D&G - Breaking the 'rules'

[dmora]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

She doesn't look unnatural, sickly, awful or unattractive.

Many people are just naturally thin and are able to maintain a healthy weight without having to resort to eating disorders.

There is nothing wrong with being thin.

But I find it morally reprehensible to be obese without a valid medical reason (such as thyroid disease) for being so.

The vast majority of Americans who are obese are so because they are too lazy to cook healthy food and exercise regularly.

What's sexy about obesity, higher insurance rates for EVERYONE, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, sleep apnea, heart disease, and a shortening of your expected life span of 7-8 years?

What's sexy about 10% of all US medical costs going towards obesity, which is completely preventable in most cases?

What's sexy about Americans having to ANNUALLY spend almost [$150,000,000,000 to treat people with obesity-related problems?

That is wasted money because people are too lazy to get off their fat asses and walk around the block a couple times every night.


And before you all start attacking me, I used to be obese. I had a BMI of 33 in 2005-2006. Then I got off my fat ass and did something about it.

I agree 100%... And i'm a fatty.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by srwatters

Don't get me started... This is why I don't like discussions on who is skinny and who is fat:

I am one of these obese people of whom you speak. I stand 6' tall and weigh 260 lbs. I have run three marathons and completed an Ironman Triathlon in a respectable time of 12:50:03. Although I no longer race, I have a resting heart rate in the 50's and low blood pressure. Please don't mix obese with unfit. And by the way, when I completed the Ironman, I weighed 240 lbs. and was still considered obese. At the time my lean body mass was calculated at 15 lbs OVER what was considered to be my ideal weight. Some people just don't fit the actuary tables.

This is very true. When Arnold was Mr. Everything, he was obese by the BMI charts, while having nearly no body fat.

But that is very much the exception to the rule.

BMI really can't tell you who is obese and who isn't. Obesity is defined by excess body fat. So Arnold at 6'2 260 and 4% body fat is not obese by definition. It is an easier way to calculate a healthy weight for many people, because most people don't really have an easy or accurate way to measure body fat.

[CaptainTom]

Not enough tattoos for me.
Now we've come full circle on what buttons to push for Mr. Watters.

I like the image. Is it breaking the rules or exploiting the difference in a classic pose and a modern pose ?

We judge images without any knowledge as to the intent of the photographer or the intent of the client.

It's like telling a sharpshooter that his group isn't tight enough. We don't know if he/she was shooting at 10 yds or 1000 yds. We don't know if he/she was shooting with optics or iron sights. We don't know if the shooter was shooting with one hand or with their off hand. etc. etc.

I still like the photograph, although the models hair is just plain awful.

[brad]

Can we please get back on topic before this gets ugly? We're talking about when its ok to break photographic and posing rules.

As far as I know, there is no rule that says you can or cannot shoot someone above or below a certain weight. We also are not talking about photoshopping models to appear too thin.

There was no call for any attacks.

[brad]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

I like the image. Is it breaking the rules or exploiting the difference in a classic pose and a modern pose ?

I hate this tendency lately to call images that "edgy" or modern because they break rules of posing, lighting, lens choice, whatever... they aren't edgy, they're ugly.

I saw a highly praised image of Bill Clinton in a prominent magazine lately... Mr. Clinton was sitting in a chair, square to the camera, knees slightly spread apart and his hands on those knees. Casual pose, no problem. But it looks like the camera was at about knee height and that it was shot with a 24mm lens (or less) from a few inches away. It made his hands and knees and feet look ginormus and his head squeezed together with an almost fish eye effect. The lighting looked like something Jill Greenburg would have set up.. but not in a good way. In essence, it made him look like a deformed monster... and not on purpose like the famous shot of McCain from during the campaign done by Annie Lebowitz (?)

Just because you break rules and make your subjects look like crap doesn't mean you're an artist.

[Ahh!]

Originally Posted by brad

Just because you break rules and make your subjects look like crap doesn't mean you're an artist.

No, but I think they are an "Artiste", right...

No, I fall on the brad side of this...sorry Cappy. But I have to marvel at it all. How much did someone pay for such drivel. I guess it takes drivel to sell what I also consider to be lousy fashion, so there must be a sub genre of photographic art that fits the product. Lousy overpriced photography for lousy overpriced fashion. My opinion, YMMV, See dealer for details, not all buyers will qualify...don't hate me, I'm just sayin'...

[brad]

I just did some more research on the Bill Clinton photo... and the image fits that photographer's particular style very well... and he gets paid WAY more than I do.. so maybe I'm just too traditional. Not something I ever thought I'd be accused of...

[Tom]

Originally Posted by brad

I hate this tendency lately to call images that "edgy" or modern because they break rules of posing, lighting, lens choice, whatever... they aren't edgy, they're ugly.

I saw a highly praised image of Bill Clinton in a prominent magazine lately... Mr. Clinton was sitting in a chair, square to the camera, knees slightly spread apart and his hands on those knees. Casual pose, no problem. But it looks like the camera was at about knee height and that it was shot with a 24mm lens (or less) from a few inches away. It made his hands and knees and feet look ginormus and his head squeezed together with an almost fish eye effect. The lighting looked like something Jill Greenburg would have set up.. but not in a good way. In essence, it made him look like a deformed monster... and not on purpose like the famous shot of McCain from during the campaign done by Annie Lebowitz (?)

Just because you break rules and make your subjects look like crap doesn't mean you're an artist.

Platon is the photographer, and I am a big fan of his work.
platon

And yes, he probably makes more than everyone on TPF.

[CaptainTom]

Just because you break rules and make your subjects look like crap doesn't mean you're an artist.

We each have a tolerance for what "looks like crap". I don't think the OP photo looked like crap. Bill Clinton doesn't look like a normal portrait but who's to say it's crap ? I've seen stuff in museums that I thought was crap and most of the art crowd thought it was genius.

If Esquire didn't want to put that image on the cover I bet they had a lot of alternatives. They put it there. Does it stimulate your interest? Did it provoke?
Did it repulse ? What is the definition of ART ? ( that's a whole other thread on here somewhere)

[xseption]

I love this forum!! So many ideas to pick and choose for discourse ... but "the photo" did catch my eye and made me stop and look

[brad]

Heh, ya.. that's the photo.

Forget I said anything. I'm just grumpy tonight. LOL

[lscottpht]

Originally Posted by brad

I hate this tendency lately to call images that "edgy" or modern because they break rules of posing, lighting, lens choice, whatever... they aren't edgy, they're ugly.

I saw a highly praised image of Bill Clinton in a prominent magazine lately... Mr. Clinton was sitting in a chair, square to the camera, knees slightly spread apart and his hands on those knees. Casual pose, no problem. But it looks like the camera was at about knee height and that it was shot with a 24mm lens (or less) from a few inches away. It made his hands and knees and feet look ginormus and his head squeezed together with an almost fish eye effect. The lighting looked like something Jill Greenburg would have set up.. but not in a good way. In essence, it made him look like a deformed monster... and not on purpose like the famous shot of McCain from during the campaign done by Annie Lebowitz (?)

Just because you break rules and make your subjects look like crap doesn't mean you're an artist.

I break the rules all the time. I like to do that. Sometimes I put the subject in the middle of the frame, sometimes I cut off body parts, whatever I think works for me. I have no issues with rules being broken. Sometimes that makes the image much more interesting, imo. Oh, and I actually like that image of Clinton...one of the few I like of him.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by lscottpht

I break the rules all the time. I like to do that. Sometimes I put the subject in the middle of the frame, sometimes I cut off body parts, whatever I think works for me. I have no issues with rules being broken. Sometimes that makes the image much more interesting, imo. Oh, and I actually like that image of Clinton...one of the few I like of him.

I originally started this thread tongue-in-cheek because I've been critiqued for breaking the (quote)rules(unquote). I guess I'm just not good enough to break the rules yet I shall continue down the road of enlightenment seeking nirvana. Pray for me please

[brad]

Originally Posted by lscottpht

I break the rules all the time. I like to do that. Sometimes I put the subject in the middle of the frame, sometimes I cut off body parts, whatever I think works for me. I have no issues with rules being broken. Sometimes that makes the image much more interesting, imo. Oh, and I actually like that image of Clinton...one of the few I like of him.

Heh.. my post was a bit grumpy.. it left off the people that I think do it (break the rules) right and I still think that Clinton image is terrible.. but that's one person's opinion.

Of people around here that do it right.. well, you come to mind.. as does Jordan Chan.. there was also a recent image posted to human form by jammer that has rule breaking of cutting off limbs all over the place.. but its such a strong image (in my opinion) that it doesn't matter.. http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...8-caitlin.html (warning, NSFW)..

When I do break the "rules" (which is rare.. like I said, I guess I'm more traditional than I thought) .. I have reasons... but like Scott, I find that I sound defensive when people point out that I broke that rule... so like Scott, maybe I'm just not good enough to break the rules, yet. (Tongue firmly in cheek here )

While I was researching that Clinton shot, I looked through his port and the style works for a lot of those images - and works very well. Its just the Clinton shot that I don't much like.

Anyway... like I said.. grumpy... I was paying bills earlier today.

[ldelacruz]

I don't like the Clinton image either. It reminds me to much of that Jay Leno head character. The biggest problem to me is the distorted hands.