Can anyone take a good photograph?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Cynicor wrote:
>
> > emotions. http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm
>
> Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
>
> --

I've seen this shot before, and my reaction then was the same as now. I
cannot get to like the overpowering orange-peel texture applied to the
image. IMHO the shot as a portrait isn't all that flash, and the addition
of that texture just ruins the picture. It isn't within a thousand miles of
this image from Mick Brown, earlier in the thread:

http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075

That image just grips me.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41B7852E.396558A5@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > Cynicor wrote:
> >
> > > emotions. http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm
> >
> > Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
> > http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
> >
> > --
>
> I've seen this shot before, and my reaction then was the same as now. I
> cannot get to like the overpowering orange-peel texture applied to the
> image. IMHO the shot as a portrait isn't all that flash, and the addition
> of that texture just ruins the picture. It isn't within a thousand miles
of
> this image from Mick Brown, earlier in the thread:
>
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075
>
> That image just grips me.

Another great shot.
I understand the gripes about the texture, etc.
While it might not be what I would personally choose in that regard, I think
the lighting implementation is truly masterful. You can just barely see the
outline/texture/tone of her left cheek against the background, and yet her
eye in shadow still is nailed.

Your linked photo is a stunner too, but with a totally different feel.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

>>Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
>>http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
>>
>>--
>
> I've seen this shot before, and my reaction then was the same as now. I
> cannot get to like the overpowering orange-peel texture applied to the
> image. IMHO the shot as a portrait isn't all that flash, and the addition
> of that texture just ruins the picture.

I'm not a fan of the texture either and considering the equipment used, an image
presented at this size could have been very clean. OTOH, I look at it from
about 18" from the screen and the texture seems a natual part of the image. The
beauty and grace of this lady caught in this light makes it a most compelling
portrait to me.

It isn't within a thousand miles of
> this image from Mick Brown, earlier in the thread:
>
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075
>
> That image just grips me.

That image is fine, but doesn't do much for me. I caught a friends daughter in
a similar pose many years ago. Not surprisingly, the mother and father love it,
though I find it nice but ordinary.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mick Brown wrote:

> This has been an awesome thread, probably one of the best I have seen here,
> it is great to get everyone's creative juices going and see what everyones
> thoughts are.
>
>

Oh well in that case

My own personal approach is to redefine and not pander

I have the eye, the image, the vision

(and just in case none of that works I have PSCS too)

Aerticeus

ps - and IrfanView, Picasa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
newsS_td.13615$bD6.51983@wagner.videotron.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>
> > I really think you're bordering on snobbery here, Al.
>
> That I don't understand. We all percieve images in different ways.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I said that because you seem to make statements declaring that pictures must
meet your stated criteria or they ARE cliche. But whatever... Your
statement came accross to me that way. Other's opinions may vary.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:

> But common isn't cliche to me. Cliche in photography is when a particular
> *set up* image is recycled incessantly. What the PJ has done is record an
> unguarded moment. He's not directing the man. Here's what photo cliche means
> to me...
>
> http/www.pbase.com/joesimages/image/26958825.jpg
> http/www.pbase.com/image/28884451.jpg
> http/www.pbase.com/nella/image/23718501.jpg
> http/www.pbase.com/image/21667867.jpg
>
> I accept though that this is about definitions of the word cliche. Under
> your definitition I can understand how you label the war image as such.

That's fine and indeed those phots are cliché... on the other hand, the
liklihood of somebody expressing grief in a cemetery is so likely (like the fall
folliage image) to happen as to not need direction...

>>A needle stuck in bleeding plastic? What else could it be but some
>>cynical
>>humor? Whatever it is, it is in the bottom 1% of all of his images. IMO
>>best
>>removed from his collecion on line.
>
>
> It's a broad conceptual image Alan. It has excellent commercial and some
> editorial potential as a result. I fail to see the humour though.

I fail to see tha value, period. (unlike many of his other images).

>>But not nearly as well done as this one. It is clean, clear, dramatic
>>(yellow/black). Since it captured and held by attention for it's simple,
>>powerful beauty, it is a 'wow' photo. This photographer does not use
>>particularly high end equipment. (although not 'digi-compact' either).
>
>
> I'm not buying it. It's no better than dozens (likely hundreds) of similars
> I've seen. It really holds no 'wow' for me.

To each...

> On a good CRT there's no graduation problem. You're likely picking up JPEG
> compression artificing on a LCD. A lot of his images are cold as they convey
> uncomfortable concepts and emotions

My CRT is quite good, thank you kindly. Look at the greys on the pipes ... not
natural looking at all. I'm not talking about blocking up or posterization,
just gradations that do not seem normal. This is crop from the same image,
blown up 600%. Tell me what you think.
http/www.aliasimages.com/images/greygarb.jpg

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:

> It's an uneasy, challenging image that stirs and provokes people to really
> react. I react to it and so do you. How many times have you been moved
> enough to leave a comment on a PBase image page before encountering this
> image?

My reaction to that image was really a reaction to its inclusion in your list of
interesting images. Given DN's collection (or anyone else's collections) you
could have put up something 'better' IMO. Normally in seeing an image like that
(if I were looking at his collections) I would simply make a face at it and move
on to his better stuff.

That image has a needle piercing a section of pipe that is bleeding. I'm not a
doctor, but when I was a lifeguard we used compresses, bandages and tourniquets
to control bleeding. The notion of injecting something to control bleeding just
doesn't wash.

I congratulate that photographer for his creativness, but not on that particular
photo. It is attrocious. Sorry Simon, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I get more out of his images such as:
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333787 Ayn Rand might like it too.
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333791
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333789
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333785 which is very disturbing, I hate it,
but it is well done.
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333800 I guess he was getting tired of
the little fellas at this point.
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/37095900

But, that's what I like and what I find to be done well technically as well.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> But common isn't cliche to me. Cliche in photography is when a particular
>> *set up* image is recycled incessantly. What the PJ has done is record an
>> unguarded moment. He's not directing the man. Here's what photo cliche
>> means to me...
>>
>> http/www.pbase.com/joesimages/image/26958825.jpg
>> http/www.pbase.com/image/28884451.jpg
>> http/www.pbase.com/nella/image/23718501.jpg
>> http/www.pbase.com/image/21667867.jpg
>>
>> I accept though that this is about definitions of the word cliche. Under
>> your definitition I can understand how you label the war image as such.
>
> That's fine and indeed those phots are cliché... on the other hand, the
> liklihood of somebody expressing grief in a cemetery is so likely (like
> the fall folliage image) to happen as to not need direction...

Perhaps there is more to cliche for me then. I can emulate any one of my for
linked cliche's at the drop of a hat. I'd have to wait 'til fall for one of
them but still it's a photographic possibility I've encountered - and then
chosen to ignore - many times. I have little doubt that you too could do
likewise. But I know that it is incredibly unlikely that I will ever
photograph (or encounter) a soldiers reaction at the hastily prepared
graveside of someone he loved. I will likely never photograph anyone in
tears at a graveside anywhere unless I set this up with a hired model for
some lifestyle shoot. We all know that a tearful reaction is commonplace at
a graveside. But this is a soldier with an AK in his hand - a killer. This
is a war grave. This is considered photograph, not a pap snap of some
distraught mourner taken with a 600mm from outside the cemetery.


>>>A needle stuck in bleeding plastic? What else could it be but some
>>>cynical
>>>humor? Whatever it is, it is in the bottom 1% of all of his images. IMO
>>>best
>>>removed from his collecion on line.
>>
>>
>> It's a broad conceptual image Alan. It has excellent commercial and some
>> editorial potential as a result. I fail to see the humour though.
>
> I fail to see tha value, period. (unlike many of his other images).
>
>>>But not nearly as well done as this one. It is clean, clear, dramatic
>>>(yellow/black). Since it captured and held by attention for it's simple,
>>>powerful beauty, it is a 'wow' photo. This photographer does not use
>>>particularly high end equipment. (although not 'digi-compact' either).
>>
>>
>> I'm not buying it. It's no better than dozens (likely hundreds) of
>> similars I've seen. It really holds no 'wow' for me.
>
> To each...
>
>> On a good CRT there's no graduation problem. You're likely picking up
>> JPEG compression artificing on a LCD. A lot of his images are cold as
>> they convey uncomfortable concepts and emotions
>
> My CRT is quite good, thank you kindly. Look at the greys on the pipes
> ... not natural looking at all. I'm not talking about blocking up or
> posterization, just gradations that do not seem normal. This is crop from
> the same image, blown up 600%. Tell me what you think.
> http/www.aliasimages.com/images/greygarb.jpg
>
> Cheers,
> Alan


I genuinely see no problems with that 600% crop Alan
--
Simon
http/www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:

>>>But common isn't cliche to me. Cliche in photography is when a particular
>>>*set up* image is recycled incessantly. What the PJ has done is record an
>>>unguarded moment. He's not directing the man. Here's what photo cliche
>>>means to me...
>>>
>>>http/www.pbase.com/joesimages/image/26958825.jpg
>>>http/www.pbase.com/image/28884451.jpg
>>>http/www.pbase.com/nella/image/23718501.jpg
>>>http/www.pbase.com/image/21667867.jpg
>>>
>>>I accept though that this is about definitions of the word cliche. Under
>>>your definitition I can understand how you label the war image as such.
>>
>>That's fine and indeed those phots are cliché... on the other hand, the
>>liklihood of somebody expressing grief in a cemetery is so likely (like
>>the fall folliage image) to happen as to not need direction...
>
>
> Perhaps there is more to cliche for me then. I can emulate any one of my for
> linked cliche's at the drop of a hat. I'd have to wait 'til fall for one of
> them but still it's a photographic possibility I've encountered - and then
> chosen to ignore - many times. I have little doubt that you too could do
> likewise. But I know that it is incredibly unlikely that I will ever
> photograph (or encounter) a soldiers reaction at the hastily prepared
> graveside of someone he loved. I will likely never photograph anyone in
> tears at a graveside anywhere unless I set this up with a hired model for
> some lifestyle shoot. We all know that a tearful reaction is commonplace at
> a graveside. But this is a soldier with an AK in his hand - a killer. This
> is a war grave.

I understand all that. And if it was shot genuinely, then it is as cliché a pj
shot as they come. And if staged, then moreso. I would certainly never take a
photo like that of someone close to me. I could, I suppose, take that photo of
someone I didn't know if there was someone needing the image, but I would do so
reluctantly. pj's whether at standoff distance or 3 feet away, will shoot the
shot that their editor wants, cliché or not. Iconic or not.

> I genuinely see no problems with that 600% crop Alan

The greys are very uneven and change tone opposite to what the light is doing.




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> That image has a needle piercing a section of pipe that is bleeding.
> I'm not a doctor, but when I was a lifeguard we used compresses,
> bandages and tourniquets to control bleeding. The notion of injecting
> something to control bleeding just doesn't wash.
>
It's funny, I read it as the injection _causing_ the bleeding.
In some ways it's why it's a good image I suppose, as someone said, it's
very open to interpretation.
I still don't like it though. It feels like the same message could have
been conveyed with less jarring composition and colours. The jarring may
be deliberate to increase the impact but personally I think it detracts.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson wrote:

> It's funny, I read it as the injection _causing_ the bleeding.

Read the title.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> That image has a needle piercing a section of pipe that is bleeding.
>> I'm not a doctor, but when I was a lifeguard we used compresses,
>> bandages and tourniquets to control bleeding. The notion of
>> injecting something to control bleeding just doesn't wash.
>>
> It's funny, I read it as the injection _causing_ the bleeding.
> In some ways it's why it's a good image I suppose, as someone said,
> it's very open to interpretation.
> I still don't like it though. It feels like the same message could
> have been conveyed with less jarring composition and colours. The
> jarring may be deliberate to increase the impact but personally I
> think it detracts.

I dismissed it very quickly: my apprehension of the world conflicted
with th author's apparent disregard of physics, rendering it cheap and
contrived, my view.

Plus, I've had some bad experiences with plumbing, hypodermics, and
blood.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Daphodil" <Daphodil99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102733206.364257.112720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Simon Says: "Seperate learning to use a camera, lights, darkroom, raw
> converter, etc. from the issue.

Simon says, "touch your shoulders."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Tom Hudson wrote:
>
>> It's funny, I read it as the injection _causing_ the bleeding.
>
>
> Read the title.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
That's where I got the idea from funnily, I read it in the drugs fix
sense. Suspect it's supposed to be ambiguous in that way.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Daphodil" <Daphodil99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102734626.335831.203240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> With my monopod?

Gotcha!
I didn't say "Simon says!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Daphodil" <Daphodil99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102735517.770323.260550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dang, this group has a harsh hazing...at least I can put my monopod
> down

Ya, we play a mean game of Simon says with all their new recruits.
It's just plain brutal.
Worst of all, the loser has to sit in the mush pot.
This is followed by a few rounds of Duck-Duck-Goose.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:39:33 +0000, Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx>
wrote:

>Following on from "What should the serious amateur concern himself with?"...
>
>A good photograph is one that most people can look at and say, "hey,
>that's a good photograph".
>The 'rules' of photography are based on what people like the look of.
>This means that everyone must have the rules of photography built-in.
>
>So, my questions are:
>
>Is the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer how
>in touch they are with their in-built rules?
>Is it possible for anyone to learn this or can some people really not
>tell what looks good from what doesn't?
>If this is the case, how can they tell if a photo looks good? Can they
>just not apply it to the things they see around them?
>
>Tom
If you take enough pictures, you will eventually take some good ones
by accident. Taking better than average pictures is, I think a result
of the following:

Knowledge. A reasonable understanding of your equipment and some basic
knowledge of "better" composition and framing makes for better photos.

Experience. Most of us that strive to take better photographs do so
over time. We gain knowledge and we learn how to more instinctively
apply the knowledge we have.

Hard work (or at least considerable expended effort). We may know, for
example that the lighting for a particular subject will be better an
hour before sundown (or a few minutes after sunrise). How many of us
arrange our activities to make sure we take a particular shot at an
optimum time.

Talent. Some people are better than others at picking subject matter.
Along a similar line, some people are better than others at picking an
interesting perspective on a given subject. Almost anyone willing to
put forth consistent, sustained effort can improve their abilities
here, but talent does still play a part.


Cheers,

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:SNjud.28984$bD6.723289@wagner.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
>>>>But common isn't cliche to me. Cliche in photography is when a
>>>>particular *set up* image is recycled incessantly. What the PJ has done
>>>>is record an unguarded moment. He's not directing the man. Here's what
>>>>photo cliche means to me...
>>>>
>>>>http/www.pbase.com/joesimages/image/26958825.jpg
>>>>http/www.pbase.com/image/28884451.jpg
>>>>http/www.pbase.com/nella/image/23718501.jpg
>>>>http/www.pbase.com/image/21667867.jpg
>>>>
>>>>I accept though that this is about definitions of the word cliche. Under
>>>>your definitition I can understand how you label the war image as such.
>>>
>>>That's fine and indeed those phots are cliché... on the other hand, the
>>>liklihood of somebody expressing grief in a cemetery is so likely (like
>>>the fall folliage image) to happen as to not need direction...
>>
>>
>> Perhaps there is more to cliche for me then. I can emulate any one of my
>> for linked cliche's at the drop of a hat. I'd have to wait 'til fall for
>> one of them but still it's a photographic possibility I've encountered -
>> and then chosen to ignore - many times. I have little doubt that you too
>> could do likewise. But I know that it is incredibly unlikely that I will
>> ever photograph (or encounter) a soldiers reaction at the hastily
>> prepared graveside of someone he loved. I will likely never photograph
>> anyone in tears at a graveside anywhere unless I set this up with a hired
>> model for some lifestyle shoot. We all know that a tearful reaction is
>> commonplace at a graveside. But this is a soldier with an AK in his
>> hand - a killer. This is a war grave.
>
> I understand all that. And if it was shot genuinely, then it is as cliché
> a pj shot as they come. And if staged, then moreso. I would certainly
> never take a photo like that of someone close to me. I could, I suppose,
> take that photo of someone I didn't know if there was someone needing the
> image, but I would do so reluctantly. pj's whether at standoff distance
> or 3 feet away, will shoot the shot that their editor wants, cliché or
> not. Iconic or not.

I agree it's a cliched PJ image. But I really can't label it a cliched image
per se. If we begin to view such imagery as cliched then has not Helmut
Newton cliched erotica and is James Russell shooting cliched lifestyle?

>> I genuinely see no problems with that 600% crop Alan
>
> The greys are very uneven and change tone opposite to what the light is
> doing.

I take that to be some light staining on the plastic. Maybe it is a
processing issue. It's tough to be sure on such a small compressed image. On
close re-examination the highlights on the dripping blood are very poorly
rendered. I still think it's a very strong, smart piece of imagery though
--
Simon
http/www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:EEjud.28977$bD6.720455@wagner.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
>> It's an uneasy, challenging image that stirs and provokes people to
>> really react. I react to it and so do you. How many times have you been
>> moved enough to leave a comment on a PBase image page before encountering
>> this image?
>
> My reaction to that image was really a reaction to its inclusion in your
> list of interesting images. Given DN's collection (or anyone else's
> collections) you could have put up something 'better' IMO. Normally in
> seeing an image like that (if I were looking at his collections) I would
> simply make a face at it and move on to his better stuff.
>
> That image has a needle piercing a section of pipe that is bleeding. I'm
> not a doctor, but when I was a lifeguard we used compresses, bandages and
> tourniquets to control bleeding. The notion of injecting something to
> control bleeding just doesn't wash.

That's too literal for me. It's about communicating concepts and nothing
needs to be 'real' to do that. The needle opens the image up for wider
interpretation than a bandage would.

> I congratulate that photographer for his creativness, but not on that
> particular photo. It is attrocious. Sorry Simon, we'll just have to
> agree to disagree.
>
> I get more out of his images such as:
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333787 Ayn Rand might like it too.
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333791
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333789
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333785 which is very disturbing, I
> hate it,
> but it is well done.
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333800 I guess he was getting tired
> of
> the little fellas at this
> point.
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/37095900
>
> But, that's what I like and what I find to be done well technically as
> well.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I very much like all of those 'cept for 'Great Wall'. You and I just have
different tastes in photo's
--
Simon
http/www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

>>I understand all that. And if it was shot genuinely, then it is as cliché
>>a pj shot as they come. And if staged, then moreso. I would certainly
>>never take a photo like that of someone close to me. I could, I suppose,
>>take that photo of someone I didn't know if there was someone needing the
>>image, but I would do so reluctantly. pj's whether at standoff distance
>>or 3 feet away, will shoot the shot that their editor wants, cliché or
>>not. Iconic or not.
>
>
> I agree it's a cliched PJ image. But I really can't label it a cliched image
> per se.

That's splitting it ... but who but a pj would take such an image...?

> If we begin to view such imagery as cliched then has not Helmut
> Newton cliched erotica and is James Russell shooting cliched lifestyle?

Today we might look back at HNs style and call some of it cliché, however as it
entirely his style, his shots can't be labled that way. Many of his nudes in
ordinary everyday settings where nuditiy is not typically encountered, in your
face nudes/eroticm with a huge dollop of societal critique are still great to
study. The French "PHOTO" issue dedicated to him (last Spring, IIRC) you'll get
a great cross-section of his work.

Erotica? I don't see most of HN's photos as specifically erotic.

James Russell I'm not famillar with.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.