Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Shel - FWIW, I think it's a great photo, conveying a sense of love amounting to almost adoration. I have seen a mother kiss her child's feet with just such an expression on her face, one shot I wish I had captured. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Hi Steve ... One big problem with displaying photos on the web is that you never see them as intended. When the photo is seen at its full size of about 24-inches across, it takes on an entirely different feel, at least for me. I wish there were a way it could be seen as it was intended to be viewed ... large, on a wall, printed on a specific paper. There are three "final" versions for different lighting situations and venues ... plus I can provide a sofa-sized version on black velvet with your choice of three tasteful, decorative Elvis motifs as a border I'm not at all suggesting that you'd no longer be uncomfortable with it, but you might feel differently as some of what you see in the small version is more muted and subtle, masked somewhat by the grain, the printing technique, and the paper choice. shel Steve Desjardins wrote: > > I find it fascinating and slightly disturbing, probably because my own > cultural upbringing does not associate good things with foot-kissing. > The odd "texture" of the tones also gives it a "something is wrong" > feeling. > > This is a good example of a powerful photo whose primary effect (for > me) is discomfort. > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
I find it fascinating and slightly disturbing, probably because my own cultural upbringing does not associate good things with foot-kissing. The odd "texture" of the tones also gives it a "something is wrong" feeling. This is a good example of a powerful photo whose primary effect (for me) is discomfort. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:19:42 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >... or if a bunch of people really are interested in hearing >it, which would surprise me, I can go ahead and write about >submission, subservience, and service mindsets here on the >list. > > -- Glenn No need, Glenn, we are all begging at the well of mother Pentax, waiting for a tasty drip, or hording the cool water from earlier times, so in some way we instinctively know all about a couple of those topics, to a greater or lesser extent depending on our ability to break the spell. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: The Kiss - Jpeg
On 6/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I expected Shel to say he used footlights. >Regards, Bob S. Absolutely. The lighting with sole! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: The Kiss - Jpeg
Oh, kiss my foot, Frank. frank theriault wrote: I think we're all going to have to toe the line, and stamp out these silly attempts at humour... -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I expected Shel to say he used footlights. Regards, Bob S. Bob W writes: > You missed an opportunity. You could have measured the light in foot > candles. > -- > Cheers, > Bob > _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 12:41:37 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Some have called it sexist, others say it depicts > subservience, some have said it's upsetting or disquieting, > one person thought I had no business making such a photo, > that it's obviously contrived and not real. Boy, there sure are a bunch of pinheads out there. Harumph. They're making a ton of assumptions about the content and blaming you for their lascivious or degenerate minds?! Geez. Of course, I've encountered the same thing, but it still hacks me off. I tend to give two word rejoinders to those folks. > ... some people have seen a lot more in the photo than > I ever did or ever intended to be conveyed. That's one of the things that kills me about reviewers of art in all its forms. I don't know if it's on the Internet, but there was an interview a few years ago with Kurt Vonnegut or Frank Herbert or some well-known writer like that. Asked about reviewers, the response was along the lines of "those folks have much more vivid imaginations than I do". Sometimes a line is just a line. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: The Kiss - Jpeg
I think we're all going to have to toe the line, and stamp out these silly attempts at humour... -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I expected Shel to say he used footlights. Regards, Bob S. Bob W writes: > You missed an opportunity. You could have measured the light in foot > candles. > -- > Cheers, > Bob > _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: The Kiss - Jpeg
I expected Shel to say he used footlights. Regards, Bob S. Bob W writes: > You missed an opportunity. You could have measured the light in foot > candles. > -- > Cheers, > Bob > > Thursday, February 5, 2004, 8:35:52 PM, Shel wrote: > > Nope don't know how to "light" scenes. I just point, > > focus, and shoot. Sometime I get a good exposure, sometimes > > not. I just try to pay attention to the light in the area. > > > tom asked: > >> > >> Can you tell us how you lit the original scene?
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Hi, haven't a clue - doesn't matter to me. -- Cheers, Bob Thursday, February 5, 2004, 11:02:38 PM, you wrote: > Is the "model" a woman? > Bob W wrote: >> well, it's Bailey you should ask! But I think he would say 'too large >> for a female model'.
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Which party is being subservient? Or is either? Can you > have subservience if all involved see the situation > similarly, feel the same way, share the same feelings? Is > subservience then just a game that's being played with no > real subjugation by either party? The first two questions are part of the conundrum of the picture. To three, the answer is yes. The parameters do not preclude one party deciding that it is better to deny one's own desires. Following on, the answer to four must be no, given that the subjugation is performed on oneself. The above assuming a real situation rather than a deliberate role playing scenario. m
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Is the "model" a woman? Bob W wrote: > well, it's Bailey you should ask! But I think he would say 'too large > for a female model'.
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Which party is being subservient? Or is either? Can you have subservience if all involved see the situation similarly, feel the same way, share the same feelings? Is subservience then just a game that's being played with no real subjugation by either party? mike wilson wrote: > But all of those involve subservience. Of the free volition kind, that > you do to help others by subjugating your own wishes.
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Hi, well, it's Bailey you should ask! But I think he would say 'too large for a female model'. -- Cheers, Bob Thursday, February 5, 2004, 10:17:13 PM, you wrote: > Overall? or for a woman? Or a man? Or just in relationship > to the foot? > Bob W wrote: >> suspect Bailey would consider your model's hands to be a bit large.
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
I addressed that to a great degree in an earlier message Mike Wilson stated: > Photographic enigmatism. It is obviously not a "first generation" > photograph, it is a copy of a poster/billboard. Isn't it? Or are you > meant to think that? Educated guesses are possible but surety is not. > So even the production technique is a puzzle.
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
you gotta love this kind of privacy - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:24 PM Subject: Re: The Kiss - JPEG > Hi ... > > I'm sending this privately because I want the photo pretty > much to speak for itself. You seem to get it pretty well, > though. > > It was a real scene ... while such things are not a usual > part of my life as an observer, the kissing of anther's foot > certainly is not strange to me, on many levels. What I saw > and felt when I took the photo was love, sharing, admiration > ... a coming together of two people who care for one another > ... nothing more. I have a very simple way of looking at > things, and was not trying to make a point or create > anything more than a nice photo that caught a special > moment. > > kind regards, > > shel >
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
On 5/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I don't believe this was presented to the list yet. It has >stirred up a little controversy in another venue. Your >comments on how this photo affects you are most welcome. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/kiss.html Superb. Affectionate. Graceful. Lovely shot Shel. Thanks Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Hi, "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." wrote: > (And I see so many ways to interpret it that don't involve > subservience. Most seem to involve some aspect of honoring > or respect, though. And a "taking care of" feeling comes > through easily as one of many possible emotional components.) But all of those involve subservience. Of the free volition kind, that you do to help others by subjugating your own wishes. > > A well-executed exercise in enigmatics. > > Oooh, well put. Yes, that's what it is. M. But is it intentional or is it an unexpected outcome of of other intentions? How enigmatic would you like to be? > The only part that looked contrived > to me was the curious grain/streakiness, which I thought added a > powerful _je_ne_sais_quoi_ (can't say what, but whatever it is, > it's powerful) to an already touching composition. That sort of > contrivance I can live with. Photographic enigmatism. It is obviously not a "first generation" photograph, it is a copy of a poster/billboard. Isn't it? Or are you meant to think that? Educated guesses are possible but surety is not. So even the production technique is a puzzle. > Oh, at face value it's okay -- _sweet_, as I said earlier > today. But a lot of what I like about it is how much more > _can_be_ read into it because so many sometimes complementary > and sometimes contradictory but always vague and uncertain > clues to possible mindsets are present. And excellently exploited in such a simple image. > I wasn't even going to try to _guess_ at your _intent_; I > figured some of what I was seeing might have been there > intentionally but most of what I was seeing probably > wasn't, and I didn't think I could guess which was which. I think it is deliberately enigmatic and multilayered. _Maybe_ that is its whole point. I _am_ sure there is no point asking. mike
Viewers Adding Meaning (Re: The Kiss - JPEG)
> Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > A lot of people > > like it, and accept it at face value ... some people have > > seen a lot more in the photo than I ever did or ever > > intended to be conveyed. I just realized I was heading off somewhat tangentially from where I'd started... Several years ago I wrote my first piece of erotic fiction (which I no longer have an archived copy of, so I need to get around to re-typing it from a printout one of these days ... if you look on my website now, you'll find a rather more disturbing story than the one I'm talking about). I posted it to alt.sex.bondage (which, if you know how the map of Usenet has changed, tells you how long ago it was). It was not explicit, and really only made sense as erotica if the reader shared a certain combination of kinks. The central idea was the old "virgin being sacrificed to the dragon" theme. Then a friend I hadn't heard from in a while emailed me and asked me what I was up to recently, and I mentioned that I'd posted this story. That's not a newsgroup she read, but she went poking around for my story, "Feeding Time", anyhow. She read it. And she forwarded it to her college lit-crit mailing list without mentioning where she'd gotten it. Then she forwarded their comments back to me. There was _all_sorts_ of stuff in there that they saw that I hadn't been thinking of when I wrote it! Some of it I could say, "Uh, no, I can see how you got there, but that's really something you're adding." But others I had to say, "Gee, now that you point it out, that _is_ in there! But I wasn't thinking of that when I wrote it ... can I really say that 'I put it there', or should I say 'it sort of fell in when I wasn't looking'?" And there were one or two concepts where my reaction was, "Okay, I was making use of the other side of that concept to say something else, so what you're seeing is _present_, but it wasn't the _point_." A bunch of different agendas got mentioned, with my story being held up as an example supporting an agenda or being disagreed with on the basis of the agenda of the speaker. And some agenda-less critics mentioned what insights they had learned from the story. I wrote it as a specialized-audience stroke-story. I didn't have a message beyond, "This mythological image turned me on and I wanted to look closer at what aspects of it did so and share them." But the thing is, borrowing someone else's eyes to read it with, some of the other things were _there_, I just hadn't intentionally put them there. So I wound up learning things I hadn't known about my _own_ _story_, which felt kind of odd to experience. So there's my little adventure into the realm of intentionalism and the "intentional fallacy". Some people argue that it's the room for reading in extra meanings that makes art interesting. Or worthwhile. I'm not ready for such a sweeping statement yet, but I see where that view comes from. -- Glenn
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Hi ... I'm sending this privately because I want the photo pretty much to speak for itself. You seem to get it pretty well, though. It was a real scene ... while such things are not a usual part of my life as an observer, the kissing of anther's foot certainly is not strange to me, on many levels. What I saw and felt when I took the photo was love, sharing, admiration ... a coming together of two people who care for one another ... nothing more. I have a very simple way of looking at things, and was not trying to make a point or create anything more than a nice photo that caught a special moment. kind regards, shel
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.: But sexist? When the genders aren't clear? Well, the people shouting "sexist" the loudest are ofter the people that's are jumping to conclusions regarding gender in pictures and stories... The more extreme even sometimes claim that the picture reproduces male opression, since the one in power acts "the male part", regardless of the actual genders of the persons involved. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Overall? or for a woman? Or a man? Or just in relationship to the foot? Bob W wrote: > suspect Bailey would consider your model's hands to be a bit large.
RE: The Kiss - JPEG
> -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Nope don't know how to "light" scenes. I just point, > focus, and shoot. Sometime I get a good exposure, sometimes > not. I just try to pay attention to the light in the area. > Are you saying this was shot with available light? tv
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Some have called it sexist, others say it depicts subservience, some have said it's upsetting or disquieting, one person thought I had no business making such a photo, that it's obviously contrived and not real. A lot of people like it, and accept it at face value ... some people have seen a lot more in the photo than I ever did or ever intended to be conveyed. Bob W wrote: > > Hi, > > what sort of controversy?
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Nope don't know how to "light" scenes. I just point, focus, and shoot. Sometime I get a good exposure, sometimes not. I just try to pay attention to the light in the area. tom wrote: > > Can you tell us how you lit the original scene?
RE: The Kiss - JPEG
Can you tell us how you lit the original scene? tv > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 2:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Kiss - JPEG > > Yes, the scene was photographed live, but then I > rephotographed the print (which was 16x20ish) which had been > sitting around for a while, as it didn't do much for me at > first. So, in one sense it's a photograph of a photograph. > I then added some of the ideas garnered from other sources in > order to get the look and feel I wanted. Played around a bit > in both the darkroom and in Photoshop. > > > > tom wrote: > > > > Ok...did you have an actual woman and foot in front of your > lens, or > > this a photo of an image created by someone else? > > > >
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Hi, what sort of controversy? I've said before I think it's a good photo. But I remember reading something about David Bailey having a thing about models' hands. I suspect Bailey would consider your model's hands to be a bit large. -- Cheers, Bob Thursday, February 5, 2004, 4:52:12 PM, you wrote: > I don't believe this was presented to the list yet. It has > stirred up a little controversy in another venue. Your > comments on how this photo affects you are most welcome. > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/kiss.html
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Yes, the scene was photographed live, but then I rephotographed the print (which was 16x20ish) which had been sitting around for a while, as it didn't do much for me at first. So, in one sense it's a photograph of a photograph. I then added some of the ideas garnered from other sources in order to get the look and feel I wanted. Played around a bit in both the darkroom and in Photoshop. tom wrote: > > Ok...did you have an actual woman and foot in front of your lens, or this a > photo of an image created by someone else? >
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Ahhh, Butch ... the streaks are intentional ;-)) No flatbed scanner was used. Butch Black wrote: > > I like it. Strong composition and the brown tone works for me. I am bothered > by the streaks. If you scanned that on a flatbed scanner it's time to clean > both sides of the glass. > > Butch > > Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. > > Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: The Kiss - JPEG
Ok...did you have an actual woman and foot in front of your lens, or this a photo of an image created by someone else? tv > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Kiss - JPEG > > Nope ... but, old, weathered ads, a view through a shower > curtain, a scene in a movie, all contributed to the idea of > how i wanted the final image to look. > > tom wrote: > > > > Bus stop ad? Subway ad? > >
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
I like it. Strong composition and the brown tone works for me. I am bothered by the streaks. If you scanned that on a flatbed scanner it's time to clean both sides of the glass. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Nope ... but, old, weathered ads, a view through a shower curtain, a scene in a movie, all contributed to the idea of how i wanted the final image to look. tom wrote: > > Bus stop ad? Subway ad?
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Not quite, tom ... tom wrote: > The vertical streaks make me suspect it's a picture of an outdoor ad.
RE: The Kiss - JPEG
> -Original Message- > From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Kiss - JPEG > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > I don't believe this was presented to the list yet. It has > stirred up > > a little controversy in another venue. Your comments on how this > > photo affects you are most welcome. > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/kiss.html > > You know that silhouette that looks like a fancy vase or lamp > one moment and two faces in profile the next? That's how it > effects me, but with more states. > > What all the states have in common is a perception of > tenderness and respect, be they happy, sad, kink, vanilla, > sexual, or non-sexual. > > It's *sweet*. The vertical streaks make me suspect it's a picture of an outdoor ad. tv
Re: The Kiss - JPEG
Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I don't believe this was presented to the list yet. It has > stirred up a little controversy in another venue. Your > comments on how this photo affects you are most welcome. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/kiss.html You know that silhouette that looks like a fancy vase or lamp one moment and two faces in profile the next? That's how it effects me, but with more states. What all the states have in common is a perception of tenderness and respect, be they happy, sad, kink, vanilla, sexual, or non-sexual. It's *sweet*. There's a Hell of a lot of room for the viewer to project elements that aren't literally in the photo inot it, whether any of those aspects were present in the moment being photographed or not. Plenty of room to see what you most want to see in it ... or are afraid of seeing. This is a photo you could show to a creative writing class and ask each student to write a short story or vignette inspired by or attempting to explain it, and get a lot of very different and interesting results. -- Glenn
The Kiss - JPEG
I don't believe this was presented to the list yet. It has stirred up a little controversy in another venue. Your comments on how this photo affects you are most welcome. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/kiss.html
