I've never shot "staged still lifes" before, and I understand that it's always a matter of taste...))
Beautiful backdrop, excellent red accent, pleasant lighting, but too many details: the rhinestone-studded handbag, the ring, the flashlight, the NMV, all unnecessary. Especially the handbag.))
Well, I'm a woman too! I wanted to show off my bag! It's a joke)) In general, women's and men's perceptions differ. These items don't seem unnecessary to me...at least now, but I'll think about your words, maybe I'll retake the photo someday with a minimal set.
Men's and women's perceptions differ, of course, but that's statistical.
Yakov Trembovolsky, Cough, cough, cough))) I'm getting coffee))) to think it through "statistically"))) If you leave out the "literature" of the title, the pearls and the handbag are just revolutionary against the whole composition... letters are always the first thing a person notices in a frame, and then other accents. I think these two components play well together here...though not quite to my taste.
Cough, cough, cough))) I'm getting coffee))) to think it through "statistically"))) If you leave out the "literature" of the title, the pearls and the handbag are just revolutionary against the whole composition... letters are always the first thing a person notices in a frame, and then other accents. I think these two components play well together here...although not quite to my taste)
Pieter Gynt,
"Revolutionary"?:)) All these still lifes are staged or done with taste, or "revolutionary": and then the still life disintegrates into "components." It's already an artificial shot, and with a collection of details instead of composition, it's doubly so. ))
But this is purely "to my taste." And it's not a mass-produced work.
But that's purely "my taste." And it's not a mass-produced piece. )
Yakov Trembovolsky, By the way, I respect your taste and patience too. )))) Could you tell me more about what you don't like compositionally? I'll give up the handbag, but I'll fight for the flashlight.
The lantern looks like a bulky detail, poorly placed.) This will be especially noticeable if you remove the purse. )
Yakov Trembovolsky, No, there's a touch of cruelty in your thoughts))) You can remove the purse, I agree... But the lantern? Well, literary, like the Tibetan monks had it: night, purse, lantern, Anna Karenina))) (just kidding) I'm in a good mood... Yakov Trembovolsky, MishaMcD, no offense))) But the lantern, in principle, doesn't dominate here: the window frame, the bowed lantern, the book... fine))) Only the dill doesn't fit into the poem here (IMHO)
Don't use the word "don't be offended" in such conversations: it's ridiculous...))
There's no need to bring up Blok here: literary knowledge only gets in the way. I'll also mention Fet, Adamovich, Severyanin, and Mirra Lokhvitskaya. That's a dead end in photography.)
I won't even give up my bag! The composition is built on contrasts. For me, everything is connected. And the lantern! A triangular, contrasting composition. And anyway... and it's not dill... but a flower.
Misha, work hit the jackpot. And who knows how much more creative you have? Everyone who comes here begins to absorb elements of contemporary art in their own way, because the very air here is saturated with it. Although I wasn't particularly taken with it, I still see details here and there, but more of a psychological undertone. Do you even read Anna Karenina in the original? Hats off. Incidentally, I brought all the classics from the local university library to my husband to read in Russian, introduced him to them, even Bulgakov, and he ended up converting to Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the Russian books section was removed somewhere last year. It would be a shame if it ended up in the trash.
Misha, work hit the jackpot. And who knows how much more creativity you have. Everyone who comes here begins to absorb elements of Contemporary Art in their own way, because the very air here is saturated with it. Although I wasn't particularly taken with it, I still see details sometimes, but more of a psychological undertone. And are you reading Anna Karenina in the original? Hats off to you. By the way, I brought all the classics from the local university library to my husband for him to read in Russian, introduced him to them, even Bulgakov, and he ended up converting to Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the Russian section was removed somewhere last year. It would be a shame if it ended up in the trash.
Bluejay, My husband read "Anna." But he couldn't get through it because of the tedious descriptions. I read Russian classics in the Russian "word." And in English, that's what was born in it. My conviction is that literature should be read in the language it was written in. As for Bulkakov, our American husbands probably won't understand him. You need to have a Russian mentality and have lived under the Soviets.
Beautiful backdrop, excellent red accent, pleasant lighting, but too many details: the rhinestone-studded handbag,
the ring, the flashlight, the NMV, all unnecessary.
Especially the handbag.))
The book is enough: it's textured. ))
Why clutter everything up?
The plot is visual, not thematic.
And any set designer would reject such a handbag due to its theme.
Men's and women's perceptions differ, of course,
but that's statistical.
And then it's all individual: I wouldn't exaggerate this difference.
It's good, by the way, that Tolstoy is in English. It's a shift.
Cough, cough, cough))) I'm getting coffee))) to think it through "statistically")))
If you leave out the "literature" of the title, the pearls and the handbag are just revolutionary against the whole composition...
letters are always the first thing a person notices in a frame, and then other accents. I think these two components play well together here...though not quite to my taste.
"Revolutionary"?:)) All these still lifes are staged or done with taste, or "revolutionary": and then the still life disintegrates into "components."
It's already an artificial shot, and with a collection of details instead of composition, it's doubly so. ))
But this is purely "to my taste." And it's not a mass-produced work.
By the way, I respect your taste and patience too.
))))
Could you tell me more about what you don't like compositionally? I'll give up the handbag, but I'll fight for the flashlight.
The flashlight looks bulky and poorly positioned.)
This is especially noticeable if you remove the bag.
No, there's a touch of cruelty in your thoughts)))
You can remove the purse, I agree... But the lantern? Well, literary, like the Tibetan monks had it: night, purse, lantern, Anna Karenina))) (just kidding)
I'm in a good mood... Yakov Trembovolsky, MishaMcD, no offense)))
But the lantern, in principle, doesn't dominate here: the window frame, the bowed lantern, the book... fine))) Only the dill doesn't fit into the poem here (IMHO)
Don't use the word "don't be offended" in such conversations: it's ridiculous...))
There's no need to bring up Blok here: literary knowledge only gets in the way. I'll also mention Fet, Adamovich, Severyanin, and Mirra Lokhvitskaya. That's a dead end in photography.)
Well, we've agreed, and that's good.))
"Triangular-contrasting" is a bit strong terminologically.:)
You're a pest too, aren't you? ))) Notice I lasted longer)))
Yakov Trembovolsky,
The Author came and ruined everything, and now he wants us to keep our purse. ))))) Do you have to tell me this is a joke?
This literary joke is a hundred years old:
"What fashion did A. Karenina leave behind? platform shoes".
The book cover design is impressive!
I think Dear SV would have shed a tear too if he'd bothered to look. It's in Doc's book illustrations.
I liked it!