Since the gun ban has been lifted...

[peter27]

I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.

The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.

There are so many levels of wrong to that remark that I just don't know where to begin.

Let me try to make a few things clear.

One, we moderators are not here to beat down anyone. We are here to enforce rules. We do so with as even hand as a bunch of part-time people with other lives and other responsibilities can, and I daresay I've seen very few cases where someone was treated unfairly... and when that happened, I've seen the mods all kinda make the "oooo..." noise and give that moderator a sour look.

Two, the rules are here to keep the forum on track and to keep the owners out of hot water. That's it. This forum is about photography, and so it is photography that is discussed here. Like any forum, there are the occasional side-tracks and exceptions, but it's a drop in the bucket- as it should be- because we're a photography forum.

Three, guns... politics... religion. These things are considered banned topics in not only nearly every forum on the internet, but also considered social taboo in social gatherings, family events and the workplace. There's an obviously good reason for that, and pretending like TPF is the only place that does it- and does it for some insidious reason- is intellectually dishonest at best.

Four, and this is the one that galls me the most, the moderation team lifted this ban because they felt like it was unfairly punishing those who wanted to share this kind of photography, all because SOME PEOPLE could not be MATURE ENOUGH to handle a conversation around the art, without making snide comments, freaking out at pictures of firearms, or otherwise escalating a thread which should be about PHOTOGRAPHY... not about GUNS.

Since we have lifted this ban, I've seen two gun PHOTOGRAPHY threads and BOTH of them went south. This one I TRIED to correct, and some folks were good enough to go "oops, sorry..." but then you had to jump in with that remark, and like a turd in a bowl of oatmeal, it couldn't be let by.

I'm one more thread like this away from insisting that we just ban this topic once again.

Keep your NON-PHOTOGRAPHY comments TO YOURSELF.

I have sent you a PM with my thoughts on this.

 

[Josh66]

Original title was "Aggression", I believe.

As a photograph of "gun" it misses the mark. In my opinion this shot is more about how one would hold such a weapon, and not so much about "gun photography". Perhaps more light on the gun itself might improve the shot.

I never said it was about "gun photography", or even an illustration on how to hold a gun. All photos with a gun in them (no matter the "intent" of the photo) were banned till recently.

The title, which you quoted, should have told you as much. If this were just meant to show the gun, I would have called it "Glock 22" or something. It is possible to have a photo with a gun in it without it being "just a picture of a gun".

It's a photo of "aggression", not "gun".

 

[Warhorse]

And a darn good photo it is.

 

[snowbear]

I knew you shoot film so thought this might be a B&W film photo, but maybe it's more that a dark object against dark background just seems to get kind of lost, hard to see. Maybe more light/highlights to show more of an outline around more of it would be interesting.

I get what you mean. Like a rim light for the gun...? I agree that would be good. I might try a reshoot this weekend with that in mind... Trying to figure out the best place for the second light... I'm thinking maybe snooted and hidden behind my leg...

I don't even to pretend to know enough about lighting, but, since your're going monochrome with this, would effect would a color light (maybe blue or green) have?

 

[Josh66]

I knew you shoot film so thought this might be a B&W film photo, but maybe it's more that a dark object against dark background just seems to get kind of lost, hard to see. Maybe more light/highlights to show more of an outline around more of it would be interesting.

I get what you mean. Like a rim light for the gun...? I agree that would be good. I might try a reshoot this weekend with that in mind... Trying to figure out the best place for the second light... I'm thinking maybe snooted and hidden behind my leg...

I don't even to pretend to know enough about lighting, but, since your're going monochrome with this, would effect would a color light (maybe blue or green) have?

In B&W, probably very little.

Depending on the spectral sensitivity of the film and which filters I was or was not using, it may have an affect on contrast - but overall I don't think the color of the light would matter much. In color, it would be an entirely different story.

I'm like 50/50 on whether the end of the gun being lost in the darkness is good or bad... I do want to do the reshoot though, just so I know - either way.

 

[snowbear]

Depending on the spectral sensitivity of the film and which filters I was or was not using, it may have an affect on contrast - but overall I don't think the color of the light would matter much. In color, it would be an entirely different story.

I'm like 50/50 on whether the end of the gun being lost in the darkness is good or bad... I do want to do the reshoot though, just so I know - either way.

I thought about that after I posted -- like color lens filters. Low-power light from behind (snooted or not)? Looking forward to whatever you come up with.

 

[terri]

Hey all - comments in this thread from here on out should be only about the posted image. Anyone who would like to chat about others' comments, please feel free to do so, just take it to PM. (Sorry robbins.photo!)

Thanks!

 

[Josh66]

Hey all - comments in this thread from here on out should be only about the posted image. Anyone who would like to chat about others' comments, please feel free to do so, just take it to PM. (Sorry robbins.photo!)

Thanks!

Just realize that some people are going to comment before reading the whole thread (I know I do it all the time). Not sure what to do about that...

 

[crimbfighter]

I think that as a photo, it looks technically really good. Other than the floating front sight.. Yeah, perhaps a little more light on the gun itself, but I think it looks good either way.

As to the feeling of "agression" as you mention, I'm just not feeling it. I think because, for me anyway, I see aggression on a daily basis. Hazard of the job. But that aggression is coming from a person, not whatever means they are expressing it with. A firearm in your case. If it were me, and I were trying to convey aggression, and utilize a firearm, I would want to capture more of the person behind the aggression, such as body posture, or seeing more tension in the hand. SOMETHING that conveys the aggression of the person holding the firearm. I also think part of the reason my mind doesn't think aggression with this photo, is because I know far more firearm owners and users who aren't aggressive people, so I never associate aggression solely with a firearm, I need something more. Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

On a side not, I could tell it wasn't loaded because your ejector wasn't protruding.. And I almost commended you early on for keeping your finger outside the trigger guard!

 

[Josh66]

On a side not, I could tell it wasn't loaded because your ejector wasn't protruding.. And I almost commended you early on for keeping your finger outside the trigger guard!

Very small detail to notice, lol.

The whole finger on the trigger thing - I get it, but, IMO, there is a point where you have to give a little 'artistic freedom'. (It was outside the trigger guard, but like I said, it's hard to tell in this photo. Look at where my finger is in comparison to the ejection port if you don't believe me.) Movies would never get made if you couldn't touch the trigger till you were ready to 'kill' whatever was in front of you. I think, that sometimes it has to appear that you are ready to fire for some shots - to be believable. Obviously, take precautions - like making sure the gun isn't loaded, etc...

For "absolute realism", maybe a spent case in the chamber, to get that ejector sticking out a little.

 

[Gavjenks]

I get the whole dramatic lighting thing, okay, but you're drawing vastly more attention to the side of the guy's hand here, in this image. Not the gun. It's way too dark and low contrast by comparison, which I doubt is the intention.

Maybe a very narrow spotlight to add some catchlights on the gun without affecting the rest?

 

[crimbfighter]

Very small detail to notice, lol.

The whole finger on the trigger thing - I get it, but, IMO, there is a point where you have to give a little 'artistic freedom'. (It was outside the trigger guard, but like I said, it's hard to tell in this photo. Look at where my finger is in comparison to the ejection port if you don't believe me.) Movies would never get made if you couldn't touch the trigger till you were ready to 'kill' whatever was in front of you. I think, that sometimes it has to appear that you are ready to fire for some shots - to be believable. Obviously, take precautions - like making sure the gun isn't loaded, etc...

For "absolute realism", maybe a spent case in the chamber, to get that ejector sticking out a little.

I suppose it doesn't make or break the photo if the ejector isn't protruding I noticed right away your finger was outside the triger guard! And I was never worried you weren't being safe.

I think you're right, though. Small touches like having your finger on the trigger can speak volumes about the intent behind the actions. I think with a few subtle changes like that to your image, it would really help convey your message of aggression, because again, I think aggression is a human characteristic, which needs to be conveyed a bit more.

 

[Josh66]

Maybe a very narrow spotlight to add some catchlights on the gun without affecting the rest?

That was the idea, initially. The finish on the gun is pretty effective at killing reflection though. I think if I can highlight the edges of it, I'll call that 'good enough'.

 

[Josh66]

Small touches like having your finger on the trigger can speak volumes about the intent behind the actions.

Some people are just preoccupied with "the rules", it seems. I know better than to play around with loaded guns...


I posted this picture on a gun forum once:



The "Finger on the trigger!!!" comments were never-ending.

And it's a single action revolver. I don't expect that to mean anything here, but on a gun forum, I expect them to know that, lol. Hammer is not cocked. Finger on trigger or not, it CAN NOT fire as pictured.

 

[crimbfighter]

It's hard to tell from the small photo, but is that a Redhawk? With a scope!?

I think it's the nature of gun folk to jump the gun (pun fully intended) about the rules. In a photography setting, though, we need to remember to let that go..

I think your second image does a MUCH better job telling a story. I can actually imagine him (you?) creeping through a ghost town fraught with zombies! Or hunting down a killer on the loose!