RGB Gas Mask Triptych - the Eyes have it...

[Manfred M]

Three individual shots taken with a red, green and blue filter on the studio lights, combined into a single image.

[xpatUSA]

Three individual shots taken with a red, green and blue filter on the studio lights, combined into a single image.

Were you ever tempted to stack, align and merge, Manfred? One is reminded of the first color pics from that Russian bloke all those years ago ...

[Manfred M]

I suspect you are referring to the work of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky.

https://twistedsifter.com/2015/04/ra...100-years-ago/


These images are not suitable for his technique as each one was taken so they are all slightly different and they won't overlap.

The gas mask in the image, is a Russian one made of a gray rubber, so if I had wanted to, getting a gray image would have been extremely simple.

[xpatUSA]

I suspect you are referring to the work of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky.

https://twistedsifter.com/2015/04/ra...100-years-ago/


These images are not suitable for his technique as each one was taken so they are all slightly different and they won't overlap.

Yes, I did realize that. However, it is well-known that stacking/stitching software can align such images with consummate ease.

The gas mask in the image, is a Russian one made of a gray rubber, so if I had wanted to, getting a gray image would have been extremely simple.

Indeed, there would be little point to re-composing a neutral gray object ...

[FootLoose]

I think this image would work better if you dressed your daughter in black - or whatever colour is necessary to make her body disappear. Her clothing doesn't add anything to the picture.

[Manfred M]

I think this image would work better if you dressed your daughter in black - or whatever colour is necessary to make her body disappear. Her clothing doesn't add anything to the picture.

I'm not going to "win" here. When I did something similar about 4 years ago, I had comments about "floating heads" not working.

[FootLoose]

I'm not going to "win" here. When I did something similar about 4 years ago, I had comments about "floating heads" not working.

Maybe you could try something different with this idea rather then presenting the 3 heads in a row. Why not try putting them on 3 separate layers and play around with different arrangements and transparencies.

[Manfred M]

Maybe you could try something different with this idea rather then presenting the 3 heads in a row. Why not try putting them on 3 separate layers and play around with different arrangements and transparencies.

In fact that is exactly what I did and how I got to these particular images.

#1 has 36 layers.

[John 2]

Keep looking at this and I still don't know what to say. Technically, it's immaculate. I think it belongs in an exhibition of contemporary art. But there again, perhaps that's what you intended.

[Manfred M]

Keep looking at this and I still don't know what to say. Technically, it's immaculate. I think it belongs in an exhibition of contemporary art. But there again, perhaps that's what you intended.

Thanks John - my key direction photographically over the past year or so has been to work on improving the emotional impact of my photographs. As I am going through my national judging certification process, I have found that simply having an image that is technically strong and well organized (good composition, use of space and limiting distractions) is not enough to create a compelling image. It needs to have more, so I am now spending a lot of time looking at things like the mood in the image, the impact on the viewer, the subject matter itself and trying something a bit out of the ordinary in the way that I present the image. That's really what this is all about.

One reason for my never being happy with the image in #6 is that one cannot see the person's eye(s), which I think is critical for taking this image from being a gas mask to a person wearing a gas mask, which is why the clothing are an important element in this image.

I suspect I will enter it in a club competition dealing with images that involve multiple exposures, if I get it to the point where I am 100% happy with it. So far, I'm not there yet, but am getting closer with each iteration.

[Donald]

Manfred - Have you read Guy Tal's 'More than a Rock'. That will take you a long way to where you need to be in terms of the thinking about the mood, yourself in the image, making photographs 'about' not 'of' an image.

I think you are much stronger on the technical aspects of photography than I am and maybe I am stronger on the artistic feelings of photography. That is what I am driven by. But I found Tal's book to be speaking about all that I have thought and much more. And as soon as I reached the end, I started at the beginning again and am reading it much more slowly this time around.

[Manfred M]

Manfred - Have you read Guy Tal's 'More than a Rock'. That will take a long way to where you need to be in terms of the thinking about the mood, yourself in the image, making photographs 'about' not 'of' an image.

I think you are much stronger on the technical aspects of photography than I am and maybe I am stronger on the artistic feelings of photography. That is what I am driven by. But I found Tal's book to be speaking about all that I have thought and much more. And as soon as I reached the end, I started at the beginning again and am reading it much more slowly this time around.

Thanks Donald - I just bought the Kindle edition and have downloaded it onto my iPad.

[Manfred M]

Manfred - Have you read Guy Tal's 'More than a Rock'. That will take you a long way to where you need to be in terms of the thinking about the mood, yourself in the image, making photographs 'about' not 'of' an image.

Donald - I have now finished the book and to be quite frank, it had the opposite effect on me than the one it appears to have had on you. It represents a particular view found in some fine art photography circles and some promoted at certain art schools, but it is certainly not the only one. When someone suggests that living an "artistic life" is key to creating compelling works, I find it is usually the writer rationalizing his or her own life choices, rather than providing insight into creating better images.

I certainly agree with some of what he has written, especially when he gets away from philosophizing and introspection. On the other hand much of what he writes may work for him, but these are not universal truths and are not going to work for everyone else. Many of his musings simply do not stand up to scrutiny, unless one has bought into the author's "theology".

I will continue to explore ways of creating images that make an emotional impact on the viewer. I will let others decide on if my works have any artistic merit. As I have said before, I am a photographer, not an artist. I have no desire to be burdened with the baggage that is often associated with being an artist.

[FootLoose]

... I will continue to explore ways of creating images that make an emotional impact on the viewer. ...

Red, Green, Blue on a black background - the basic monitor - and eyes looking back at the viewer: I thought you were making a statement about the state of digital photography.

So who are the photographers whose images have an emotional impact on you? Study them.


BTW I think you might have missed the point of suggestion earlier in #7. To be clearer, an example of what I was suggesting might be to put each head on a separate layer, reduce the size of the second head by 15% and the third by 30%. Arrange them on a diagonal or triangle/circle, or overlay them on top of each other, and reduce the opacity of the second layer by 15% and the third by 30%.

[Manfred M]

Red, Green, Blue on a black background - the basic monitor - and eyes looking back at the viewer: I thought you were making a statement about the state of digital photography.

Not so much about digital photography but having three different colours is a message. The eyes are important as they add a human factor to each of the masks. The whole concept of gas masks that anonymizes the person behind the mask is important too.

So who are the photographers whose images have an emotional impact on you? Study them.

While I look at specific photographers from time to time, I tend to be more interested in individual images rather than the full body of their work. Right now I am having a close look at Richard Avedon's work, especially how Alexey Brodovitch influenced his work. Irving Penn is hanging around the periphery as well.

BTW I think you might have missed the point of suggestion earlier in #7. To be clearer, an example of what I was suggesting might be to put each head on a separate layer, reduce the size of the second head by 15% and the third by 30%. Arrange them on a diagonal or triangle/circle, or overlay them on top of each other, and reduce the opacity of the second layer by 15% and the third by 30%.

Mocking up your idea (I think).



I like my initial direction much better.

Two Irving Penn shots got me started on this concept.

The first is this image of Picasso where the one eye is so prominent.




The second shot is this.

[FootLoose]

What is it about the portrait of picasso that moves you?

Ask yourself this: could a teenager with a camera phone have captured that picture? It looks like a candid shot so could a kid have waved a phone in front of him in the street and taken that picture? If you think so, then you are responding to the subject, ie picasso, a powerful individual. But if you don't think so, then you are responding to the photograph and you can ask yourself what it is that moves you, what Penn has done that produces that effect for you.

I know what does it for me, and it is not just his steely gaze.

[george013]

What is it about the portrait of picasso that moves you?

Ask yourself this: could a teenager with a camera phone have captured that picture? It looks like a candid shot so could a kid have waved a phone in front of him in the street and taken that picture? If you think so, then you are responding to the subject, ie picasso, a powerful individual. But if you don't think so, then you are responding to the photograph and you can ask yourself what it is that moves you, what Penn has done that produces that effect for you.

I know what does it for me, and it is not just his steely gaze.

Or the combination of subject and photo and the observer of the photo. A same picture of my butcher wouldn't make it.

George

[Manfred M]

What is it about the portrait of picasso that moves you?

Penn's lighting that is so tight. One eye and part of the face is beautifully lit while the other drops into shadow very quickly. What struck me is that one eye. When I first saw this image, I did not recognize it was Picasso, at first.

Ask yourself this: could a teenager with a camera phone have captured that picture? It looks like a candid shot so could a kid have waved a phone in front of him in the street and taken that picture? If you think so, then you are responding to the subject, ie picasso, a powerful individual. But if you don't think so, then you are responding to the photograph and you can ask yourself what it is that moves you, what Penn has done that produces that effect for you.

Answer to your question is no, a kid with an iPhone could not have done it. The posing and lighting is very deliberate.

Look at the catch light in the one eye; two light sources. One key light is hitting the face and the hat from the camera right position. A second, weaker light is used to fill in the shadow from the hat's brim. The bull-fighter's cape that Picasso is wearing has a slightly upward shadow, yet there is a slight downward shadow on the camera left side of the hat.

One of the things one studies in great detail when one does studio lighting is often referred to as "lighting decomposition". We will often take a look at an image and try to figure out how the photographer lit it and then try to recreate that in our own work. This is likely a daylight shot taken from a north-facing window. This was Penn's favourite light and given that this shot was taken in Cannes, France, I suspect this was the case.

I know what does it for me, and it is not just his steely gaze.

Each image will do something different to each viewer. What tends to catch my eye is the lighting and how effective it is.

[george013]

Penn's lighting that is so tight. One eye and part of the face is beautifully lit while the other drops into shadow very quickly. What struck me is that one eye. When I first saw this image, I did not recognize it was Picasso, at first.



Answer to your question is no, a kid with an iPhone could not have done it. The posing and lighting is very deliberate.

Look at the catch light in the one eye; two light sources. One key light is hitting the face and the hat from the camera right position. A second, weaker light is used to fill in the shadow from the hat's brim. The bull-fighter's cape that Picasso is wearing has a slightly upward shadow, yet there is a slight downward shadow on the camera left side of the hat.

One of the things one studies in great detail when one does studio lighting is often referred to as "lighting decomposition". We will often take a look at an image and try to figure out how the photographer lit it and then try to recreate that in our own work. This is likely a daylight shot taken from a north-facing window. This was Penn's favourite light and given that this shot was taken in Cannes, France, I suspect this was the case.




Each image will do something different to each viewer. What tends to catch my eye is the lighting and how effective it is.

What you see in his eyes are windows. As far I can see the picture is taken with ambient light.
You can click on the last picture of Picasso and have a good look in the eyes. For the lazy ones:
https://artofplatinum.wordpress.com/...irving-penn-2/
For the lazy ones:


And the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPUkxA4Jo7s

George

[Manfred M]

What you see in his eyes are windows. As far I can see the picture is taken with ambient light.
You can click on the last picture of Picasso and have a good look in the eyes. For the lazy ones:

Thanks. You might have noticed, it is not the same picture that I posted.

As I stated in #18, Penn was well known for his natural light work. Both pictures look like they came from the same shoot. In the image you posted, the mouth is hidden while we see the full mouth in the shot I posted. The cape position across his face is completely different. There are some differences in the way the light and shadows act as well. He is definitely closer to the window in the image that you posted; the catch light in the eyes is quite different in the two images.

The catch light in the eye will generally only show the key (main) light and sometimes the fill light, if one is used. Other light sources will not necessarily show up in the eyes. One has to look for other clues including light patterns and shadow patterns.

I see at least one other passive light source in play, possibly two passive light sources. We definitely can see some of light reflecting off the walls in the room that hits the camera left side of his face. There are some shadows from the edge of the cape in one shot that are not seen in the second one. That suggests there might be something reflecting the light from below (a light coloured table top, for instance) to cast that shadow but it could also be explained by the position of the cape.