2010 - Arty category.

Select your category and post your pics here!
Heywood-Yablowme

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by Heywood-Yablowme » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:55 am

Kings or better to open    

                   Image


                                                                                                       bench racers...
Last edited by Heywood-Yablowme on Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

smclean35

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by smclean35 » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:04 am


Billy Og

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by Billy Og » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:37 pm

In the spotlight...
Attachments
P1000393 (Medium).JPG

Jacob Potts

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by Jacob Potts » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:26 pm

[quote="Paul"]
In the spotlight...Image[/quote]Interesting composition, lighting, and the caption ends it on a sweet note.

Nice!  I like it!

Jacob Potts :-)

wattie

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wattie » Fri May 28, 2010 11:45 am

Beauty and the Beast............
Attachments
Kel Atom 119.JPG

User avatar
wasp
Posts: 1723
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Herefordshire
Contact:

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wasp » Fri May 28, 2010 3:30 pm

[quote="wattie"]
Beauty and the Beast............
[/quote]

God Wattie, can't you get a decent shot of your car without that woman who keeps getting in the way?

Cheers,

Stu
Atom 4, Gr Yaris

Jacob Potts

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by Jacob Potts » Fri May 28, 2010 9:43 pm

[quote="wattie"]Beauty and the Beast............[/quote]
Wattie: this is a good first attempt.

You chose both models well.  I especially like how you blew out the background so that the foreground subjects are our only focus.  You have begun well, don't give up now. 

Apart from the obvious physical beauty of both models in the image, they are disconnected.  The woman and the car could well be photographed alone, to the same effect.  Disconnection dissipates artistic expression.

Try telling a story with the image.  What is the relationship of the woman to the car?  And vice versa?  True, blowing out the background sharpens the viewer's focus on the models, but the technique removes context, contrast and emotion.  See what Cartier-Bresson did with a pond of water!

Image
Cartier-Bresson "Saint Lazare"

Tell me a story!  Draw me in.  I want to see, even if only a fragment, of a story.  See the photo below by Oleg Volk.

Image
Oleg Volk "Failure to Eject"

In your image, the woman's stance and dress detract from the image.  The photographer dressed the model in a costume that calls attention to the woman's body unnecessarily, and the photographer posed her in a stance of aggressive sexuality.  Not that such costumes and poses are bad per se, but both detract from the photo.  Again, just like blowing out the background, it separates the two subjects, the car and the woman.  Your art suffers.

Suggestion: remove the costume altogether.  This creates an entirely different dynamic and opens up many creative possibilities.  The model in the Oleg Volk photo above has no costume, but that adds to the pathos, the impact of the image.  It elevates it to something approaching art.

Wattie: do good art.  Make us proud.

Jacob Potts

User avatar
wasp
Posts: 1723
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Herefordshire
Contact:

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wasp » Fri May 28, 2010 10:04 pm

Blimey, my tounge was firmly in my cheek and I trust yours is too ??? ;)
Wattie, you and kel have livened up many an AAOC contributors day!

Cheers,

Stu
Atom 4, Gr Yaris

AtomMadStew

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by AtomMadStew » Fri May 28, 2010 10:30 pm

[quote="wattie"]
Beauty and the Beast............
[/quote]

move over daisy duke! 

wisp

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wisp » Fri May 28, 2010 10:35 pm

Structural Curves
Attachments
Curves.jpg

Jacob Potts

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by Jacob Potts » Sat May 29, 2010 1:54 am

[quote="wisp"]Structural Curves[/quote]
Wisp!

You're a genius!  You've captured in the background a bridge with a curving exoskeleton to mimic the Atom's!

Well done!

Can you raise the photo up just an ooch higher?  To get just a tad more of the bridge showing?

Jacob Potts :-)

P.S.  "Ooch" is a real unit of measurement.  You may not be familiar with it, since it is one of the lesser-known units in the metric system.  :-)

wisp

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wisp » Sat May 29, 2010 3:27 am

[quote="Jacob Potts"]
Can you raise the photo up just an ooch higher?  To get just a tad more of the bridge showing?

Jacob Potts :-)

P.S.  "Ooch" is a real unit of measurement.  You may not be familiar with it, since it is one of the lesser-known units in the metric system.  :-)

[/quote]

Jacob,

Alas I can not find the measurement you refer to in my book 'Units', by J.A.M. Gaboury, so I do not know how much to move said picture. However you can see more of the bridge if you click here

wattie

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wattie » Sat May 29, 2010 6:59 am

[quote="Jacob Potts"]
[quote="wattie"]Beauty and the Beast............[/quote]
Wattie: this is a good first attempt.

You chose both models well.  I especially like how you blew out the background so that the foreground subjects are our only focus.  You have begun well, don't give up now.  

Apart from the obvious physical beauty of both models in the image, they are disconnected.  The woman and the car could well be photographed alone, to the same effect.  Disconnection dissipates artistic expression.

Try telling a story with the image.  What is the relationship of the woman to the car?  And vice versa?  True, blowing out the background sharpens the viewer's focus on the models, but the technique removes context, contrast and emotion.  See what Cartier-Bresson did with a pond of water!

Image
Cartier-Bresson "Saint Lazare"

Tell me a story!  Draw me in.  I want to see, even if only a fragment, of a story.  See the photo below by Oleg Volk.

Image
Oleg Volk "Failure to Eject"

In your image, the woman's stance and dress detract from the image.  The photographer dressed the model in a costume that calls attention to the woman's body unnecessarily, and the photographer posed her in a stance of aggressive sexuality.  Not that such costumes and poses are bad per se, but both detract from the photo.  Again, just like blowing out the background, it separates the two subjects, the car and the woman.  Your art suffers.

Suggestion: remove the costume altogether.  This creates an entirely different dynamic and opens up many creative possibilities.  The model in the Oleg Volk photo above has no costume, but that adds to the pathos, the impact of the image.  It elevates it to something approaching art.

Wattie: do good art.  Make us proud.

Jacob Potts

[/quote]

Great advice, I'll try to link the subject matter more convincingly in future....the strong pose, chequered flag bikini and female driving boots were a subtle attempt to suggest the woman had just returned, empowered,  from a satisfying drive.......perhaps she should have held a torque wrench or my helmet   ;)  to draw the viewer in more.

Failing that I'll just tell her to lose the bikini next time........................... ;D

Cheers Wattie
Last edited by wattie on Sat May 29, 2010 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

wisp

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wisp » Sat May 29, 2010 8:21 am

[quote="Jacob Potts"]
To get just a tad more of the bridge showing?


[/quote]

Jacob,

Would you believe me if I said this was the road sign you pass when approaching the bridge?
Attachments
humps.jpg

wisp

Re: 2010 - Arty category.

Post by wisp » Sat May 29, 2010 8:30 am

[quote="wattie"]
Failing that I'll just tell her to lose the bikini next time........................... ;D

Cheers Wattie
[/quote]

But then you'd just have to do this (click here) to the image before you could post it on here.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests