Thinking I might print this as a series. C+C welcomed.

humberklog

Might run these 4 up to a4 (maye A3) and hang them together. See how they go. I like'm but was curious as to what others thought. I don't really mind which one an individual prefers but wonder is 4 pics too much for a series? Is 3 pics better? Or 4 is good but not these 4 or even 3 of them:pac:.

1.




2.




3.





4.

Covey

Fabulous set, all four. Love them !

Presume they're taken with that quare yoke you had the last day?

dakar

No C&C other than they're smashing. They'll look deadly as big prints.

As a series, I'd leave out #2 (but I nearly like it the best on it's own)

humberklog

Yeah, the Horizon 202. This was only my 2nd roll from it and when started I was really only thinking to get on top of exp. settings when I loaded it as there's "shift" settings that can confuse a little. Simple in the end but funny looking to start with. But an expired roll of film (15 year old agfa 400) Chocai kindly gave me kinda got me thinking to be a little thoughtful about rattling it through the Scienctific Exploration Submarine (that's what the camera looks like).


Thanks Covey, probably go to print tomorrow with thought of hanging on Thursday.

humberklog

dakar wrote: »

No C&C other than they're smashing. They'll look deadly as big prints.

As a series, I'd leave out #2 (but I nearly like it the best on it's own)

Yeah 2's my individual favourite too. I was really excited about that shot for days waiting for it to come back from Gunn's.

daycent

I think they would go together well.

The last two look a tad brighter than the first two though.

sprinkles

I'd leave #2 out - the rest fit so well together and not sure where you'd break the 3 with #2 (which as already mentioned looks great on it's own). Great set!

tullie

Great Job, They look fantastic.

DaireQuinlan

Very nice. Yeah I think all four would look good as a set. Any more examples though ? How many shots on a roll ?

artyeva

love all four but would agree with Dakar.... really nice proportions to them... off to google the quare yoke

[edit: that's gas - I nearly bought one of these in a car boot sale a few weeks ago but it was covered in what I'd guessed was cat pee by the wang off it and the shutter button didn't work!!! it didn't have the name horizon on it though - just ''panorama'']

humberklog

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Very nice. Yeah I think all four would look good as a set. Any more examples though ? How many shots on a roll ?

Well I think you should get 24 off a 36 roll but I only got 19 as I had a few probs loading it and then one or two times I pressed the button by mistake popping in and out of the bag. So there was 19 exposures and about 13 keepers as Gunn's made a little bit of a mistake in scanning two of the images (I think it must be hard to lay flat as two exp. were blurred, the reel numbers were blurred too which means the negs moved...no worries though as they're only pics. Time to get my own scanner I think).

Here's a link to 6 pics took on Dollier (I took 7 pics)http://pix.ie/craanc/album/376821

Hang on...wrong link...think this is it...http://pix.ie/craanc/album/376825

smelltheglove

I love them all but I am a firm believer that design works best in uneven numbers so if you were talking vertica or horizontal hanging I'd be recommending 3, although square works well too, 2 up 2 down.

humberklog

smelltheglove wrote: »

I love them all but I am a firm believer that design works best in uneven numbers so if you were talking vertica or horizontal hanging I'd be recommending 3, although square works well too, 2 up 2 down.

Good point smt and I agree too on the odd numbered ratio, especially when in low numbers.
Sure I'll run them up and see what way they go then.

DaireQuinlan

humberklog wrote: »

Here's a link to 6 pics took on Dollier (I took 7 pics)http://pix.ie/craanc/album/376821

Hang on...wrong link...think this is it...http://pix.ie/craanc/album/376825

Mmmm Hmmmm. I do love a good vertical panorama.

humberklog

So do I...a lot. But have leaned that they're a bugger to set within a landscape format set...

This is nice but I don't think will work with others..



This? Well it was there and I couldn't help myself, but I don't like and only just uploaded now trying to get a high count ratio from a roll.

sprinkles

Love that vertical panorama!

humberklog

A. My original notion of how it might've worked: (which I'm still more artistically drawn to)




B. What might be the concensus: (drifting away from overall message a little)




C. I'm not against this: (asthetically smartish)

Chorcai

C I'd buy em;)

eas

I'm really agreeing with what's been said above, As mentioned by STG, 3 is generally considered to be a more stable number for layouts & graphic design (& photography) in general has many principles that revolve around the number 3.

I'd leave number 2 out mainly because the others all have 3 elements - ground, water & sky. Number 2 is the only one without a horizon.

But, I don't think artistic vision needs to follow any guidelines, do what you feel is right.

humberklog

So I have C hanging and it does look smart, but in a photographic way. It's probably perfect for the size of space I have. Black A3 frames, white mounts holding A4 pics. Pics to follow on courtesy of The Boat (thanks for your help).

But, and isn't there always one (at least), the arrangement A is much more what I'm looking for artistically. 3 pics work symetrically best, it's easy on the eye and is cohesive and complete to the eye and conscious mind. There's a start middle and end to the sequence and there's little left for the viewers imagination (subconscious mind) to wander.

I think this is sometimes where the difference between being an artist and being a photographer (being paid to point the camera at a certain object) is.

C arrangement does look the bomb but doesn't leave an open end.(A) arrangement does. There's a loss somewhere, an unfullfilled expectation left open for the viewer to muse and fill in or simply get over (like a suicide or cot death). Although I have set them in a line I see them more on opposing walls and thankfully I'll have the exhibiting space (away from the gallery) coming up next month and think that I'll push ahead with original idea when that space comes free.

C works great in the gallery for the moment and looks to be going down well as it has attracted a lot of interest and compliments so far, something I don't think A would have done. But thankfully when exhibiting for artistic reasons one doesn't need to compromise on original intention as selling and immediacey of message isn't important. But leaving the viewer an essence of intention is. Opening up a path of thought for the viewer to take themselves rather than guiding them from one end to the other. I think A delivers this best.

positivenote

where they hanging? and where did you shoot the one of the Poolbeg chimneys from (its a lovely shout imho)

superflyninja

ummm they are nice photos...but im not really getting why they are universally liked. no offence to the OP, i blame my photographic ignorance on this.Can someone explain how good they are in photographic terms please?
as in these are good because the ratio is xyz etc..

humberklog

positivenote wrote: »

where they hanging? and where did you shoot the one of the Poolbeg chimneys from (its a lovely shout imho)

Thanks Glenn, they're hanging in my gallery in George's St arcade. (It's small and I share it) and then the proper collection will hang in Grogan's. The shot was talen last week from Dollymount.

humberklog

Kinda like that, now that was just when framed and the rest was all over the place. Look smart in white mounts I think.

humberklog

Just an update on the set: I've just sold and wrapped the series (no.3) and off they go to Los Angelas (I always like to know where in the world they're going to hang).

Chorcai

15yr old turned out rather nice !

humberklog

Chorcai wrote: »

15yr old turned out rather nice !

It certainly did. Both the 25 and 400 iso have given me rather big sellers. Thanks again Chorcai.

Promac

I'm really very sorry but what's the attraction here? Why are these good pictures?

Edit: I want to add that I'm not trying to be critical or anything - I can't see the appeal but I've love to understand why people go for this kind of image.

Slidinginfinity

Oh boy, here we go! (grabs a front row seat for the show)

Chorcai

Promac wrote: »

I'm really very sorry but what's the attraction here? Why are these good pictures?

Edit: I want to add that I'm not trying to be critical or anything - I can't see the appeal but I've love to understand why people go for this kind of image.

Having met Humber, I guess I have an slight understanding for what he is aiming for, it's a picture rather than a photograph.

humberklog

Chorcai wrote: »

Having met Humber, I guess I have an slight understanding for what he is aiming for, it's a picture rather than a photograph.

That's exactly it Chorcai.

@promac, well I suppose it's simple enough really: if you don't like or not get an image then it's simply not your cup of tea. But because one doesn't like or not get/connect with an image that doesn't mean that it's no good. Now I don't go for the whole "art is subjective" nonsense as some stuff is just crap and because someone likes it that doesn't mean to say that it is good. More often than not it just means that that person likes crap.

Now these pics aren't crap but that doesn't mean that they connect with everyone. The appeal? I don't know. I like'm and can't tell you why, but I do know how much emotion I was feeling taking them: a lot. And maybe that comes through for some. For others not so. That's just the way it is I suppose.

I'm probably the wrong person to answering that question as I took them but then again I do like them too.

Oddly enough the guy that did buy them asked if it was ok to have them on a film set. He wants them for his own collection but also likes to use his personal stuff in backdrops (or some such). When I said "of course" he paid me 50% more than the agreed price. Funny world sometimes.

melekalikimaka

humberklog wrote: »

But because one doesn't like or not get/connect with an image that doesn't mean that it's no good. Now I don't go for the whole "art is subjective" nonsense as some stuff is just crap and because someone likes it that doesn't mean to say that it is good. More often than not it just means that that person likes crap.

do you honestly believe that more often than not if someone thinks a image is crap that you like, the 'person' just likes crap???

Someone who sells photographs as a living...with a mindset like that... really stuns me.

Also "art is subjective nonsense", could you explain to me why you feel its nonsense?

Scarlett68

Promac, Ill stick my neck out here and say that for me its a story; a very human story, unfolding through the 4 images and thats what makes its beautiful.

If I look at the 4 images in A ('cause they work for me best), I see the story as follows (and for everyone that story will be different):

Firstly, all 4 have a sombre dark tone, perhaps an almost disturbing feel to them. The perspective puts me inside someones head and seeing what they see. Image 1 suggests a bleakness, a solitude and emptiness; someone who is, for me at least, experiencing suicidal thoughts and feelings. The sea in the distance is beckoning as a destination. Image 2 puts the viewer at the waters edge; its the softest image and suggests that the person is being called into the embrace of the sea; to be washed over by the gentle ripples. In Image three, there is a retraction, a rethink; the feelings havent dissipated just the immediate intent. Then finally Image 4, breaks the internalised thought processing and brings the viewer back to "reality" by the interruption of the appearance of the people in the distance. The story presents no conclusion, the viewer is left to think about the final unrealised outcome........

For me, I love these, I "feel" the pain in these somewhere deep down at a primal level....... they are truly thought provoking and beautiful; thats their magnificence.

humberklog

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do you honestly believe that more often than not if someone thinks a image is crap that you like, the 'person' just likes crap???

Someone who sells photographs as a living...with a mindset like that... really stuns me.

Also "art is subjective nonsense", could you explain to me why you feel its nonsense?

Ah I exaggerate, long day etc. So no i don't believe that it happens more often than not. But a lot of times.

Good, I like to stun. I'm stunning.

No I couldn't explain it.

melekalikimaka

humberklog wrote: »

No I couldn't explain it.

:rolleyes:


tho sidetracking aside, i do quite like the images myself

humberklog

melekalikimaka wrote: »

:rolleyes:


tho sidetracking aside, i do quite like the images myself

Really mele I could try and explain but I'm not great at articulating in type. I like a conversation and there are many on Boards that I've met and I think I converse better than type. When typing it all comes out arse-ways (I can see slidinginfinty's eye brows rising at thought that that doesn't happen when chatting:pac:).
Yes it is a sweeping statement and while I do stand by it my eye wouldn't take having to explain it on a computer. So sorry about it being a sweeping generalisation without explanation. But it is what it is.


Anyway...it's my thread and i can say what I like:D.

I'm sure I read that in the charter somewhere...I'm sure I did. Or dreamt it. Or something in between.

And don't throw them rollyeyes at me!!!

Slidinginfinity

I really like your original selection (A).

At first I thought, "Oh, (B) is really appealing." but, that is a, for me, a simplistic view. (B) is nice because it has a beginning a middle and and end. Easy to follow, but then leave it behind and move on.

With (A) you start with the wide view (the whole set) and then starting looking at the individual photos in detail. It draws you in and makes you take a second, third and fourth look.

Just my take on it, for what it's worth.

AnCatDubh

Middle image on C without the agfa and sprocket holes makes for something interesting (I think / can't see too well in so small a post).

Sorry, but reviewed these for a few days now and not caring too much for the rest/anything else/any of the arrangements/4 across/3 across/up or down. I thought they just needed to grow on me but nope, it aint happening.

What I would say is that all of this probably means that they'll sell a million in any of the configurations that I don't like

Promac

I really didn't mean to offend, so sorry if I did.

Is there some unusual technique you used to take the pictures or was it just a wide angle lens on film? I've noticed that some people seem to get all gushy if you're shooting on film.

superflyninja

Promac wrote: »

I'm really very sorry but what's the attraction here? Why are these good pictures?

Edit: I want to add that I'm not trying to be critical or anything - I can't see the appeal but I've love to understand why people go for this kind of image.

I asked the same thing as Promac and was ignored by all you fine peeps.I must say im a little peeved.

eas

Promac wrote: »

I've noticed that some people seem to get all gushy if you're shooting on film.

It's funny cause it's true!

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

I really didn't mean to offend, so sorry if I did.

Is there some unusual technique you used to take the pictures or was it just a wide angle lens on film? I've noticed that some people seem to get all gushy if you're shooting on film.

Give over...not at all. It's just Ifind it hard to critique them because I took them. They look unusual as they were taken with an odd camera (Horizon202). I don't know about gushy with film but there is a difference and this goes through the general public even more so than on a photography forum. People stop to look at film photos even when they don't know it's film. I've come to a rather simple realisation over the last few months: digital doesn't sell. Or at least not in my gallery. It's an odd one and all I can say is is that I've tried it, tested it and...digital doesn't sell on my stalls. So while you may be right about film and peoples attitude to it that observation runs deeper. It runs through the general buying public that wouldn't know a pixel, or DOF, or ISO if it came crashing through their front room. Peculiar, but true.



Thanks ACD....cough,cough,philistine,cough,cough:pac:.


Again Super...I didn't see it my place to comment.


Eas...it is though. As mentioned above it really is. Further experimentation is on going to figuring out more about why. But at the moment it is true. But most importantly: it's true for those that don't even know it's film and know nothing about photography.

eas

humberklog wrote: »

Eas...it is though. As mentioned above it really is. Further experimentation is on going to figuring out more about why. But at the moment it is true. But most importantly: it's true for those that don't even know it's film and know nothing about photography.

I for one would be skeptical that the general public are choosing film over digital on that variable alone. I'd assume that there must be some other reason, or combination of reasons for it. But, having done my fare share of user testing I've learned never to assume anything when it comes to these things.

It's very interesting just the same. It would be great if you could break it down another level or two as well - particularly age. If you could prove that there is a relation between age and the appreciation of film over digital, I think that would say something quite significant.

superflyninja

humberklog wrote: »

Give over...not at all. It's just Ifind it hard to critique them because I took them. They look unusual as they were taken with an odd camera (Horizon202). I don't know about gushy with film but there is a difference and this goes through the general public even more so than on a photography forum. People stop to look at film photos even when they don't know it's film. I've come to a rather simple realisation over the last few months: digital doesn't sell. Or at least not in my gallery. It's an odd one and all I can say is is that I've tried it, tested it and...digital doesn't sell on my stalls. So while you may be right about film and peoples attitude to it that observation runs deeper. It runs through the general buying public that wouldn't know a pixel, or DOF, or ISO if it came crashing through their front room. Peculiar, but true.



Thanks ACD....cough,cough,philistine,cough,cough:pac:.


Again Super...I didn't see it my place to comment.


Eas...it is though. As mentioned above it really is. Further experimentation is on going to figuring out more about why. But at the moment it is true. But most importantly: it's true for those that don't even know it's film and know nothing about photography.

ah no i wouldnt expect you to comment! and again i mean no offence just curious

DaireQuinlan

humberklog wrote: »

People stop to look at film photos even when they don't know it's film. I've come to a rather simple realisation over the last few months: digital doesn't sell. Or at least not in my gallery.

I'm with eas on this, too many variables. Maybe you invest more time and care in your film shooting than your digital shooting or something. Maybe your digital shots are just crap I mean, nothing would make me happier than this be the case across the board, given that I exclusively shoot film.

humberklog

Aaaah it's just been pointed out to me that I was a little disengenious about digital pics. My nude, erotic and hardcore adult images are done only on digital and are very successful. But I do keep these a little seperate from main body of work.

I'm collating as much info as possible re buyers and demographics and relationship with film. It really is a huge point of sale ubt even before then there does appear to be a better connevtivity with ther browsing public. This has been seconded by Kastemaloe who also sells, and only sell film too as very quickly she also noticed this interaction with the public and film versus digital.

I'm setting up gallery and have sales to do but will try and throw some info and rough stats up about lunch time.

DaireQuinlan

humberklog wrote: »

Aaaah it's just been pointed out to me that I was a little disengenious about digital pics. My nude, erotic and hardcore adult images are done only on digital and are very successful. But I do keep these a little seperate from main body of work.

This has been seconded by Kastemaloe who also sells, and only sell film too as very quickly she also noticed this interaction with the public and film versus digital.

I'm setting up gallery and have sales to do but will try and throw some info and rough stats up about lunch time.

Data. We need DATA !

sineadw

I've been wondering about this for a while actually. I'm really loving shooting film again, for all sorts of reasons, but I find with my own shots that there isn't that overwhelming crispness that digital produces. Mine tend to be softer, both in tone and focus, when they're film. It's one of the things I love about them. I wonder is that something that you're picking up? That suits your subject matter immensely. It wouldn't suit others.

magicbastarder

sineadw wrote: »

that there isn't that overwhelming crispness that digital produces.

one of the reasons that i much, much prefer using film for portraits. digital can be very unflattering.

Scarlett68

humberklog wrote: »

Aaaah it's just been pointed out to me that I was a little disengenious about digital pics. My nude, erotic and hardcore adult images are done only on digital and are very successful. But I do keep these a little seperate from main body of work.

Yeah but having seen one or two of these there is no way you can tell they are digital.... they are as evocative and emotive as you film stuff... so if I were to infer anything its that its your vision in each image is what attracts - film or digital.....PP or no.

humberklog

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Data. We need DATA !

Ok this is based on selling in the last 6 months. From a beginning of 1 picture up to these days an average of over 200 pictures per week. I have no web-site (and won't ever have one) so sales are on footfall alone, with the exception of some German tourists who come to visit the gallery after seeing me feature in a few German magazines, they're starting to trickle in more as the holiday season is moving in and I seem to be getting more broad coverage there lately. But essentially sales are from passing trade with no previous reference to my work.

75% female.
Ages of all buyers (m+f) from 10 to 60 with the strongest portion in the range of 19 to 50 and closer again 23 to 35 and once again 25 to 30 age group.

Nationality:
Irish 30%
European 35%
English speaking non EU: 20%
Other 15%
From the non Irish camp my biggest single nationality is French, followed by Italian then Spainish and USA.
Again the Male/Female ratio holds true with nationalities except for the French where it would be in the region of 80% female French to 20% Male French.

So all images are on film (with exception of nudes) and I have over 400 individual images that have all sold in some quantity or another.
I've sold while standing beside a number of other photographers that have been selling their pics. These have all been on digital and I have never seen them sell one. Also and far more importantly: only a handful of people even stopped to look at their pics. So this got me thinking "why?". Firstly I had to understand why I only take film and don't like looking at digital images and the answer was simple: sharpness. Digital is too clear, takes in too much detail and lacks the soft character of film. And it's this softness that people feel comfortable looking at and when people look, they buy. If people don't stop to glance you will not connect and you will not sell.
Ok the other pohotgraphers' images were bland but not in the sense of bland that there's nothing in the picture as a lot of mine would be of that ilk. But bland as in subject. Bridges at night, rolling hills, clothes pegs (oh that's the daring ones) and more bridges at night. All had more than one thing in common: sharpness and content. Sure these guys know how to use expensive equipment in Manual, they seemed to all have done a course, they had photography magazines with them that they'd read when it was quiet (so that was all day for them). For the general public there was nothing for them to see and if they did stop to glance the sharpness would take their eye out and they'd move on wounded.
We've thrown digital images up and sure while they may not have been up to the quality of composition of the film ones I don't see how that really metters in a soup of over 400 images. You never know what people will buy...but I do know what they won't: digital images.

Now, who do I not sell to (and I think this is more interesting; Black Africans, Polish and people wearing expensive digital Dslr's around their neck. Film ones buy? Yes but digital No.
I'll rule out the top 2 first. It's a cultural thing, I don't mind, it's not my target audience. Funnily enough though people of Polish and black African extraction do buy but indigenous don't. They don't even stop to look. It's as though I'm not there.
People with Dslr's are full of question. How did you do this, what camera did you use, whgat settings, why don't you use digital, will you sell my pics, how can I do this, have you any advice how to get started, why did you take this, do people buy this, did the Roma gypsy not go mad???????????Quetions, questions and more questions but no buying. Now I've learned it's easier to be rude than entertain non buying questionasking digital photosnappers. I run them or just insult them quickly so they move on and don't hold the stall up. They seem to think that I'm not doing anything else other than standing by my pics doing a Q+A..."Get the F***!". They seem to think that they're standing in their parish hall on their Wednesday meet meet up...Get the F***! Kate is not far behind me in this attitude so it can't just be me.


All I've got is real experience in both witnessing digital image sellers and testing out digital images for sale. They don't sell. Digital is too sharp and the lessons it teaches the beginner are bad habits that eventually form into excellently exposed images of nothing that will be too sharp on the eye for the average non photographic knowledgable public.

When people (ordinary picture buying not a clue about cameras people) ask about the camera and you say "film" they beam. Light up. Glow in delight. I've never asked why they do, I'm not interested in ruining that mystery by searching for the answer but facts are facts...people glow with delight when they involve themselves in a film image. And I know...I see it every hour of every day.