The Ethereal Passenger and Mad Insane Clown

Dubious Drewski · Jan 4, 2009

These three images are just as much paintings as they are photographs, but I don't care to dwell on categories. The first two are both very old photographs taken way back in the day when I had no clue what I was doing with my camera. All three of them are somewhat mediocre shots now just recently polished into something usable.

1. The Ethereal Passenger, my coworker, looking quite heavenly here. I was fiddling with the camera and she was waiting for me to fix the problem when I suddenly pressed the shutter. She had such a wonderful expression on her face that I've always kind of liked this 'mistake' of a photo.

Here's the original:

2. This was an old shot of me just being goofy. For the recent clown-theme here on TPF, I dug it up from the archives and painted some makeup on in photoshop. Scary!

Here's the original:

EDIT: Oh we'll do one more. Why not

3. How about an adorable family kitty? While using my Sigma 10-20mm, I'm getting quite good at bumping it into manual focus, turning the focal ring to closest distance, and blind-shooting the camera close up to a subject. It gets shots like this:

Here's the original:

What do you guys think?

ChrisOquist · Jan 4, 2009

I like the first one, especially the flare and the star effects. She looks like a traveling galactic angel.

Dubious Drewski · Jan 4, 2009

It's so strange. I perceive these images to be somewhat interesting, yet they have been buried out of sight in the "new posts" section, while other threads I have seen, which feature shots which to me look just as interesting or worse gather many replies. Are these really not that interesting?

I know that being so close to your own work can distort your judgment of it, but I can never perceive how much it does.

I'm going to go be emo in a corner somewhere now.:lmao:

Lyncca · Jan 4, 2009

Dubious Drewski said:
It's so strange. I perceive these images to be somewhat interesting, yet they have been buried out of sight in the "new posts" section, while other threads I have seen, which feature shots which to me look just as interesting or worse gather many replies. Are these really not that interesting?

I know that being so close to your own work can distort your judgment of it, but I can never perceive how much it does.

I'm going to go be emo in a corner somewhere now.:lmao:

Eh. Don't worry about it too much. A lot depends on the day of week and time you post. Sometimes people just aren't in the mood to comment.

As far as the pics, I really like them. The cat one is my fav and the clown one is simply freaky!

rufus5150 · Jan 4, 2009

#1 is neat but doesn't move me much. It's cold, which I think was the intention in the edit, but I don't think it serves her very well. The expression is indeed wonderful and in that sense, it's a great capture. I like what you've attempted to do artistically with it, but without the description, I definitely wouldn't have 'gotten it'.

#2 is a damn impressive job with the PP-makeup and the eyes are killer. Excellent job but the whole clown thing creeps me the (beeeeeep) out.

#3. I think the only things flawed here are the leg in the background, the spot of dirt on the floor and the water droplets on the fur (we have a similar med/longhair cat who has an eye weeping problem that causes that in almost all of her pictures). I love the effect, though.

eyeye · Jan 5, 2009

It happens. Dont take it personal.

I dont really have much to say though. The clown makes me feel queezy

LaFoto · Jan 5, 2009

Take the non-response as a compliment, DD (are you another "Andy" actually?). Good photos, or those that are innovative, creative, somewhat different, and therefore actually a lot more interesting than many others on here, tend NOT to get responses. People seem to think that expressing their appreciation by just saying "Hey, good, I like this/these" is too little, so they don't say anything at all.

Post a mediocre photo and everyone will jump in to "help" (or praise your wonderful, yet just still hidden abilities, depending...) or point out what they would have done differently.

Therefore, yes, do take it as a compliment, no matter how strange this way of expressing appreciation (i.e. by NOT expressing it at all) might feel to you. If I hadn't come to acquire this point of view on things, I'd long have stomped out of TPF in frustration.

stsinner · Jan 5, 2009

I think you did an excellent job with the fake makeup-smudging it and all and making it look imperfect. You did good on the teeth, as well..

basic jammer · Jan 5, 2009

love the cat. was it perfectly stil? been trying to do a close up wit neighbours puppy but he keeps jumping and turning and running and licking and............

#2. now that be talent u got.

Dubious Drewski · Jan 5, 2009

rufus5150 said:
#1 is neat but doesn't move me much. It's cold ...(and)...without the description, I definitely wouldn't have 'gotten it'.

See, I was torn about the blue colouring too, and I had also done it in a golden hue, as you can see here:

You think that's better too? I kind of do. But as for the passenger thing. It's completely ok if that's not how you saw it. I don't think it's important if you didn't "get it". That's art. You see it how you see it.

rufus5150 said:
the whole clown thing creeps me the (beeeeeep) out.

rufus5150 said:
#3. I think the only things flawed here are the leg in the background, the spot of dirt on the floor

See, I don't think you would have noticed the legs at all if you hadn't seen the original. I agree about the spot of dirt, but I disagree about the legs. They are subdued enough. I'm surprised you mentioned the legs, but didn't mention the giant white lines coming out of the kitty's head! Thanks though, I just love criticism. The more frank and objective the better!

LaFoto said:
...take it as a compliment, no matter how strange this way of expressing appreciation (i.e. by NOT expressing it at all) might feel to you. If I hadn't come to acquire this point of view on things, I'd long have stomped out of TPF in frustration.
...
(are you another "Andy" actually?)

Thank you for the advice, I would not have seen it that way on my own. And yes, I'm an Andrew, Andy or Drew, whichever you prefer.

stsinner said:
I think you did an excellent job with the fake makeup-smudging it and all and making it look imperfect. You did good on the teeth, as well..

Why, thanks stsinner. Maybe we can learn to get along after all, eh?

basic jammer said:
love the cat. was it perfectly still? been trying to do a close up wit neighbours puppy but he keeps jumping and turning and running and licking and....

He was still, yes. But it doesn't matter too much if you're using flash, like I did. Flash fires at a very high speed and freezes most action nicely.

rufus5150 · Jan 5, 2009

In seeing that, I think I like the blue better now

In reference to...

m surprised you mentioned the legs, but didn't mention the giant white lines coming out of the kitty's head!

That to me I see as part of the scene. It's the light coming in. Perhaps taking photographs in the light I usually do I understand that, it makes sense in context (the cat's in the light, light's gotta be streaming in from somewhere). On first viewing, or second or third, perhaps, you're correct, I wouldn't have noticed the legs if not for the original.

Aye-non Oh-non Imus · Jan 5, 2009

When I contemplate 'ethereal', a square does not come into play for me.

I am very cool with recycling though.

Dubious Drewski · Jan 5, 2009

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
When I contemplate 'ethereal', a square does not come into play for me.

I suppose a square might not be fitting, but what about the haloing? Or what about the glowing specks of angel dust floating against the black void? That's pretty ethereal.