able to place themselves in that moment, or perhaps remember a similar moment in their own lives, or even allow them to fantasize about that situation with a person in they may actually know. A more clear, whole rendering of my friend would have made it too specifically about us, which in my mind would make it inappropriate to exhibit as art.

Can you tell, I do care about your opinion. I think all artists should care (Too "artsy- fartsy"? Tough). I might not change what I do or think, but how boring it would be to not care... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000.


You see, I think the artifice of the picture -- with focus on the fan and the woman out of focus and cropped off bring more attention to the hand of the artist and choices made in photographing than the scene or it's meaning. As I said, I like the bed, the window, the fan and think they speak more volumes about erotic longing and hot summer afternoons than an eccentric cropping on the nude. The other picture you showed recently, of the woman in jeans lying face down on the bed, I felt was more about erotic longing too, but again, that's my take on it...

I can understand your wanting to keep private things private, but I think photographs often express specifics very well and generalities very poorly --- generalities like the sexual longings of humankind, specifics like sexual longings of the individual...but maybe that's a subject for another thread.

"Artsy-fartsy" isn't intended as a slam specifically against you, but photographs like this, that some feel look "romantic" because of the loss of detail in shallow depth of field and eccentric cropping -- I feel they draw specific attention to the visual qualities of photography itself --- the ability to crop and slice off the subject, using the camera as a window and the specific "how things look" of shallow depth of field. "Artsy-fartsy" meeans I see the presentation before I see the photograph. If it makes sense to you, I think this picture is more about the photographer making a woman sitting on a bed look like art....if that is your intention, fine...but what was said above led me to believe otherwise. "Artsy-fartsy" is not specifically BAD in my book (I've got scads of artsy-fartsy pictures and they are priced to MOVE!), but it isn't the pure distillation of summer erotic longing either...

On a side but very related note, have you seen DeCarava's photographs of beds?

As far as "caring" what I think --- everything I write is, admittedly, written from my perspective. You can listen -- I hope you at least read it anyway, but I don't want to be in the driver's seat of your artistic endeavor. Sometimes the opinions of others can resonate too loudly. I also candidly admit I might be wrong - dead wrong - about this picture or any other I might comment on.

-- alan (adale66@excite.com), July 04, 2000.


What I like about this picture is that it inverts the figure/ground relationship. Normally, the figure would be the center of attention, in focus and correctly exposed, with the background secondary. Here the situation is reversed. Looking at this, I find myself bypassing the obviously erotic in favor of the textures and patterns of the mundane that lies beyond. Haven't there been times - in "real" life - when you've found the same thing happening?

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000.

First, I did not take "artsy fartsy" as a personal slam, for I know I am not "artsy fartsy". It is a term I: 1)believe to be reverse snob- ism and 2) avoid. I am, however, enjoying this conversation so don't take that as a slam against you personally. ha. and I don't understand how you could be dead wrong about saying what you believe, even if you were to change your mind. This is no contest, there are no rules or points to gain or loose, disagree all you like! and I thank you for your disagreeable ways. ha, again. Now onward...

Well, yes, it's about photographic seeing... what photograph isn't? and don't we (as photographers) frequently see in photographic terms, recognize what we see in this way as an appropriate view to photograph, and then whip out the camera and do it!? To go beyond that, don't we see the subconcious relevance of this type of vision? The bicameral mind of humans, the capability to experience multiple realities simultaneously?

Let me relate what I mean to this specific photo: To be in the position of the camera (me), first person, arising from your lover, from your shared physical, emotional and spiritual experience, you come out of that close, active hypnotic state and step back... suddenly recognizing all of the other things that made that moment like no other, the heat of the 2nd floor bedroom, the hum of the fan, the pattern of your bodies on the sheets, the soft light of the late morning... your focus shifts from her back to the world and you see, and think, "My God, where's the damn camera?".

Had the focus been the other way, it would have been a picture like many others. While many other men have made photographs of their beautiful lovers, none were in that room at that hour on that day with the breeze and light and a woman there so close that seeing her was almost more than bearable. Arising from the intensity of her, the room came sharply to my senses and this is the picture I made.

And beyond that, to expand the hyperfocal to include all in my field of view would have demanded either a tripod or much higher speed film and neither were suitable, handy or desired. This photograph is precisely about a man making a woman sitting on a bed look like art, she was art, the whole moment was art and, I'm astoundingly happy to say, still seems like art today... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 05, 2000.


Interesting. While I might stage something like this after the fact, I don't think I would ever pick up a camera in the heat of the moment.

(And that brings up my other new thread!)

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


Read that again, John... it was after, not during. I promise not to post any "during" photos (but try it, you might like it... just be sure to process your own film)... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 05, 2000.

I see this almost as within the genre of landscape ; from a backdrop of pure mundanity (a bare wall, a bare window), flows a river of rumpled sheets, beside the rivering waters of, the hitherandthithering waters of, sits a beautiful seductive woman abstracted almost to a sphinx.

Hence this picture demonstrates how the sublime and symbolic may be derived from pure ordinariness and banality.

-- fw (finneganswake@altavista.net), July 11, 2000.


can I swap "banal" and "mundanity" in your sentence construction?

When considering this as landscape, I look for small Barbazon type figures, winding their way throught the sheet topography. The coffee toned image was more in the landscape line, for me. I'll post another similar landscape soon... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 11, 2000.


I saw this image mentioned in one of the comment threads and had to go look... I like the subtlety of lighting on the female figure, the bold crop and composition and clever choice of DOF. But I suspect that the great impact of this image lies in a male fantasy - which I don4t possess or have access to. Since I seem to be the only woman who has made a comment, it4s hard to tell - but I suspect...

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 31, 2000.

"But I suspect that the great impact of this image lies in a male fantasy..."

I'm not sure about this. When evaluating this and other photographs bordering the erotic from the male viewpoint, the merits of the photograph are considered some time before fantasy enteres in to cloud things. Not denying that there is fantasy, but I don't think it plays the role that you suspect.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), August 31, 2000.


response to Summer Afternoon ( Erotic Aftermath)

Is this a Freudian slip beginning to appear. The title encourages, the earlier commnets confirm the initial male reaction. Post coitial lethargy, subdued lighting, sexual overtones. Who would have thought such a thing could happen, how dare they??

Tut Tut,

Jack.

-- Jack McVicker (jack.m@virgin.net), September 01, 2000.


Tony, I guess I was mostly referring to a comment made above, stating that this photo "really communicates something beyond the image itself." This "something" has to be very subjective, as any kind of emotional impression one gets from an image. I may have been jumping to conclusions by assuming that it could have something to do with sex :) The image is very tangible in a way, much more so than the usual glamour erotica. I would be surprised if it didn4t cause a thrill of some kind for somebody...

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), September 01, 2000.

One of the reasons I am willing to exhibit this photograph, is because it is so specifically erotic, without being very specific.

The feminine characteristics of this woman are subtle, compared to the erotic characteristics of the over all image. Why is this? The rumpled bed implies it's recent past, the fan in the window reminds the viewer of a familiar physical sensation, warm wind on your skin, and the quite deliberate title leads the viewer specifically to time of day, season of year and specific activity. The figure, however is obscured. Slight light reveals her, and an undeniable smoothness of thigh denies any masculinity.

It is (of course) conducive to male fantasy (it doesn't take much, you know), because (presumeably) heterosexual people are reviewing it here.

Perhaps certain women might find both perspectives familiar (observer and the observed).

I prefer my erotic imagery to be about shared, not imposed experience. To be accessible and enjoyable to both feminine and masculine sensibility. Am I making sense?p> Thank you for speaking your mind, I always appreciate your contributions to this overly masculine forum (do you have any sisters?)... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 02, 2000.


I was also trying to say, that certain responses are given here because "(presumeably) heterosexual people are reviewing it here"... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 02, 2000.

Sorry - just couldn4t resist - click here

:)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), September 02, 2000.


Rats! The Orgasmo-Meter went off before I even clicked on it. I hate it when that happens.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), September 03, 2000.

I'm not going to comment on the sillyness above because it seems to be detracting from the point of the post in the first place. If you see a silly comment, please ignore it rather than making it take up the whole thread of a nice picture. If you want to tell the person to say something constructive try it via private email first because it just becomes a pissing contest if you don't.

NOW FOR SOMETHING RELEVANT:

I'd like to say it is a romantic image, but that does not quite fit. Aftermath as a title has a negative tone which also does not quite fit. The pillows and the bed would have made an excellent still life by themselves with that sunlight(just a side note).

I tend to like the image but end up wanting more, more of what I have no idea exactly. More of a sense of texture from her, not more detail but just more. Perhaps just a bit more light wrapping around the left side of the sihoutte, something that makes that left side less dead. Perhaps even a slightly different pose, maybe a more intense sense of collapse, such as her head buried in her hands etc. I'm not trying to change your picture into something of my minds eye but just wondering if you had an image of just her hand layed out along the texture of the rumpled sheets or just her legs towards the window at a 45 degree angle, you would still have the nice lead in you have now but it might be a different feeling. You don't need to really include her to include her, if you get the idea.

Either way I like the image and I personally think if you have some more frames it would make an really nice tryptch. Images like this seem to demand a tryptch from my personal internal photo demon. I really see a nice series in this if you keep experimenting with it. A nice series of 10 strong images would really take this photo to another level. A lot of people seem to stop at that one nice image and not move on to a series or really explore that part of photography which moved them. I really think this could be a jump point for you in your photography if you just ran with it for a while to see what magic would reveal itself.

Thanks for sharing tom the image I enjoyed it, I think you really got something here, run with it and break a couple more rules, you can always edit later.

Altaf

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), October 11, 2000.


I ran with it and have a small book's worth of images from that period.

I could not "pose" this person, as she was not a model, and this was not a photo shoot. This is an autobiographical image, and so is a single point in an ongoing body of work, i.e. me living my life (with a camera).

However, the critical distance is supplied in the edit (years later), and I have yet to assemble all the images from variously well defined periods of my life into a cohesive exhibit (book? This woman would certainly be a chapter or two). Currently, "Mid-Career Retrospective"s are quite popular. If I could afford it, it would be a lot of fun to put one together. I'll let you know (don't hold your breath)... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 11, 2000.


A web book is cheap and still a lot of fun to put together and you would reach a much wider audience. (HINT HINT HINT :-])

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), October 18, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ