next »

[radiophoto]

Jorn, thanks!  Wow, such a discourse, and all for me.   The way you describe the potential for movement really intrigues me.  I've always gone with my gut (not that I've ever tried to emulate our former president) on poses, snapping when it looked right to me thru the VF.  However, consciously working to achieve what you describe could be a very interesting challenge.  (Sans the bondage, though.)

[Dennis Gallus]

Hello, Pete,

I've been wanting to reply since yesterday but have only had the time now.  I guess I have three points to make:

First, you are right about being one of the most supportive and active contributors to nelsonfoto.  You've commented on many of my threads and what is more, made comments that I appreciate.  I wish NF had many more members like you.  I hope to meet you in person some day and do some picture-taking together.

Second, the technical quality of your work is outstanding.  I've said it before about your portraiture; Jorn has said it much better than I ever could about this particular series of pictures.

Third, as far as subject matter goes, I stand united with Mike Kovacs.  I don't like to look at any but the smallest tatoos on women, but prefer none at all.  This is my own cultural limitation and does nothing to detract from your post.

I don't think that I've accessed the critiquing forum more than a few times.  Like Jorn, I have my favorite little path that I follow through the NF forums.  I'm happy that I saw this thread so I could compliment both your work and your participation in NF.

Finally, I'd like to echo the point made by my friend James McK:  The level of active participation around NF is really lackluster.   I count my posts as very successful if 10 percent of the lookers leave a comment during the first two days.  This usually works out to 6 to 10 replies.  Occasionally, like for my last two posts in W/NW, I got 16 and 17 replies from about 250 lookers each.  But here's what amuses me:  On the same day that I posted the "The weather forecasters were astonished..." post, and got an eventual 253 looks, Shadowfox posted his "End of Year sale" thread, to which he eventually got about 670 looks (995 in its current version).  You think people come here for the photography?  Don't bet too much on that.  We all like gear (I bought one of Will's lenses too).

Before this becomes a book, I'll close with thanks for your previous support and in the hopes that you'll continue frequenting these forums.

Best,
Dennis

[radiophoto]

Dennis, what you've written means a lot to me.  Thanks.  I'm a little verklempt right now, and don't have the words to respond to such a terrific post.  Thank you again.

I would love to meet up and shoot with you.  It would be an honor and a pleasure.  I hope it can happen some day soon.

[Philip]

Pete, thanks for rattling my/our cage(s).  Here are some rough thoughts. 

I had to look carefully to see why I didn't comment.  I think, just think, there are several reasons why, when I look, I sometimes say nothing.  One is my first reaction to something I think I'd not be photographing myself. Like Dennis and Mike, I find tattoos a little disturbing -- a bit aesthetically disturbing in small sizes and numbers, and a bit personally disturbing in larger sizes and numbers.  So I just moved along quietly.

But since you made me think that about myself, I knew I need to look at them more closely.  I am a folklorist and I encourage students to document all aspects of culture. Your pictures make a good documentary set.  And they work, for me, on several levels.

Who are the audiences for such a set?  One is the rather more body-art-conservative people like me, but who are interested in both striking images and the implied ethnography of peeking into another's world. Such work does not need to reduce everyone to someone "just like me."  Nor does it have to "essentialise" (or stereotype) that Other.  You have here really good pictures that show, to me anyway, both the personal, private & quiet, and the rather more aggressive, public sides of these tattoos & their wearers.

Another audience is clearly the body-art public, for whom tattooing has meanings that escape the likes of me (and that are often explicitly esoteric anyway). Your gloss about Daddy and the wrench is illuminating and a larger work might include those explanations of individual tattoos.  Being a folklorist, I always look for individuals' own words -- it'd be really good to incorporate Anjie's (and others') own accounting of the tattoos.  In my experience, people's tattoos are like some people's Christmas tree ornaments -- each one tells a separate and interesting story.  The tats are good, but the image represents only a part of the meaning;  captions including excerpts from audio-recorded discussion by the models would add considerably to an understanding of them.  That oral history approach would likely be just as interesting for body-art insiders as for the body-art outsiders (like me . . and perhaps Dennis and Mike).

Some body-art images are publically viewable ones while others are only privately viewable. The implied eroticism -- both of the artwork and of the photography -- is clear.  There is a kind of Received Standard Eroticism in popular culture, but presumably there is another among people who keep adding inked art to their skin. The declaration and exposure of an Other Eroticism is a celebration for that group.  I would love to know what Anjie and her husband think of the various shots -- is this one "hot"? is this one not?   Maybe there's a need for an explicit "artist's statement" about your own personal aesthetic -- are you tattooed, and how, and why, and where . . .  [Okay, maybe TMI, I don't know. ]

And another audience is the aesthetics-of-details/kit&gear crowd, through which I flit, and I know a few are here at Nelsonfoto.  The lighting discussion by Jorn is a great example of that take (though Jorn took it in lots of other good directions, too).  I know you asked for such criticism, simply by virtue of posting where you did, but my prior silence is partly because I tend not to criticise, preferring to wonder why a certain set-up was used, and thinking sometimes -- very personally -- how that could be folded into my own stuff.  Never having done studio work . . . who am I to criticise?

Anyway, I'm not sure where I'm leading here because these thoughts are probably more for my own clarification than anything else.  And I hope you will put together a larger body of this work.  Rattle my cage again whenever you like.  And thanks for initiating this discussion.

Philip

[Julio1fer]

Pete - all I can say is that the work looks interesting enough for a book. I have never shot studio, so go figure if I could make any useful comment. And tatoos are beyond my understanding, hence an interesting subject. Contrary to Jorn, I find harsh lighting and dark background adequate for the subject - they give a noir feeling to it.

As for participation in the forum, I find it is quite a random thing. I have had posts that I thought could be interesting with zero replies. So I have no idea how people look for and find new posts; I use regularly the "unread post" feature, to watch everything that happens, but don't think most members do. I believe many members don't look at the Critiquing Forum.

[jamesmck]

So I have no idea how people look for and find new posts; I use regularly the "unread post" feature, to watch everything that happens, but don't think most members do. I believe many members don't look at the Critiquing Forum.

Julio - The message traffic on Nelsonfoto is such that it is really no burden to look at all posts when logging in (at least at the subject lines, if not the actual message).  That is what the "Show unread posts since last visit" option does, as we know.  BTW, as an aficianado of fishing boats, I wonder if you noticed this thread: http://nelsonfoto.com/SMF/index.php/topic,20917.0.html.

James

[Julio1fer]

Julio - The message traffic on Nelsonfoto is such that it is really no burden to look at all posts when logging in (at least at the subject lines, if not the actual message).  That is what the "Show unread posts since last visit" option does, as we know.

Yes indeed - It seems that many people scan the titles of the last post in every forum, instead of using the "show unread posts" link. My point being that even though it is easy to check all new posts, there is a non-zero chance of a post going unnoticed. This is just a part of how forums work, not a big deal for me.

BTW, as an aficianado of fishing boats, I wonder if you noticed this thread: http://nelsonfoto.com/SMF/index.php/topic,20917.0.html

I did notice the thread,  James  Looking for something interesting to post there.

[Madrigal]

Pete- I really like the results you have gotten from the film, the lighting, your model. Seems they all worked well to compliment each other. I like the shot you chose to post here the best.

Can't give you a critique- I'm not a critic. I'm way behind you in the field of photography.

With my wacky work schedule (and some of us don't have time or the ability to browse the internet at work ), I haven't had the time or energy till now to even sit and think of a response. See? I had absolutely nothing useful to contribute. Happy now?

[radiophoto]

Rose, James, Philip, Julio:

I didn't start this thing off consciously as any sort of social project.  To me, it was a chance to display skin art, or ink, or whatever you want to call it, in an attractive, artistic way.  I can see now how this might be interpreted in many different ways, and it's really given me food for thought.  Unfortunately time doesn't permit me to respond to all of the fantastic insights you've shared with me, but I will study them again and try to see things from different points of view when I shoot in this genre next time.

Julio, the noir effect is definitely what I was going for.  Starkness, harsh lighting and a dark background so the skin would stand out.

Rose, you always have something productive to say, even if you don't think you have.  Thanks for stopping by, thanks for taking a look.

I may go the book route...man, it's an exciting thought.  Thanks, everybody!

Pete

[KirkT]

I'm not too good with words, so I hope I don't offend but these really don't do anything for me and I'm quite sure it has much more to do with my personal tastes than anything else. 

My biggest complaint is the lighting; I'm just not a fan of the single, hard light like that.  Actually, one of the best images, IMHO, is the one with the lady outside facing away from the camera; the image seems so much more natural.  The poses and lighting in the other photos don't feel "real" to me and take me out of the image.

What would work for me would be less of a studio setting and more of an environmental portrait of them and their ink. 

Still, I really like the models and I like their "everyday" person look.

Like I said, this is all more personal taste for me than anything else.

I'll agree with some of the others that tats don't do it for me.  The nude body has such great lines and curves - male and female - that seeing tats on them just seems to break the natural flow and interrups my eye.  But, that shouldn't take away from the body of your work where the relationship between the person and their ink is the prime focus.  I just think you might want to try some different lights/background is all.

[radiophoto]

Hey, Kirk, thanks for your input.  I too like the outdoor one the best as far as artistic nudes go.  I was lucky that day to have no one home next door.   

I'm glad you came out with your opinions.  That's what this is for.  If I'd wanted all positive feedback, praising me for my genius and extreme photographic ability, I would have asked Craig to create a totally new forum called "A$$-Kissing Fellers' Union" or something like that. 

Future shoots will, based on all of the terrific feedback I've received so far, be more thoughtful in regards to lighting and posing, and I hope to be able to shoot more outdoor stuff.  It's the partial nudity that I'm averse to, when it comes to shooting outdoors, being mindful of the feelings of the models.  Most of them are not professional models and needed a great deal of coaxing to even get them to my studio in the first place.  I can be pretty persuasive, but there's a limit. 

Thanks again -- hey, how's that tripod working out for ye?

[KirkT]

I love it!  It's exactly what I needed.  Thanks again.

[radiophoto]

No problem, and thanks for the swell money. 

[Ronald Bishop]

Argus 40, out of date T Max 400  sans flash and 'maybe?' a Budweiser or two?

[BillyBob]

Can't give you a critique- I'm not a critic. I'm way behind you in the field of photography.

I'll echo Rose's comment.  Some of us breeze on in and take a peek around, but don't really feel qualified to put forth an opinion.

Bill