Body of Work

[Murray Bloom]

Hi everyone. Despite what the stats say, I'm relatively new to the site and was wondering if I might get some feedback on my work.

I've uploaded a bunch of images which represent my noncommercial work over a period of many years. The pictures are in no particular order, and hopefully contain something for everyone's interest. What I'm hoping for are some opinions on the portfolio as a whole. You can reply any way you wish, click on a few or even critique specific images if you want. No need to blow smoke, I can take it.

Here's a link to my TPF Gallery page. I hope it works:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/photos...e=1&cat=500&ppuser=17257&thumbcheck=4&cat=500

 

[KenC]

I haven't looked at the gallery. Some of us don't like to follow links, even internal ones. Better to post one or two images at a time.

This one is nice. I like this sort of thing, and this is done well. It just doesn't knock me over, and I'm having trouble understanding why. The best I can come up with right now is that the image, for the most part, is about an arrangement of items on a surface, but one of the obvious elements in the frame is the perpendicular wall coming out towards us. Perhaps including that could create tension, but it doesn't seem to do it for me. I'd be interested to know what others thought about this.

 

[Eclectix]

Looking through your body of work it is apparent that you clearly know what you are doing. I especially enjoyed the "old things" that you like to use as subjects- particularly the old hospital, cars, train engines and such. I didn't feel that your strong contrast, detail-heavy processing applied as well to your florals and landscapes, of which you had just a few of each.

 

[sashbar]

I love it. Like a good artist you have your own distinct style. I like the density and saturation, bold lines and clear compositions. It all lacks air a bit, sometimes it is a bit too dense to my liking, but nevertheless I like it very much. Fantastic portfolio and the main value here is as I said you own distinct style.

 

[Ilovemycam]

You got a big body of work!

It is OK, some nicer than others.

 

[Murray Bloom]

Thanks, guys for the replies so far. Let me try to answer some of your comments.

Ken, I'm sorry (and sort of surprised) that you didn't 'risk' the link. But I understand your concerns, I think. You're exactly right! I've always been concerned about my tendency to treat my subjects in a planar manner. I've tried to break out of that box on several occasions, with mixed results. I'd actually included more of that projecting area in an earlier crop, but then the overall balance didn't work for me. I'd like to know what others think, too.

Thanks for your comments, Eclectix. It's interesting that you thought my style was less effective when applied to my landscape and nature shots. Neither is a genre that I shoot very much, but I believe that the reason is that my way of seeing concentrates on intense colors (tones) and surfaces. That may work better when I shoot tangible, inanimate subjects, or maybe I'm less involved with those genres. I like to think I'm versatile in my photography, but maybe versatility only goes so far.

I'm glad that you mentioned air, Sashbar. One of the things I always strive for is visual intimacy with my subjects. I want the viewer to feel that they're really in the presence of what I see. In doing this, I'm ultra-conscious of the space in and around what I'm shooting, and the void (volume) between my subjects and the viewer. These spaces contain air (except perhaps in the first shot below). However, I think I know what you're saying, that I tend to be too intimate, which maybe doesn't provide a resting place. Is this what you mean, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Yep, Ilovemycam, some are nicer than others. I can't help it, really.


Per Ken's suggestion, here's another pair, not already on the linked gallery page.


Moonwalk:



Glass Eye:

 

[Derrel]

I like this second "farmer's daughter" shot more than the first. I looked through almost all your images earlier today. It's clear that you ,"Know your way around a camera." That statement is, to me, the highest praise I give. I understand your portfolio's style, and can see the "way" you often approach subjects. My personal feeling about your style don't really matter much. Your portfolio shows a degree of consistency and proficiency that makes it obvious...you know your way around a camera. So does KenC above. So does ilovemycam. I'm not familiar with the work of the others in this thread.

 

[PixelRabbit]

I took the leap also and checked out your gallery, I'm glad I did.
As for the first image posted here I agree with Ken, I want more of the right side... or something, I'd call this one a close but no cigar.

Now your body of work I thoroughly enjoyed, you had me at Mothership. I can't believe I can toss a name in here but I love the "Dahli" vibe you have going on in some. I also quite enjoy your simple approach to line. I'm looking forward to seeing more!

 

[The_Traveler]

I've looked at your gallery several times, trying to figure out how to express my reactions.
Clearly you can use your camera and do the PPing you like; that's not an issue.
I like some of them that are in the style of 'glass eye' above but as for many of the rest, they are too often too focused on style for my taste.
They depend for their impact on the treatment rather than the content and I get tired of these really quickly.
Like Godiva truffles, one is amazing but to eat a bunch just makes me queasy.

 

[Murray Bloom]

Thanks, Derrel, for your endorsement. I hope that after all the time I've spent doing it, I've learned something about photography.

PixelRabbit, I'm glad that you seem to like my work. Yeah, there are always some misses along with the hits. But, for every old phone stand, there's a Mothership; thankfully. The distorted stuff can be a trip, indeed. That's a relatively new game for me, but I'm loving it.

Lew, I understand what you're saying, about both the images and the overload. My style isn't so much a deliberate thing, but a manifestation of the way I see; or maybe how I want my world to look. Looking at almost a hundred images at once can have unexpected results, including temporary insanity and gnashing of teeth. In your case, the content got lost in the treatment, I think. I always risk that when I use subjects that aren't outwardly noteworthy. I guess it's my desire not to be shooting what everyone else does, along with an appreciation for the insignificant. Thanks for looking and your comment.

Here's a couple more:

Wind and Water:



Shanghai Shoppers: