"W. as Nude Christ" p> For once, I'm just gonna post something and shut up. It's an old one, of course. Any comments?

shawn

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 19, 2000

Answers

Looks cool. Will have to look more at it later when my toilspace overlords are elsewhere.

Andy

-- Andy McLeod (andrewmcleod@usa.net), September 19, 2000.

Shawn - I sent you an email on this, it has nothing to do with size issues. You have referenced an html page as an image source. This is easy to do, but it's not size - I have never used the size markers in an image posting here.

This should work:

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 19, 2000.

Thanks Jeff, no email from you yet.

It's been a long time since I did this. Ugh.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 19, 2000.

Just out of curiosity, lemme try again with another shot of the same girl:

...and hopefully it will work. :-)

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 19, 2000.

with regard to your second post (untitled): this is an excellent exhibit for the proposition that successful portraiture does not require a full face eye contact with studio lighting. however, note that the image is *not* murky, shadowed, or intentionally blurred.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), September 20, 2000.

>>however, note that the image is *not* murky, shadowed, or intentionally blurred.

...which is kind of, well, lucky: it was actually just very low- wattage bar lighting, and I was probably around 1/30 at f1.4 or something close to that.

It was a very lucky shot. I also spent a lot of time burning in certain areas, since the neg was so thin and unruly...if I recall correctly, it was APX100 shot at EI400...developed in Ilfotec HC at 1:31...methinks...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

a question: is that glow around her right arm infectious development? it's in the neg.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

Both of these have a 20-s Weston-esque cast to them, the nude is definitely a westonesque model. The only flaw I'd say is the lighting which in this pose puts a shadow on her chin that makes her look like she's wearing a bicycle helmet- thats distracting to me, anyway. The only cure I guess is polaroids and knowing that you need to get some fill in there-

The other one's great- even the overexposed parts seem to fit. It is really a jewel of human, and photgraphic beauty- women putting their hair up must be a timeless motif. They say that luck is at the crossroads of preparedness and opportunity- looks like you were there that day-

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), September 20, 2000.

Thanks Chris. Can you reccommend a good book of Weston's 'people' photographs...I've looked many times but can't find anything in the stores or even the library. I'm only familiar with what I've seen in magazines from him...and of course, I love it.

re: the light on her chin...I agree. I was using SV tungsten heads and I actually had a 500W bare bulb for fill...but I guess the other heads were too close to get the effect I wanted. Looked good to the eye at the time, though...Polaroid woulda helped for sure!

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

Shawn...the light background is fine for the "Christ" image, coloration too (I would have made a murky dark background with a spot "halo" behind her head/crown, which you could paint (with brush and whatever, then encaustic). Propping is excellent, and a suitably subtle facial expression, which could easily have been overdone. Call her up and work for a while with her, she seems to "get the drift". Don't worry about backgrounds... paint them!) On the other side, the crop seems counterproductive, giving my eye too many exits from the frame (head and both elbows. If these had stayed within the frame, the lyric motion of her body and the interior framing of her arms would have kept the eye moving rhythmically inside the frame, with her face as the focal point and lower torso as exit/entry anchor. Check your orthodox iconography for reference.

Image #2, sooo confusing, I wonder more about the busy stuff floating around than anything else. Her face and arms are hard to differentiate from whatever that other stuff is (for instance, the tip of her nose...) you lose her true profile and don't get anything interesting with which to replace it. I don't think you would paint this image. Speaking of which, you should own some painting software and make images specifically to "paint" on. Or as I suggested above, paint right on this print. This is a very hot arena in the art world currently, and would use three of your personal interests and capabilities.

re: wayne's observations... I concur, portraits don't need eyes, and furthermore, every image of a face is not a portrait, and every portrait does not need a face!... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 20, 2000.

sorry about that... I seem parenthetically challenged today.

There is a book called "Weston's Nudes", it should be what you're looking for... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 20, 2000.

tom, as usual, great advice. thanks :-)

i'll respond more later, but for now, on the crop: i agree (duh...). this was originally an 11x14, which i cropped for my 8x10 portfolio...the arms were totally there, there was more space, and actually it wasn't just a breast nude...it is 'all there', which i still think makes a difference with this shot because of the beauty of her hips etc.

as for painting, you've given me a great idea...to do some really large enlargements and paint them...seems quite a fun challenge.

more later.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

Don't get carried away with big prints... again, consider Russian Orthodox Iconography. Domesticile Shrine sized. Don't buy into the bigger is better right off the bat. Develop the concept at a size you can afford and easily handle (physically). You're young, there's plenty of time to make it big (small pun intended)... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 20, 2000.

Oops. I love those little icons, actually...I just find it easier to paint big usually. But I usually do a lot of 'little black book' studies first, for compositional and colour things especially. I don't usually just jump in, that's way too expensive.

I used to work with her all the time; she's a photographer as well. We communicate quite often, but I think we're kinda at the point where we need a break.

I could do a whole book on her alone...with what I already have.

For the second one, I'd like to get the background darker, as well, but I had a hard enough time burning it in that much without losing the edges...a great printer, I'm not :-(

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 25, 2000.