Are these photos bad?

Hi Onix - welcome to POTN, although that's an interesting first post you have.

Normally folks come here seeking constructive advice for themself and not criticism of another's technique. Personally I see nothing wrong with these shots. That's the type work that was being done back in 1977.

What do you mean by their "lack of equipment, given the time period?"

Very likely they had far more extensive, versatile, and better gear than you and I combined, for what they needed to accomplish. These are also scanned photos, so they can't be compared to what we see here daily on POTN. These are studio, somewhat high-key shots, casually clothed models, displaying the look of the time.

YOU need to tell us why you think they are badly done - I don't see a problem. - Stu

Ah, I see.

Just FYI - and I could be wrong - but I'm not sure about the rules regarding multiple ID's on POTN. You may want to double check that.

Regarding photoshop - well, photography has been around since 1839, and for many of those years in the 20th century a lot of very talented folks produced beautiful work with the equipment at hand, their "eye", their vision, and their experience. Sometimes it required a retouch artist with brush and dye..... many times it did not, their skill level was so great.

And lighting disadvantages? They had all kinds of lights. Not modern by our standards but they did what was necessary.

The bigger issue though - will you be giving your friend a chance to rebut any comments here, or are you just collecting amunition against him using a different userID?

onix wrote in post #9674626
Thank you, I am actually here for about 4 years already, just don't want to use my actual account to ensure unbiased opinion .


In a very simple terms, they don't have the advantage of things like photoshop (post processing), digital camera (many shots can be taken), lighting...


This was another member's opinion, he might elaborate more. More on his opinion, quoted: "None of those have any bearing on the quality of the images. It is the photographer's stylistic and technical choices to which I am referring. You don't need a digital camera or photoshop to produce a good picture. The lighting equipment makes no difference and most of the time, neither does the budget."

#1 seems not enough contrast but that's probably the scan.

Comps (even on the website) look fine though...

Did Ansel Adams lack equipment?

In the muddle of quotes though I have to honestly say I'm a bit confused. What EXACTLY is YOUR position on all this. Typically a poster states a view, premise, fact or hypothesis that is their own. I really don't care about his viewpoint - you're the one posting, not him.

onix wrote in post #9674790
Oh, I am sure he's following this. Probably he's waiting for more opinions to answer all at once.

2-7. You will not register to the Forum with multiple identities.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=50442

Yeah - he didn't have a dSLR.... we can all see how his work suffered . I totally agree about the "scan" characteristics.

gkarris wrote in post #9674805
#1 seems not enough contrast but that's probably the scan.

Comps (even on the website) look fine though...

Did Ansel Adams lack equipment?

I am the other member he is referring to, although I never actually post here.


I commented that I did not think the designer of this clothing had very good photography on his site. I was a bit harsher, but you get the picture.


I stand by that. To me the images look amateurish. The hard light isn't doing the guy any favors and neither is the warm tone. The whole thing looks very "Sears catalogue". I realize hair was different when these were taken, but the effect the light is having on the shape of his head is quite unsightly. It makes his hair style look bizarre, in an undesirable way.

The way the clothing is sitting, it looks like the model has a little extra in the midsection. I'm sure he didn't, and the photographer should have noticed.

All in all, the images scream '"dated". I understand that they are, but there were plenty of images produced in the same era, fashion included which do not seem so amateur now. Further, I think that defending them on the basis of having to use film, no photoshop, and possibly a small budget is ridiculous. Countless fantastic images have been produced throughout history, and continue to be produced by professionals, amateurs, and students alike.

Strangest thread I've seen here in a while.

OP - are these your images? Do you have permission to post them?

This thread needs to be closed,
too much hanky- panky.

To explain the thread here, Myself and Onix had an exchange about these images on another forum, unrelated to photography. He started a thread here to further discuss in a more appropriate place.

Well I know I'll never get these 5 minutes back