I remember going to Olan Mills for family portraits when I was young.
They did different groupings - whole family, parents together, kids
together, everyone by themselves ...
I think this might be an early evolution of that practice.
From: Bob Sullivan
Bill, Seems to me the lame part is not
On 06/05/2012 8:50 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Dan,
If the mother is under a blanket holding the kid, or
out in the open holding the kid - What's the difference???
One is a picture of the child, the other is a picture of the mother and
child.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PD
On 5/7/2012 01:42, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Bill,
Seems to me the lame part is not simply including the mother.
Our family photos include mom with the kids.
Regards, Bob S.
Indeed.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
photos.
Cheers,
frank
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." --
Christopher Hitchens
--- Original Message ---
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
Sent: May 6, 2012 5/6/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Re: OT: The invisible Mother
I think that the idea was that it would look strange, or look like the
kid was uncontrollable, if you could see that the mother had to hold
the child in a vise-like grip. They wanted the child to look like a
little angel, whether he or she was or not.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com
I knew that in the old days "Children should be seen and not heard"
but I had no idea that "Mothers should be heard and not seen".
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and f
Dan,
If the mother is under a blanket holding the kid, or
out in the open holding the kid - What's the difference???
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> That would not keep the kid from moving or squirming. The exposures
> were long, and most children were
That would not keep the kid from moving or squirming. The exposures
were long, and most children were not comfortable with strangers. So,
if the mother was in the image, she would have to been restraining the
child, which would not make a very pleasing portrait.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphoto
Bill,
Seems to me the lame part is not simply including the mother.
Our family photos include mom with the kids.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, William Robb
wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 2:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> I guess, but kind of a lame idea...
>
>
> When exposure were mea
William Robb wrote:
>On 06/05/2012 2:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> I guess, but kind of a lame idea...
>
>When exposure were measured in tens of minutes, photographers had to do
>whatever they could to ensure kids kept still. For adults there were all
>sorts of contraptions (head clamps and the
On 06/05/2012 2:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
I guess, but kind of a lame idea...
When exposure were measured in tens of minutes, photographers had to do
whatever they could to ensure kids kept still. For adults there were all
sorts of contraptions (head clamps and the like) to keep subjects fro
I guess, but kind of a lame idea...
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> A fascinating technique in portrait photography:
>
> http://www.retronaut.co/2011/10/the-invisible-mother/
>
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss
Very interesting! I had never heard of that before.
Thanks for posting that link.
Cheers,
frank
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." --
Christopher Hitchens
--- Original Message ---
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
Sent: May 6, 2012 5/6/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail Li
13 matches
Mail list logo
