I shoot figures with things that grow in my garden. This is a figure with a slide projection of a leaf on the upper torso.>Question.> Is this seen as "just another cheap shot of shooting a nude?" Does it communicate?, Does it evoke an emotion, a thought? Does the image want you to see more ??thanks

-- richard warren (richardwarren@rcn.com), October 18, 1999

Answers

Response to I shoot figures with things that grow in my garden. This is a figure with a slide projection of a leaf on the upper torso.>Question.> Is this seen as "just another cheap shot of shooting a nude?" Does it communicate?, Does it evoke an emotion, a thought? Does the image want you to see more ??thanks

It looks like a leaf with a stalk or something across the top of the frame. My monitor isn't very good at showing the shadows, and I wouldn't have known a human figure was involved without reading the text. Possibly a print is much better.

What does it communicate to me? Just "This is a leaf".

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 18, 1999.

I don't see a nude either.

-- rob dalrymple (robd13@erols.com), October 18, 1999.

That makes three of us. Don't worry about being cheap, this is a nice image of the leaf, if you treat the human form as nicely as this we'll have something good to talk about...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

I see the nude. I don't know if I would've for sure without the explanation, but I think that what is visible of the body would have been enough for me to figure out what it was. Very interesting idea. I can't really say the leaf makes me feel much (besides "why a leaf?"), but some other images might.

-- Patrick Feltmate (pfeltmat@tupmcms1.med.dal.ca), October 19, 1999.

I must be a pervert, because I saw the nude figure, at the first glance. Was your intention, to have the leaf appear to be wrapped around the subject?

-- Rick Allen (six.string.romeo@worldnet.att.net), October 19, 1999.

Photography is a visual language, the responses we each have to the image are usually subjective. That being said,your technique does not matter. If the leaf is projected or placed. The final image matters. I think I understand the dynamics of your image. The reapeating form,line,etc. I don't believe you are pandering your image. It does not matter that the form is nude, the form is just that,a repeating form. Dark and mysterious shapes coming from rich black backgrounds with nice lighting are always interesting to view. I do think it is difficult to view this on screen. Wish I could see the print for "real" to make an honest assessment. j

-- jacque staskon (jacque@cybertrails.com), October 20, 1999.

With less daylight coming from my window, I could suddenly see into the shadows, and the figure appeared.

I am disturbed by the way the leaf's stalk is broken by the boundary of the leg. (This isn't good or bad, just disturbing.)

To me, leaves off the tree represent autumn (=fall), a closing down, even death. This fits with the attitude of the figure, and the low- key lighting.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 21, 1999.

Thank you all for your comments. This is my first time using this "critique form" and I am pleased that some folks have responded. > My scans are not very good- so I will refrain from posting more work until I can get my web publishing act together. > I use "things that I grow in my garden" i.e. plants on figures as a symbol. I have my own interpertation of what they mean. I perfer that viewers come up with their own response or reaction to what they mean. The images are dark and mysterious. I try to create tension" (in this case the stem line of the leaf broken by the models bent leg)in the image by making something in the image a little "off". A perfectly composed photo might look "slick"- and we all know what sticks to "slick"-- nothing. Meaning that a slick photo may not leave the viewer with any substance- they may remember a nice photo- but they may not realize that the photo also had "content". > Shape & form are important. I shoot 8x10 and make contact prints. This adds to the depth of the blacks and "purifies" the form. Most of this information is lost when veiwing on a computer. > Thanks for the comments- I look forward to posting more. > richard

-- richard (richardwarren@rcn.com), October 23, 1999.

Doesn't do anything for me but hit the back button. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 24, 1999.

To: jamesmissingsomthing@hotmail.com

In response to "did nothing for me but hit the back button" > I think that it is a valid question : "What do you shoot?" and "where might I see your images"- fair enough right? I show you mine; you show me yours?? In order to digest a destructive comment, I must evaluate where it is coming from. > The problem with this type of "critique format" is that there is not enough emphasis on the body of work of the artist posting. True an image should stand on its own. But what if the "flamer" does not have a calibrated monitor, or what if the "posting photog" does not supply a good copy to be viewed? When someone posts an image here; the perceived idea is that it is the best photo ever taken by the photog who is posting it. In this case; nothing could be further from the truth. Still a comment like Allan posted is easier to relate to than the one that James posted. James I will in turn, not make an unconstructive critique of your work, but rather a constructive comment. That is: if you have the courage to post an image.

richard

-- richard w (richardwarren@rcn.com), October 24, 1999.

Or the means... I'm not too good with PhotoShop...yet.

Now that I look with another monitor, I can see the entire figure. My criticism is this, the lyricism of neither form is enhanced, by contrast or comparison, with the other. The figure is truncated, abruptly decapitated by the frame (at top) and the leaf's resolution (of form) is amputated by the figure's intrusion.

A damn fine idea, but needs evolution. I've tried it before myself, with no better success...I can relate...t

and don't sweat james, he means well, but is excessively casual (by design)...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 26, 1999.