Figured I'd share a little work

[johnellisphotography]

001_7***

[markubig]

they're great . . . TOTALLY LOVE THE 1ST ONE!!!!

[johnellisphotography]

Thanks. My evil twin takes pictures like this...

[Raj]

Like both of them, cant say same for the last one :-)

[johnellisphotography]

Thanks for the comments Raj. Can you elaborate on the last one? This image has actually upset a couple of people who have seen it and they cant really say why. Just like a "general bad vibe thing"

[Candid Bandit]

I like the third one most!! The eye of the birdy.. Nice!

[Mills]

Love the second one. What a great look!

[Red]

That first one is awesome. Looks like it should be a famous shot

[c0ntr0lz]

love the 1st 2!!
i like the 2nd the best cause the look.

[toddb]

That second one is a great pose/angle combination.

[marie]

you caught lovely expressions on the children's faces


in the first picture the lady's back (shoulder blade) is too bright
also the nose of the baby (and under it ) the forehead and cheek, little details on the face
they seem blown a bit
:confused:
in the second picture the wooden railings behind the child is slanted
the top right corner is a bit cluttered and the child's legs blend in too much with the darkness

:)
in the third picture what do you mean by your evil twin?
do you mean yourself and other type of images you take ?

[Movinfr8]

I think the third one, after looking a little closer the disturbing thing is the "evil eye" the bird seems to be giving the camera!
Great pic, just very dark, not the one I'd blow up to 20x30 for my daughter's room!! The first 2 are great. I wish Ihad the talent to do (see) those kind of pictures!
Norm

[johnellisphotography]

you caught lovely expressions on the children's faces


in the first picture the lady's back (shoulder blade) is too bright
also the nose of the baby (and under it ) the forehead and cheek, little details on the face
they seem blown a bit
:confused:
in the second picture the wooden railings behind the child is slanted
the top right corner is a bit cluttered and the child's legs blend in too much with the darkness

:)
in the third picture what do you mean by your evil twin?
do you mean yourself and other type of images you take ?

Thanks for the comments. The first one is a scanned print and I've never bothered to get the tones just right. Looks great on the wall. I agree with the clutter on the second one. It was a candid spur of the moment shot. However, the connection between the kid and the camera was too genuine to pass up. The evil twin remark is based in this: I can shoot a couple of different ways. For instance, the first pic was obviously planned and executed in the studio. Lights were up, connections were made between the subjects and the photographer(me) and the shutter took off flying. The one shown is in my opinion the decisive frame. The other two were not planned and were shot in a "blank" state of mind. Im a big fan of the works of C.G. Jung and try to respect the inner autonomy of the mind and let it come out on its own sometimes. When i do, things get a little dark and sometimes have some subtle overtones. This is why i referred to it as my "evil twin". Maybe evil is not the right term but oh well. So, for instance, sometimes what you get is an image like the last one. When you figure in the American Indian style significance of the crow or dark bird, the jungian significance of the shadow, the union of the bird and the shadow, and the prevalence of the eye; you get an image that communicates directly to the subconcious mind for better or worse. I think its facinating when these things happen. I'll cut it off here before I start talking about my father. :rolleyes:

[marie]

Thanks for the comments. The first one is a scanned print and I've never bothered to get the tones just right. Looks great on the wall. I agree with the clutter on the second one. It was a candid spur of the moment shot. However, the connection between the kid and the camera was too genuine to pass up. The evil twin remark is based in this: I can shoot a couple of different ways. For instance, the first pic was obviously planned and executed in the studio. Lights were up, connections were made between the subjects and the photographer(me) and the shutter took off flying. The one shown is in my opinion the decisive frame. The other two were not planned and were shot in a "blank" state of mind. Im a big fan of the works of C.G. Jung and try to respect the inner autonomy of the mind and let it come out on its own sometimes. When i do, things get a little dark and sometimes have some subtle overtones. This is why i referred to it as my "evil twin". Maybe evil is not the right term but oh well. So, for instance, sometimes what you get is an image like the last one. When you figure in the American Indian style significance of the crow or dark bird, the jungian significance of the shadow, the union of the bird and the shadow, and the prevalence of the eye; you get an image that communicates directly to the subconcious mind for better or worse. I think its facinating when these things happen. I'll cut it off here before I start talking about my father. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif


thank you John
it's just when I see a copyright name right across a picture I know the person value's the picture very much

and I nearly always expect to see a great picture if the name is the first thing which catches my eyehttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif

however the view of a picture is different in all of our minds
what we see and what another see's
that's ok too

you were right to grab the kid's shot when it happened.
I rather it without the copyright though as it makes it look as though it has to be really good
and really it only emphasizes any flaws ?
the birdie shot is fine.... I see what you mean

but when anyone's else's style ' or thoughts ' are mentioned
and some try to copy I kinda switch off as I think we should all do our own thing as regards what we like and don't like in a picture
or what we ourselves think
improving in our own style is best ( I think)


right, the 'great masters' are an example
but they were no big deal
following our own instincts can be delightful .
when looking at some of the pictures around the photographer's own style is what can be so lovely to see and is very important
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif
tell us about your father ?

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

[johnellisphotography]

Quote:
but when anyone's else's style ' or thoughts ' are mentioned
and some try to copy I kinda switch off as I think we should all do our own thing as regards what we like and don't like in a picture
or what we ourselves think
improving in our own style is best ( I think)
End Quote:
Im afraid I don't follow what this means. The only name mentioned in the reply was of C.G. Jung who was famed and sometimes infamous psycoanalyst. Never picked up a camera according to his autobiography. He painted alot though. Am I missing something? Also, the copyright disclosures go on any image i post that has sold to clients or sold as art. It protects me and my customers investment. Thanks

[Ballen Photo]

Thanks. My evil twin takes pictures like this...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The FIRST shot is my FAVE hands down! :D
-Bruce

[DionM]

I like 'em all. Maybe a tighter crop on the second would help - just the kid?

The 3rd one is awesome. Very strong imagery from what would have otherwise been a pretty ordinary thing to shoot (bird on some pavers). Not the thing to hang on juniors wall, but a great shot.

[Cash--]

Thanks for the comments Raj. Can you elaborate on the last one? This image has actually upset a couple of people who have seen it and they cant really say why. Just like a "general bad vibe thing"

That's quite a compliment!


I really like the bird picture, it belongs on the cover of a really good horror novel.

[DionM]

Yup ... I agree ... great horror novel cover page, esp the very right side of the image vertically cropped.

[marie]

Originally Posted by johnellisphotography
The other two were not planned and were shot in a "blank" state of mind. Im a big fan of the works of C.G. Jung and try to respect the inner autonomy of the mind and let it come out on its own sometimes. When i do, things get a little dark and sometimes have some subtle overtones. This is why i referred to it as my "evil twin". Maybe evil is not the right term


thanks John

I know of Jung.
I only said what I did as you mentioned his thoughts in regard to your photography. (evil twin pic)
I think we all use our minds when taking a picture
but it would not be because of anything jung said ?
and I was thinking of the big fuss made over ansel adams ( his photography) at the time I replied.
I just meant I don't follow other people's thoughts about their idea of everything. or anything really.
not meaning I don't want or need advice.
I do. but that would be to do with something right now, not to read about how someone else lives their lives and their idea's at a certain stage of their lives

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif hard to explain

spock with brainwave , laid down certain rules way back and nearly every mother of the time thought his ideas were so great for their baby's upbringing
(so I believe)

on his death bed he said he had got it all wrong..
and he was
'sorry about that'

bit late for some
the worse part was knowing that people acted on his thoughts and idea's and not on their own instincts . that's all.
your idea's are fine as they are your own.
let the light shine in.
you mention the darkness.
jung had problems

all I mentioned was that the light in your #1 picture seemed a bit bright in certain parts
as it seemed a lovely shot otherwise.
the shot stands on it's own
and the same in #2
just a few little details I mentioned
but never to say your pictures were not good.
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif