On 3/13/2012 7:49 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 01:37 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>> ...
>> What do you guys think of these? Not even Moose can criticise the
>> *perfect* bokeh in these :-)
>> Oh darn, now I've asked for it.
> I love them all, Dawid, which I think will not surprise you, and only
> partially because I recognize the friendly effects of the lens, but
> primarily for the artistry of the capture (and the clever titles).
>
> Bokeh on the water lily photo seems fine to me (pace Moose) as
> derivative of the content. You can't capture that kind of blurred
> content, lens for lens, much better than that.
As I just agreed, no, probably not on 35mm. On LF, yes, there are lenses that
would do much better.
> And it could have been much worse. St. Ansel would have had every item in
> focus and burned the
> background in to concentrate attention on the subject lily.
LOL! I just did that, held the background way down, on my cyclamen image.
> I think I might have preferred that approach, but it wouldn't be a Dawid
> photo in
> that case. :)
I think you guys may misunderstand. I LIKE Dawids style, and many of the
specific examples of it. I'm a fan. If I
thought it was poor, or even simply not of interest to me, I wouldn't even
comment, and certainly not as often or at as
much length. I'm interested in making comments that may help him do an even
better job with his style.
On 3/13/2012 8:10 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Anyway, you get the point. Dawid has his own style. Dawid's work
>> stands on its own merits.
Yes! As above.
>> Just as you might not prefer the way the bokeh is rendered in the one shot
>> does not diminish the value of the shot.
Well, yeah, it does diminish my enjoyment of the image, and thus its value for
me. It doesn't diminish my respect for
and enjoyment of other of his images.
>> What if one of the acknowledged masters had done that shot? We'd
>> be singing the praises of it, not nitpicking it.
You maybe, not me. There are great masters that do nothing for me. I've flipped
through books of their work and quickly
lost interest. And there are individual famous works by masters I greatly
respect that I don't much like. I critique
many famous images, at least in the privacy of my home. :-) Seems to me a
good way to find what I like and perhaps how
to make it.
Seems like everybody thinks Szarkowski's "Looking At Photographs" is a masterly
commentary on 100 great images. I think
about 75% of the images aren't worth the trouble of wasting time looking at,
let alone reading about. Barr's less
prestigious "Why Photographs Work" is much more enjoyable and useful for me.
>> Dawid has a good vision. Sometimes I don't always like his shots for various
>> reasons,
Yup.
>> but in reality I dislike most of my own shots too.
You might want to do something about that. Sometimes the problem is in the one
passing judgement, not the thing being
judged.*
A. Philosophically Critical Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
* Yup, I know that applies to what I've written above.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|