Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 20 May 2014 (Tuesday) 22:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

"Obey thy sister"

 
Amamba
Goldmember
Avatar
3,679 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Nov 2007
Location: SE MI
     
May 20, 2014 22:15 |  #1

What do you think ?

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2923/14232006682_a68f3d6b2d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nFCK​Ky  (external link) 20140518-DSC01324 (external link) by BugsDaddy (external link), on Flickr

Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
Life Lessons: KISS. RTFM. Don't sweat the small stuff.
My Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Ethosb
Member
Avatar
107 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Canton, GA
     
May 20, 2014 22:57 |  #2

Not sure if the subject matter is the hand, the kid, or something implied. His tone seems a bit off as his check looks yellow and his forehead is a bit blue/green. More of a snapshot.


5D MKIII/6D/70D/T2i(gave it away to a needy photog)/100-400mm L MKII IS/70-200mm L IS II 2.8/70-200mm L 2.8/24-105L/SP 90mm 2.8 Di VC/18-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS STM/18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS II/75-300mm III 4-5.6/50mm 1.8/600 EX-RT/430EX II/Westcott Pro Plus 300Wx3/Westcott Softboxes 24x32/Westcott Umbrellas/Pocketwizard Plus III Triggers....

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
venom3300
Senior Member
610 posts
Likes: 145
Joined Jan 2014
     
May 20, 2014 22:58 |  #3

Honestly? It looks like you were snapping a shot of the boy and accidentally got someones hand in the frame. Have her in the frame to give more context.

Also, its awkward to me that she is pointing with her pinky finger. Can't quite get past that...


Bodies: Nikon D800,Canon Rebel GII, Pentax K1000
Lenses: Nikon 20mm 1.8, Nikon 24 2.8 MF, Tamron SP 35mm 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8 Macro, Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I, Nikon AI-P 500mm F4, Nikon TC-16A, SMC Pentax-A 50/1.7, SMC Pentax-M 100/4 Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
madjack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,970 posts
Gallery: 179 photos
Likes: 2177
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ.
     
May 20, 2014 23:31 as a reply to  @ venom3300's post |  #4

I see what you were going for here and I like the reaction he is giving to his sister.

But if you had not mentioned the sis in your title, it would be impossible to figure out what is really going on. Get her in the frame and you may have something.


Canon 5D Mk IV | Canon 5D Mk II | Canon 7D | Canon 30D
Canon EF 16-35L IS | Canon EF 24-105L IS | Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 IS II | Canon EF 100-400L IS II | Canon EF 50mm-f/1.8
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS | Canon EF-S 18-55 | Canon EF 70-300 IS | RRS TVC 34L Tripod | RRS BH-55 Ballhead

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bazinga
Senior Member
362 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles County, California
     
May 20, 2014 23:56 |  #5

He looks like Harry Potter!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Amamba
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,679 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Nov 2007
Location: SE MI
     
May 21, 2014 07:37 |  #6

Thanks for comments !

venom3300 wrote in post #16918905 (external link)
Honestly? It looks like you were snapping a shot of the boy and accidentally got someones hand in the frame. Have her in the frame to give more context.

Also, its awkward to me that she is pointing with her pinky finger. Can't quite get past that...

TBH, this was intended, although probably didn't come out that well. The moment I saw this in the frame, I for some reason immediately thought of the Michelangelo's "Hand of God" ("The creation of Adam"). Seemed funny at that time.

Ethosb wrote in post #16918899 (external link)
Not sure if the subject matter is the hand, the kid, or something implied. His tone seems a bit off as his check looks yellow and his forehead is a bit blue/green. More of a snapshot.

The green is probably the light reflected from the foliage above. I'll check the WB, thanks.

Bazinga wrote in post #16919010 (external link)
He looks like Harry Potter!

Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, looks just like the photos of my dad from when he was in his 20s, they could be twin brothers :).


Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
Life Lessons: KISS. RTFM. Don't sweat the small stuff.
My Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swjim
Goldmember
1,669 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 27
Joined Jan 2006
     
May 22, 2014 00:44 |  #7

It looks like she is going to "help" him by picking something out of his teeth prior to a shot.


Jim

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 22, 2014 03:48 |  #8

Amamba wrote in post #16919453 (external link)
TBH, this was intended, although probably didn't come out that well. The moment I saw this in the frame, I for some reason immediately thought of the Michelangelo's "Hand of God" ("The creation of Adam"). Seemed funny at that time.

Okay, I get it. That's sort of what I thought you were maybe going for at first, but I couldn't really tell.

Anyway, if that concept is something that you are interested in, I'd advise just keeping the concept and doing it a bit more deliberately this time. A few comments...

1) Michelangelo's painting evokes an intimate connection with god. Not only is god reaching out to Adam, Adam is also reaching out to god. This is important, because otherwise simply pointing a finger at someone is kind of an offensive gesture. Rather than imparting life into man, this is just sort of god pointing at man and man laughing about it. Despite a small degree of similarity, the entire gesture of pointing has been changed to the point of not really having any connection to the original.

2) Now, yes the meaning of the gesture has been changed. That's not inherently a flaw, I suppose that could be used to good effect for parody or satire. However, that fails to translate because this is only BARELY recognizable as an homage/parody of Michelangelo's fresco. The only real similarity is someone pointing at someone else. If you're gonna parody or homage something, then I think there should generally be a more clear indication that that is what you're doing. The original fresco had a certain symmetry that is entirely lost in your image. Within that symmetry there was still an imbalance. God is clothed, he is surrounded by a bunch of angels (or whatever), and it has been noted that the vessel he is riding is meant to reference the human brain. By contrast, Adam is naked and young and alone. God is portrayed as old and wise and powerful, while adam is portrayed as young and green and naive. There is a clear "father/son" thing going on in the original, where in yours all of that is entirely lost. And it's really hard to even tell that you're referenceing Michelangelo since you've done away with the symmetry and you've done away with a similar thematic imbalance. If one can't identify it as an homage or parody based on theme, and if one also can't identify it as an homage or parody based on composition, then it's just really hard to identify it as an homage or parody. And in this case, identifying it as an homage or parody seemed to be the point, so that comes off as just a failure to effectively communicate.

3) But let's move beyond that and accept that it is an homage or parody. I still have a problem. My problem is that I can't quite tell what you're trying to say about the work that you're referencing. You can't just make a parody of something for no reason, the act of parodying it has to say something about the thing that is being parodied. And I think that's one of the biggest things wrong with this. Even when I take it at face value that you are referencing Michelangelo's works, I can't tell what you're trying to say about Michelangelo's works. Granted, that's not to say that I often just don't get it. But the thing is, even if I just don't get it, I think you'd be doing yourself a favor by making me feel stupid. Like, I've seen lots of works that I genuinely had no freaking idea what they were about. But if it looks deliberate enough, I'm more likely to shrug my shoulders and say, "I don't get this, but the artist obviously paid a lot of attention to detail. This work was superbly constructed and composed and lit, so I'm just gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know what they're doing and that I just don't get it." The problem with your image is that in addition to me not getting it, it also looks like a snapshot. It just doesn't look deliberate. And that's sort of the nail in the coffin. I mean, I've taken esoteric images of dog poop and piles of intestines, and yeah...lots of people "won't get it". But the thing is that "viewers don't get it" is often another way of saying "the artist had nothing to say." If nothing else, at least trick your audience into thinking that you have something to say by making the image look so deliberate that they have to assume that you're doing what you're doing intentionally.

4) Anyway, I like the concept of referencing other famous works of art. I'm a fan of Joel-Peter Witkin, and he's famous for doing that. His work is also stuff that a lot of people don't "get". But I think one of the clear differences is that even if he is just being esoteric as a way to disguise a lack of anything meaningful to say, his images are so well constructed that it's impossible to ignore his skill. It's not that he gets weird in order to disguise a lack of skill, the skill is apparent. If he can make mutilated bodies look good, then it stands to reason that he can make ANYTHING look good, so there must be a deliberate and well-thought out reason for why he chooses to use that skill to photograph things that most people find repulsive. Referencing other works is a valid and interesting idea. But it has to come off as deliberate, or the meaning has to be clear otherwise the meaning and intent just gets lost. I like the idea of this, I'd just advise doing it over again with a bit more intent and planning.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rioni
Goldmember
1,547 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 354
Joined Jul 2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
     
May 22, 2014 16:18 |  #9

"You're a wizard Harry!"




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,566 views & 0 likes for this thread
"Obey thy sister"
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Mortspanx
848 guests, 348 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.