Shadow Dance

Pete Askew

Pete Askew

Admin
Related to the series that Hamish was referring to in another post (to follow).

ShadowDance1a.jpg



Nikon D3, Nikkor 85 1/1.4, ISO 25,600, 1/40s at f 1/1.4 PP in LR/PS/SilverFx Pro 2
 
I really like these ... You should post a few more Pete, they make another great set!
The slight niggle with this one is the top left hand corner is a touch distracting!
Would a crop to a slightly less wide format loosing the thing in the corner not work?
Post some more of them!!
 
Thanks Hamish. I did try a different crop but that took some of the latent movement out - it bugs me too. I was tempted to clone out the top of the curved wall but balancing the texture might be difficult. I will probably play a bit more with the image. I'll post a few more as well but need to do some more processing on the main set to dampen down the banding caused by the rather extreme exposures.
 
I like these too Pete, although I don't remember seeing this one. I'm not that fussed by the top left really although if you did want to get rid of it the content fill in CS5 might work wonders there.


Vic
 
Am i alone in saying that i don't understand the "like" factor of these ...........!!

Really am so sorry for being so negative, and this is no way personal but Looking at exif.......... Nikon D3 Approx £4000.00 & & Possibly a Nikon - 85 mm - F/1.4 approx £1200.00 - And this is what you come up with..............!!

i am no expert by any means so can some one please PLEASE explain why these images are "So Good"

Daz
 
Last edited:
now that's not very constructive now is it Darren! ;)

Photography doesn't have to be about sharpness, as a form of art it can just be about colour/lack of colour, shapes, composition etc etc ... and thats just the aesthetic! Its also about capturing mood/emotion etc
It is also entirely subjective!

what is it you dont like about them?
it is because they dont comply to the usual "rules" of photography? (sharpness etc)
would you still have the same feeling if they were paintings?
if they were painting by a famous impressionist, would you still disregard them?
that is of course fine if you would, but im just trying to say that that is more the angle they are being perceived from by the people here who like them, not as conventional photos, but more as images created by someone with an artistic temperament.

sorry to get all arty farty on you ... :)
 
It's all down to taste I'm afraid Darren. I like them because I like this sort of undefined image. I like motion blur and soft / out of focus elements in the right sort of image - I do have sharper shots from the same series but these were my favourites. These were shot on a D3 / 85 1:1.4 true, but that is what I had with me. A film camera with pushed B&W could have done the same with the outside shots. I have shots taken on a Cambo Legend with Cooke Soft focus lens and a PhaseOne P45 back (costing over £30K) that you would also dislike I think because, under very controlled conditions, I have chosen to keep the main elements out of focus (the dance series were more serendipitous as the subject was moving quickly in a confined area under very low light). The cost of the equipment is irrelevant it is just what I have (some for my work and some for personal) For the Galleraki series, it would have been impossible to push film to the limits required and achieve any image at all.

It is interesting though what some people like and others don't. For me, most landscape photography is pretty dull. I know that Ansell Adams was a master of his craft but I find his images totally without interest. Whereas I love the work of Sarah Moon and Lillian Bassman with all of their blur and extreme chemical manipulation. Similarly, in general, I have little interest in wildlife photography, even macro-photography (odd given that I record small details as part of my work - don't worry though, these are sharp, accurate and correctly exposed! :)). I have been meaning to reply to the inspiration post that Hamish started. Maybe we should all try to add why we like the images we quote as well as an insight into what makes us record / create what we do.

By the way Darren, no offense taken at all - I was surprised when Hamish asked me to post them in the first place and even more surprised that I got more positive responses than negative (my guess is that those that didn't like them just didn't reply though). Still, it was an interesting exercise.
 
i have started another thread on this subject ... perhaps it would be interesting to continue this discussion there ...
i asked you to post them Pete as i don't feel there are any limitations to photography ... a camera is just a different type of paint brush ... surely? there is certainly no harm in considering it like that i don't think!
 
Last edited:
I think that what it comes down to is what elements in an image appeal to your taste. For some photography is about correct exposure, conventional compositions and correct technique. For others it is the distilled elements of the image that they feel are the essence of the image and the meaning it conveys. These are the opposite ends of the dipole and people's tastes are dotted all along from one end to the other. There is a thought which is that photography based artists tend to be devoid of the discipline that professional photographers have and professional photographers tend to be devoid of the artistic creativity that artists have. Ultimately it's about achieving the balance.
 
I'd forgotten I'd posted these images (and I never did get around to posting more of them. I thought it interesting to sort of reactivate this thread as it seems that two years ago we were discussing inspiration and also what (and why) we disliked about images. It still interests me.
 
I love this shot, Pete! The dog-eared effect in the upper left does distract a wee bit, but over all the tones and the composition are wonderful.
 
I think it is great that Darren felt free to speak his mind on this, without fear that regulars would turn against him. That speaks a lot for this site.

I like these images...a lot.
 
Thanks Rob. It was partly because of Darren's comments that I 're-activated' the thread. I took no offence then and I take none at all now. It was also partly because of your experimental images from the garden as well. I find it interesting to examine what some like and do not like and why.

An the dancer herself is a member of RPF! It is our very own Blanka (who I am going to chase down again as I know she has some fantastic - but 'challenging' - images of dancers herself to post).
 
Pete Askew said:
Thanks Rob. It was partly because of Darren's comments that I 're-activated' the thread. I took no offence then and I take none at all now. It was also partly because of your experimental images from the garden as well. I find it interesting to examine what some like and do not like and why.

An the dancer herself is a member of RPF! It is our very own Blanka (who I am going to chase down again as I know she has some fantastic - but 'challenging' - images of dancers herself to post).
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Blanka's dancer foties, Pete!
 
I didnt mean to offend with my comments, just personal preference isint it just like all shot posted on the forum..........!! Great to see others views and opinions and also what aspect of these pics and why people like or dislike.

Daz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pete Askew
The Last Order
Replies
2
Views
265
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
The Yellow Coat
Replies
8
Views
351
Wes Hall
Wes Hall
Pete Askew
Last Orders
Replies
0
Views
218
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Production Building Number 2
Replies
4
Views
260
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Global Warming
Replies
9
Views
947
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Back
Top