chez wrote:
You sure have a hard one on for Philip. I’ve followed your nasty attacks on his posts and I feel you are totally out of line. Maybe just ignore him and let others enjoy his knowledgeable posts without your childish constant trash.
Stop acting like some kind of forum policeman. You give your opinion, I give mine. That's called freedom of speech. If you can't handle that, then just ignore me.
chez wrote:
Maybe if he was called out civilly he would answer the questions, but I think Philip just lays down his view for others to decide.
And if the verdict is not positive, you step into the fray and go into battle.
chez wrote:
No, not you…others that don’t really want a civil conversation. I actually enjoy your challenges…seems like you know what your talking about.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Stop acting like some kind of forum policeman. You give your opinion, I give mine. That's called freedom of speech. If you can't handle that, then just ignore me.
I admit that I no longer read posts from @Phillip_pj, and I hope I can be excused for not reading their posts.
In this particular case, I did return to the very last post (with the photos), to read: "My modus operandi is to start up a chat with intended subjects, then ask to take their photo. I am already close to them, so close focus is established."
First, I doubt that the "intended subject" of photo #3 in that post was approached by the photographer. This "intended subject" seems to be unaware of being photographed.
Second, a relevant question is whether the "intended subjects" were aware of that their close-up portraits should be posted on social media, on the Internet.
My take on this, quote "The portraits from "that poster", particularly the female portraits, look to me like the individuals were randomly approached in the streets, and nearly harassed into being photographed, because those young shy females in a third-world Asian country might possibly not be accustomed to say "f--k off" when being approached by a foreign male."
While this was an open guess, and as such could not be and was not meant to be factually correct, perhaps the way how I pictured the "modus operandi" of the photographer wasn't significantly wrong.
The principal point of my previous post was not to attack the photographer. It was to express the feeling about the portraits, quote: "...these portraits make me uncomfortable."
That is how I feel about the photos now, even more so after reading about the "modus operandi" of the photographer in approaching "the intended subjects."
I possibly don't express the reasons for my discomfort with the photos well, but there's something subconscious in my reaction which is about a dislike of an exploitative approach to human subjects in photography.
Something against taking portraits almost like for sports, without a genuine sympathy to and an emotional connection with the human subjects. Pictures that are also disconnected from the surroundings, taken out of their cultural, historic, etc. context. Basically, similar to that kind of hunting when it is the successful shot is all that matters.
ruthenium wrote:
I possibly don't express the reasons for my discomfort with the photos well, but there's something subconscious in my reaction which is about a dislike of an exploitative approach to human subjects in photography.
Something against taking portraits almost like for sports, without a genuine sympathy to and an emotional connection with the human subjects. Pictures that are also disconnected from the surroundings, taken out of their cultural, historic, etc. context. Basically, similar to that kind of hunting when it is the successful shot is all that matters.
No absolutes here. My reaction is quite different than yours.
ruthenium wrote:
I also cannot help feeling that these portraits make me uncomfortable.
Street people photography constitutes an invasion of privacy, and must be done responsibly.
In the simplest sense, at the very least, there must be a reason for taking street pictures with people in the frame.
Particularly when taking large and detailed close-up portraits - these are very intimate, in a way, and that intimacy is inappropriate when it is forced on the subject, when it is not enthusiastically consensual.
The portraits from "that poster", particularly the female portraits, look to me like the individuals were randomly approached in the streets, and nearly harassed into being photographed, because those young shy females in a third-world Asian country might possibly not be accustomed to say "f--k off" when being approached by a foreign male.
The series of portraits that I have seen from "that poster" almost all look like random shots taken for no obvious reason and taken out of the cultural/geographic context. These portraits don't look like professional portraits either. Thus, my impression is that the photographer is interested in portrait photography but has no access to models and, thus, is practicing on the innocent strangers. ...Show more →
I usually enjoy and agree with your posts, but I have to say this post is a completely made up fantasy in your mind. “Nearly harassed into being photographed?” Really?? I think you should rethink your post and possibly delete it for your own integrity. Sorry if I offend, but your post was garbage.
RoamingScott wrote:
I didn't claim the Voigts have 3D pop, nor that my images did, Andrew did. The APO-L line has excellent contrast, color and bokeh which all help to make the subject stand out. I don't think any of the 3 images in the post that you are desperately referencing show any level of what you all seem to think is "3D".
I don't think you understood my
What is it that you are saying as to the 35 and 50 APO-L lenses as being "pop" machines?
Curious to hear your .02 relative to Karbe's design for those lenses.
ruthenium wrote:
I possibly don't express the reasons for my discomfort with the photos well, but there's something subconscious in my reaction which is about a dislike of an exploitative approach to human subjects in photography.
Something against taking portraits almost like for sports, without a genuine sympathy to and an emotional connection with the human subjects. Pictures that are also disconnected from the surroundings, taken out of their cultural, historic, etc. context. Basically, similar to that kind of hunting when it is the successful shot is all that matters.
Good lord man-
Psycho analyzing a picture is a bit off the deep end and out of line-
ruthenium wrote:
I admit that I no longer read posts from @Phillip_pj, and I hope I can be excused for not reading their posts.
In this particular case, I did return to the very last post (with the photos), to read: "My modus operandi is to start up a chat with intended subjects, then ask to take their photo. I am already close to them, so close focus is established."
First, I doubt that the "intended subject" of photo #3 in that post was approached by the photographer. This "intended subject" seems to be unaware of being photographed.
Second, a relevant question is whether the "intended subjects" were aware of that their close-up portraits should be posted on social media, on the Internet.
My take on this, quote "The portraits from "that poster", particularly the female portraits, look to me like the individuals were randomly approached in the streets, and nearly harassed into being photographed, because those young shy females in a third-world Asian country might possibly not be accustomed to say "f--k off" when being approached by a foreign male."
While this was an open guess, and as such could not be and was not meant to be factually correct, perhaps the way how I pictured the "modus operandi" of the photographer wasn't significantly wrong.
The principal point of my previous post was not to attack the photographer. It was to express the feeling about the portraits, quote: "...these portraits make me uncomfortable."
That is how I feel about the photos now, even more so after reading about the "modus operandi" of the photographer in approaching "the intended subjects." ...Show more →
FWIW, I also find some of those portraits uncomfortable, with a lack of connection and a guardedness in the subjects that makes your guess plausible. Even if they did agree wholeheartedly, the results aren't particularly meaningful or interesting to me. I have difficulty with a lot of this kind of 'travel' photography in 'exotic' places, it so often smacks of Orientalism to me. There is a fine line between documentation and objectification.
I guess they do illustrate the poster's idea of 3D POP though
Some of my own examples of Orientalist 3D POP, shot in 1994 when I studied abroad in India and was too young to know better. I just wanted to take pics that looked like National Geographic.
Shot on Velvia and T-MAX 100 with Pentax 645 and SMC Pentax-A 645 75mm F2.8
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to occasionally confront someone who sells his viewpoint as the only truth, persistently imposes it on others, constantly praises his own work, publishes it as a prime example of outstanding representation, and ignores any dissenting opinions, with reality.
Where Philip sells his viewpoint as the "only truth"? Can you point it to people what and why it made you so angry to lunch that attack?
Is there a universal standard being discussed here? I don’t see any point you’re trying to make or contribute, other than taking a cheap shot at someone who is obviously very enthusiastic about the photography gear he selected. I don't need agree with everything anyone said but Isn’t that the reason we’re all here to have some fun?
In part because I’ve been here long enough to know how that goes in these forums. Anyway, thousands of my images are online. A fair number are on people’s walls, corporate installations, and in books and magazines. :-)
RustyBug wrote:
Another +1 for the contribution of the lighting is significant in this image.
The subject has high contrast lighting on it ... cross lighting in this instance, which affords the modeling intensity.
The background has a lower contrast lighting.
So, the transitional cues of near > far do transition from acute contrast > diffuse / low contrast. That is in context of a physiological depth cue.
That's not to say the lens isn't contributing a fast / slow transition rate ... but, when the lighting is this strong of a cue, the lens contribution is harder to discern its contribution. But, TBH ... I don't see much on this one that makes me think of this lens as something in the league of the VM 40/1.2 or other fav's that folks have. Likely the lighting contribution is "overshadowing" the lens contribution here.
Since there are a variety of potential cues (general to all) ... I think those lenses that have more rapid transition rates ... they "stand out" more when the strength of the lighting cues are absent / reduced. There, the credence to the lens contribution (vs. modest light modeling / depth cues) can be a bit more noticeable ... predicated on the optical attributes.
At the end of the day, the combination of the various elements work together to yield the total rendering ... that includes both optical / non-optical aspects. e.g. the brighter (forward projection) subject face vs. darker (receding) background is but ONE of such (rate of change) physiological response cues, regarding depth interpretation.
zhangyue wrote:
Where Philip sells his viewpoint as the "only truth"? Can you point it to people what and why it made you so angry to lunch that attack?
Is there a universal standard being discussed here? I don’t see any point you’re trying to make or contribute, other than taking a cheap shot at someone who is obviously very enthusiastic about the photography gear he selected. I don't need agree with everything anyone said but Isn’t that the reason we’re all here to have some fun?
I'm certainly not going to wade through all his "intellectual" drivel again to pick out the best examples for you. Otherwise I'm tired of repeating myself, so here's a quote from last year: Nifty Fifty wrote:
In my opinion, there's a world of difference between someone who likes and praises his gear and speaks of his own impressions and feelings and someone who, like a seeing messiah, proclaims to the world in page-long pamphlets what is true, beautiful, and good in lens construction, and who, why, and for what reason is capable of developing it and presenting it to the world.
anyways going back to lenses. I recently re acquired a lens i used with sucess during a short period when i had the sony a7 original . A lens that made everthing stand out. Sony wanted it and the camera back and when i later bought the sony a7iii and the same lens i for some reason did not experience the same magic and sold it.
Now i bought it for my nikon zf
And it's the sony (zony) 55 1.8 which i see several other people speak highly of.
And it's just a special lens. I had the choice of buying the nikon 50 1.8 s for z mount or the sony 55 1.8 and a thin af adapter and I'm glad I went for the sony. Rendering is magical
: