WWIIReenacting.co.uk Forums
http://www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/

The obsession with portraits?
http://www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=81749
Page 7 of 9

Author:  Andrei Kozlov [ Fri May 24, 2013 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Slightly clipped on the left of the frame :)

Author:  JimmyFilth [ Fri May 24, 2013 11:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

LeMaitre wrote:
I'll miss you.
I won't be on until Saturday after about 14:00.
Should we call a cease fire? Resume 'hostilities' Saturday?


I'm going to go ahead and organise a quick game of football on no mans land while you're both away :)

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Fri May 24, 2013 13:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Mr_Flibble wrote:
Euh, who asked for criticism on Keito's photo? Personally I would've composed it so that the child is slightly off-center to the right, as its looking towards the left.
Someone stepped away from the basics of proper composition...clearly an unforgivable heresy Hehehe. ;)



Here's an old one from me for you guys to pick apart
Image


Too many badges?

I dunno, don't do photographer, did they have badges on both sides, what is that one on the bottom left arm?

Is it a recreation of a posed, or a battlefield photo, if so, why so clean?

Not a criticism, just a question :wink: :D

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Fri May 24, 2013 13:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Here's one of mines from way back, Ration Ranger corps, with correct angle of cap front and centre not vietnam cause "I got a photo", the correct "walking down the Shankhil Road" low port rifle, and correct bottle of wine in leg tie thing, note, correct farby K ration boxes for "deeeeeee- day" ...

Go on, pick holes, it's all correct, look it's just a picture right?

Image

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Fri May 24, 2013 13:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Here's another one of mines, the scenario is a Lt going through the evenings patrol, go on, pick holes, all the gear is correct;

Image

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Fri May 24, 2013 13:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

This was taken in Italy, on the slopes of la Difensa on my patio (awrite, the wee garden bit) taken by Elmara, my daughter, she was 9 years old at the time;

Image

Author:  Mr_Flibble [ Fri May 24, 2013 16:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Quote:
Too many badges?

I dunno, don't do photographer, did they have badges on both sides, what is that one on the bottom left arm?


Check, war photographers, both Accredited and Signal corps, had a reasonably freedom in placing their patches. There are quite many configurations visible in the contemporary photos of Signal Photo Company men. Often you see one patch worn on the right shoulder, sometimes also with the army patch on the left shoulder.
But, the one on the lower left arm is the Signal Corps Photographer/Cameraman patch that was in use up to the summer of 1944. I've never seen them worn together with the arched patches or the square 'Official War Photographer' patches.

Quote:
Is it a recreation of a posed, or a battlefield photo, if so, why so clean?

Not a criticism, just a question :wink: :D


This one was posed in a Czech town where we had stopped for the afternoon during one of the 2AIE tours back in 2010 ("The Road to Victory Tour").
It was about halfway through the tour I think.
Thomas, the guy in the photo, is one of the people behind the BCC-Pictures website when it was still active.

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Sat May 25, 2013 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Mr_Flibble wrote:
Quote:
Too many badges?

I dunno, don't do photographer, did they have badges on both sides, what is that one on the bottom left arm?


Check, war photographers, both Accredited and Signal corps, had a reasonably freedom in placing their patches. There are quite many configurations visible in the contemporary photos of Signal Photo Company men. Often you see one patch worn on the right shoulder, sometimes also with the army patch on the left shoulder.
But, the one on the lower left arm is the Signal Corps Photographer/Cameraman patch that was in use up to the summer of 1944. I've never seen them worn together with the arched patches or the square 'Official War Photographer' patches.

Quote:
Is it a recreation of a posed, or a battlefield photo, if so, why so clean?

Not a criticism, just a question :wink: :D


This one was posed in a Czech town where we had stopped for the afternoon during one of the 2AIE tours back in 2010 ("The Road to Victory Tour").
It was about halfway through the tour I think.
Thomas, the guy in the photo, is one of the people behind the BCC-Pictures website when it was still active.


"I got a photo" of a 2nd Ranger wearing his diamond on his upper right sleeve (no it's not a reverse photo* cause he is with other Rangers and they're correct)...

* I have a photo of FFSF chaps on leave in Italy, spearheads on right shoulders, then again, it's a right hand drive jeep :wink: :D

Author:  Correspondent [ Sat May 25, 2013 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Hello boys ... Im baa aa ack :lol: :wink:

Seriously though, to (try) and bring this back on track ... to Quote our 'Russian' Comrade ..

" So, I ask the question - is the intent to make a faked ww2 photo? If so, then everything needs to be carefully thought out and the chances are, you cannot do this on your own as just a photographer and just as you find stuff. "

For my part I am not trying to 'fake' a WWII/1940's photograph, my intent all along was to try and recreate them with the correct tools available for one thing .. original cameras and film .. a non descript background for another .. something neutral with no obvious 21st c stuff in it ... and the subjects themselves ... ie; the vehicles, equipment and people that on the face of it are period correct too.
I say on the face of it in as much as I can tell re-enactor from promenader or otherwise, can tell the living historian from the dress up brigade and like to look for the right setting, the clean shot as I call it, when and where in viewing the final product it 'looks' like a period picture .. that says to the viewer on that all important first impression ... yes that looks like a period picture ... !!

If perhaps these types of pictures (not just my own, others take similar ones) were accepted at face value then we would not descend into the sometimes silly and un-necessary depths that we do here. Was there really any need to dissect Keith's picture .. I did so myself to mine as examples .. but again was it necessary for anyone else to do so ... If we are going to descend to those depths then may I suggest that no one ever posts a digital picture, no matter how good it is .. after all it could never have been taken in that way with that equipment back in the day and so in itself as a picture is technically false and wrong.

Look at this way .. can you tell for example, from a short ( camera ) distance of a group of guys in uniform, which one is wearing original Mustards, repro mustards or later Dutch ones ... or an original M41 and a repro one ... No, the overall effect is a 'correct' one because they all look right, the first impression of the photograph of that group would be that they are right ... and the same then should apply to any 'period correct' picture that on first impression looks right ... and should maybe just be accepted as such.

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Sat May 25, 2013 10:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Correspondent wrote:
Look at this way .. can you tell for example, from a short ( camera ) distance of a group of guys in uniform, which one is wearing original Mustards, repro mustards or later Dutch ones ... .


"mustards"? ohh, aye, OD wools, "mustards" another re-enactorism ...

Anyway ... I can actually :wink:

Look, no one, or myself anyway, is criticizing the technical aspects of teh camer shots (angles, wide or narrow lense or whatever it's called), I'm criticizing the manner in which the folk are wearing their uniforms, something a lot of re-enactors are way guilty of, the correct uniforms etc all you want, if you don't wear it as it was worn (hat jaunty angle, trousers worn at hips, not the waist etc) then it just doesn't look like what it's meant to be....Again, that's just my opinion, and in no way is gospel, just as much as you have your opinion and in no way is gospel :wink:

Author:  Correspondent [ Sat May 25, 2013 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

SaddleTramp wrote:
Correspondent wrote:
Look at this way .. can you tell for example, from a short ( camera ) distance of a group of guys in uniform, which one is wearing original Mustards, repro mustards or later Dutch ones ... .


"mustards"? ohh, aye, OD wools, "mustards" another re-enactorism ...


there you go, your opening comment is a classic example ... you couldnt just take my comments as they were, you had to have a dig at them .. what is wrong with you .. are you so insecure you have to challenge everything you see or dont like ..

Anyway ... I can actually :wink:

so a self confessed smart ass then .. ??? :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: .. (great these smilies huh .. ???) :roll:

Look, no one, or myself anyway, is criticizing the technical aspects of teh camer shots (angles, wide or narrow lense or whatever it's called), I'm criticizing the manner in which the folk are wearing their uniforms, something a lot of re-enactors are way guilty of, the correct uniforms etc all you want, if you don't wear it as it was worn (hat jaunty angle, trousers worn at hips, not the waist etc) then it just doesn't look like what it's meant to be....Again, that's just my opinion, and in no way is gospel, just as much as you have your opinion and in no way is gospel :wink:



OK fine .. but STOP criticising the picture ... criticise the subject by all means but not the photographer ... I often wonder if folks that do this would be so brave as to get in the subjects face one on one the same way as they do a picture .. ??
... we can all pick holes in EVERYTHING and EVERYONE if we wanted to ... none of us is perfect or will ever be ... some of the things I saw at Elvington and Haworth recently leave a lot to be desired .. supposed authentic camps/displays that had modern stuff tucked away to one side instead of out of sight, and not just the displays either, individuals too ... the double standards that abound here amaze me ...

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Sat May 25, 2013 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Correspondent wrote:
OK fine .. but STOP criticising the picture ... criticise the subject by all means but not the photographer ... I often wonder if folks that do this would be so brave as to get in the subjects face one on one the same way as they do a picture .. ??
...


What part of my posts where criticizing the photographers?

And aye, I have done it face to face, many times, and though some have taken it on board, the majority still get all huffy and throw a hissy fit, fk 'em, if they are not grown up enough to hear any criticism then perhaps they should have a word with themselves :roll:

Author:  Correspondent [ Sat May 25, 2013 13:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

You dont see it do you ... in criticising the picture, the content of the picture you are criticising the guy who took it ... if you werent you would post a PM, e-mail or start another topic to get in the subject of the pictures face to tell him he was wrong, not do it on the post or topic where the picture is ...
It is why the likes of Rick, myself and some others wont post pictures for the pleasure of viewing and sharing them .. they are never viewed at face value, always scrutinised to see what is wrong in them ... and then some snide comment made which is always indirectly aimed at the person who took the shot ...

.. actually though if the folks here that do that have to go to the extremes of looking at how a pair of shoes is fastened for example, have to go to that small detail to find a fault, then maybe the subject and the photographer are both doing something right .. !!

Author:  Yin717 [ Sat May 25, 2013 15:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

I write my essays with my right hand. My girlfriend write's them with her left. As the majority of people are right handed, I must evidently tell her that left handed writing is absurd and she should stop it.

To explain my point better, photography is a hobby and enjoyment for people. And they should be allowed to EXPRESS their hobby how they please, especially as they are not trying to recreate anything. My girlfriend has just completed a dance degree and I've seen some of her performances. They create them based on a stimulus. I've watched other people's performances and gone 'how is that related to their stimulus'? My girlfriend points out its THEIR way of expressing it. Just because its expressed differently to the tutor or everyone else doesn't mean they get a lower mark, they generally get a higher one!

I don't particular like these 4F photos (as thats what they have been labelled as), but I respect that that is the photographer's expressional preference. Who I am to say its rubbish and bares no importance or respect to society? if I remember correctly (digging out my very limited art knowledge ;) ) isn't that what people said of The Impressionists?

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Sun May 26, 2013 7:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

there you go, your opening comment is a classic example ... you couldnt just take my comments as they were, you had to have a dig at them .. what is wrong with you .. are you so insecure you have to challenge everything you see or dont like ..

OK, I'm gonna start calling them "broon troosers" and if you say I'm wrong, then you are nit picking, and people who try to stop the re-neaming if thse trousers are just insecure :roll:

so a self confessed smart ass then .. ??? :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: .. (great these smilies huh .. ???) :roll:

Nooooooooo, just telling you that I can tell, you asked, I answered....

Author:  SaddleTramp [ Sun May 26, 2013 7:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The obsession with portraits?

Correspondent wrote:
You dont see it do you ... in criticising the picture, the content of the picture you are criticising the guy who took it ... if you werent you would post a PM, e-mail or start another topic to get in the subject of the pictures face to tell him he was wrong, not do it on the post or topic where the picture is ...
It is why the likes of Rick, myself and some others wont post pictures for the pleasure of viewing and sharing them .. they are never viewed at face value, always scrutinised to see what is wrong in them ... and then some snide comment made which is always indirectly aimed at the person who took the shot ...

.. actually though if the folks here that do that have to go to the extremes of looking at how a pair of shoes is fastened for example, have to go to that small detail to find a fault, then maybe the subject and the photographer are both doing something right .. !!


So what you are saying is "here is my picture of an histoprical character, not a personality, just a bod who could be anyone, but aan historical character, and you cannot point out the innacuracies in the make up, or anything, you can only pat me on the back and other nice stuff, and if you don;t, I'll take a hissy fit"

Fine, I will never, ever comment on any of these photos, ever again, and let's see how the hobby descends into farbiness....

Another reason why I'm just about to sell up :roll:

Page 7 of 9 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/