Product shoot

[Tom dinning]

It takes a while before my walking shoes become comfortable and photogenic. Like a beautiful woman, they get more comfortable and beautiful with age, a great deal of use and very little maintenance.
Mmm. I'm not sure about that analogy. I can aready hear some bristles bristling.

Christine things they smell and look disgusting. She wants me to bin them.
"I wouldn't bin y......".
On second thoughts, I might go another way.

_DSC5312 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5318 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5327 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5329 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It takes a while before my walking shoes become comfortable and photogenic. Like a beautiful woman, they get more comfortable and beautiful with age, a great deal of use and very little maintenance.
Mmm. I'm not sure about that analogy. I can aready hear some bristles bristling.

Hi Tom,

Bristles aside, I've enjoyed looking at your short series. It appeals to my fondness for Macro photography, which opens up a whole new micro-cosmos for our eyes and mind to explore.

Thanks for sharing.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Paul Abbott]

These images are some real badly composed shots, a beautiful woman would be so much more better composed...

 

[Tom dinning]

These images are some real badly composed shots, a beautiful woman would be so much more better composed...

Tell me more, Paul. I would compose a beautiful woman in much the same way. What am I doing wrong?

 

[Paul Abbott]

Tell me more, Paul. I would compose a beautiful woman in much the same way. What am I doing wrong?

That sounds like a rhetorical question? And I don't think you would compose a woman in the same way at all.

If she was a dead sole maybe...

 

[Asher Kelman]

It takes a while before my walking shoes become comfortable and photogenic. Like a beautiful woman, they get more comfortable and beautiful with age, a great deal of use and very little maintenance.
Mmm. I'm not sure about that analogy. I can aready hear some bristles bristling.

Christine things they smell and look disgusting. She wants me to bin them.
"I wouldn't bin y......".
On second thoughts, I might go another way.

_DSC5329 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

Tom,

I'm not sure whether or not you are

• The old Tom poking fun at what the Artsy farts might consider work worth "ooing and aaing" about.
  
• The New Tom Trying to compose in an original away

So all the other pictures fit in well with each of these possible notions, but none of them are interesting to me. I certainly wouldn't photograph a professional paid model like that. This one, however has a simple presence and arrogance, thinking it can stand on its own, so I'd choose it to print. It might come out very well even with part of a beautiful woman showing.

Now having said that, I'd love to see how one would use the same composition in the other pictures with a woman to good effect.

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

See! Even when I'm serious, not-one takes me serious. What's the point?

I do take my own actions very serious, even if they seem a bit strange to some.

The subject and composition is very much purposeful.
I'm standing in the hallway yesterday morning thinking I need to think a bit differently about some aspects of my photos. I ask myself What If? My walking shoes come to mind. Don't ask me why. They get dragged into the shed (they do smell a bit) and thrown onto a black sheet near a window, something akin to how I might treat Christine in a passionate moment.
They look seductive and familiar in the soft light, warm, worn and welcoming. I approach the scene as I might a beautiful woman (seriously). I want to capture the essence, the curves, the tones, the shadows, the secrecy, the connection between her (the shoes) and the photographer. This isn't a formal portrait, its a gesture, a record of a moment of deep affection and love that could only be seen when there is complete intimacy between the photographer and the subject. Glimpses, as all one gets when you are that close, both physically and mentally.
These shots are exactly as I wanted them. They may not appeal to you and they may seem a bit non-stereotyped, not befitting a gallery in downtown LA but in my book I have achieved exactly what I set out to get.
This, of cause, means one of two things: I have no idea what I am on about and should laugh them off as a bad joke as you all have and change my ways or just tell you to all **** off.

Actually there's a third alternative. I'm having a good laugh over breakfast. You're all doing exactly as I expected from you. Bless your predicable hearts.

I'll see what else I can do today, maybe with my jocks.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Not aften I apologize, tom, but in this case, you got me! I now take this set seriously.
so just keep in this frame of mind and we'll know you aren't taking the mickey!

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

No need to apologise, although I'll accept one from PAul who thinks my framing is ****.

Adding some excitement to my life does require of me to think differently from time to time. Its just experimenting again.
Looking back over there years I, too, have been a bit predicable - actually a lot.
What I am thinking now is 'what if?'
Actually, the biggest jolt came from an unexpected source; a bloke we know as Deka, a weird scot with a foul tongue and a strange way of looking at the world. He sort of grabs the bits we miss, the junk in between, the things we miss, the things we look at while we are searching for things to look at and photograph. Its like we have been speed reading all our lives and forgetting that without the sight words the structure of the sentence would fall to pieces.
So while I play with the camera I concentrate more on what holds the scene together. Its no longer the objects but the stuff in between. It has become fascinatingly interesting - to me.
Here are some other shots of the stuff in between.
I'm happy to listen to comments but you will need to take me serious. Otherwise I will be crying into my pillow at night thinking I have to end it all because my OPF friends think I'm a shitty photographer. And we wouldnt want that would we?

_DSC5340 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5339 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5299 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5288 by tom.dinning, on Flickr




_DSC5131 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

 

[Jerome Marot]

Now, we are talking.

The one I like most is that one:

_DSC5288 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

And I should add that the shoes look like photographs out of a designer catalogue. Isn't the question: why shouldn't old shoes that you like be entitled to the same portrait as designer shoes that you don't particularly care about?

 

[Tom dinning]

Exactly Jerome.
This is Valerie, by the way. She's an acquaintance I ran into in the elevator at the hospital. I asked her if I could take her photo. She obliged. She's a very beautiful woman and she dresses in a very utilitarian manner. I showed her the photo and she laughed. "That's me!" She announced.
I like it when people laugh at my photos.

 

[Asher Kelman]

No need to apologise, although I'll accept one from PAul who thinks my framing is ****.

Well, he's right! But so are you! That's the point.

Actually, the biggest jolt came from an unexpected source; a bloke we know as Deka, a weird scot with a foul tongue and a strange way of looking at the world. He sort of grabs the bits we miss, the junk in between, the things we miss, the things we look at while we are searching for things to look at and photograph. Its like we have been speed reading all our lives and forgetting that without the sight words the structure of the sentence would fall to pieces.
So while I play with the camera I concentrate more on what holds the scene together. Its no longer the objects but the stuff in between. It has become fascinatingly interesting - to me.
Here are some other shots of the stuff in between.
I'm happy to listen to comments but you will need to take me serious. Otherwise I will be crying into my pillow at night thinking I have to end it all because my OPF friends think I'm a shitty photographer. And we wouldnt want that would we?

_DSC5131 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

Tom,

This one is the stuff that holds together the larger picture which we do not need to see! Braver and better!

Asher

 

[Paul Abbott]

Hey Tom, if your seeking inspiration for your picture taking Martin Parr might interest you, here: http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/exhibit_display.asp?ExhibitID=4

Also, he did a series of photographs of empty car park spaces in parking lots.

 

[Tom dinning]

Hey Tom, if your seeking inspiration for your picture taking Martin Parr might interest you, here: http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/exhibit_display.asp?ExhibitID=4

Also, he did a series of photographs of empty car park spaces in parking lots.

Parr is one of my all time favourites. My wife comes from Manchester where Parr was educated and I see Parr's work in real life every day when we visit the UK each year. I saw his ex at The Barbican about 10 years ago and he was there. He's as drole as his photos. In fact he looks like someone out of one of his photos.
Paul, every photograp and every photographer I have ever come across in my very pleasant 66 years has been an inspiration to me. Even you and yours.

 

[Paul Abbott]

When he was nominated to join Magnum a lot of the board were up in arms about allowing him, even Henri Cartier Bresson didn't want him to join. In the end he won the vote, narrowly I think.

He is a fave photographer of mine too. I love his photography, he has such a quick eye and his brilliant use of colour inspires me. The trouble is, he has already got there before us and that's the trouble with these 'masters', there's hardly room to be original anymore. It's all been done, it's just a different picture.

Thanks for letting me know what you think of my photographs, Tom. I appreciate it...

 

[Tom dinning]

When he was nominated to join Magnum a lot of the board were up in arms about allowing him, even Henri Cartier Bresson didn't want him to join. In the end he won the vote, narrowly I think.

He is a fave photographer of mine too. I love his photography, he has such a quick eye and his brilliant use of colour inspires me. The trouble is, he has already got there before us and that's the trouble with these 'masters', there's hardly room to be original anymore. It's all been done, it's just a different picture.

Thanks for letting me know what you think of my photographs, Tom. I appreciate it...

Hats an interesting point you made there, Paul. Originality. Most of the time we don't take photos to be original, at least not intentionally. People take photos for lots of reasons and most are just what we call snaps. It's only mugs like us who venture into another head space.
I don't think it's all been covered yet, otherwise I'm wasting my time. Fortunately I'm not waiting for others to decide if its been done before.
We all have a unique way of seeing our own world. That's original. We just need to let ourselves go a bit and stop trying to be someone else. Make your own rules.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Most of the time we don't take photos to be original, at least not intentionally.

Hi Tom,

Most of the time, that indeed seems to apply to many others (although, I can obviously only speak from viewing from my personal perspective) ... People take photos for lots of reasons and most(?) are just what one could call snaps (hopefully not on OPF). I do encourage to adhering to (slightly) higher standards, whatever that might mean to an individual).

It's only mugs like us who venture into another head space.
I don't think it's all been covered yet, otherwise I'm wasting my time. Fortunately I'm not waiting for others to decide if its been done before.

I sincerely also hope it's not all been covered before, although it wouldn't discourage me personally from posting 'my' personal view (when I consider it as worthwhile) on 'the' matter, i.e. for any matter.

We all have a unique way of seeing our own world. That's original. We just need to let ourselves go a bit and stop trying to be someone else. Make your own rules.

Hear, hear. Couldn't agree more (which isn't to say we couldn't learn something from those preceding us, but let's please try and avoid an attempt to simply copying somebody other's style).

We should encourage and welcome many more independent views.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Tom dinning]

Sometimes some of us need to tread a well worn path for a while in an effort to find our own way. My students often remind me of that.'how do you take those landscapes?' she asks as we approach the beach near Cullen Bay. 'Show me what you do to get that depth' she begs.
'Show me what you do' I reply. And I watch. She does as she has been told. Perfect execution of the controls, a great point of view, all is well. Snap. 'Its not like yours! I did everything you say, what am I doing wrong?'
I feel like saying ' you don't have a penis and your only 27 years old' but I refrain. The class is filled with women and I have no defense against so many.

'Nothing wrong. You just haven't found your landscape yet. It's there. Don't try to find mine. Look for your own'

She wanders off down a different path. Now I can smile.

 

[Jerome Marot]

I know you probably won't agree, but what interests me is the real reason she is no satisfied with her picture. Why does she find that your picture is good and hers is not what she expected?

To me, the answers lie in the way your and her pictures "read", which is related to the idea of composition in the broad sense. But I am using the word "read", because you cited Mark Hampton / Deka. The thread he was pursuing was titled "reading the reading" and that is exactly the idea: can we read or understand how your and her picture is "read"? Do they "read" in the same manner or is one easier to "read" than the other? Probably the second, I guess.

This is the reason why we do not agree: you wrote that she should find her landscape. I don't find that helpful, I would even say that I find this advice misleading. She will never find "her landscape" by looking for a different landscape. Or why is it that, when you walk around with your camera, you will find "your landscape" every 10 meters when she does not?

What she needs to find is how she "reads" landscapes and how to bring that experience in the tiny frame of her camera. And that is a completely different thing: if she is looking for "her landscape", she will walk endlessly trying to find a nice scenery. If she is looking for her inner reading, all she has to do is sit there in front of a landscape, find out in her inner self how she experiences it and then learn how to put that reading in the tiny frame of her camera for the viewer.

 

[Tom dinning]

I know you probably won't agree, but what interests me is the real reason she is no satisfied with her picture. Why does she find that your picture is good and hers is not what she expected?

To me, the answers lie in the way your and her pictures "read", which is related to the idea of composition in the broad sense. But I am using the word "read", because you cited Mark Hampton / Deka. The thread he was pursuing was titled "reading the reading" and that is exactly the idea: can we read or understand how your and her picture is "read"? Do they "read" in the same manner or is one easier to "read" than the other? Probably the second, I guess.

This is the reason why we do not agree: you wrote that she should find her landscape. I don't find that helpful, I would even say that I find this advice misleading. She will never find "her landscape" by looking for a different landscape. Or why is it that, when you walk around with your camera, you will find "your landscape" every 10 meters when she does not?

What she needs to find is how she "reads" landscapes and how to bring that experience in the tiny frame of her camera. And that is a completely different thing: if she is looking for "her landscape", she will walk endlessly trying to find a nice scenery. If she is looking for her inner reading, all she has to do is sit there in front of a landscape, find out in her inner self how she experiences it and then learn how to put that reading in the tiny frame of her camera for the viewer.

I wonder why you thought I would disagree, Jerome? We have said the same thing.
You have taken me literally when I suggest here that she 'wander off' until she finds what she is looking for. This is a mental exercise, not a physical one. The person in question, and many others, are already accomplished photographers in the technical sense. They already take very pleasing landscapes, among other things. Their composition is fine, in accordance with what they have read and seen in others. What is lacking is a willingness to let go. They conform. Rigorously. These students haven't come to me to learn how to photograph. They have come to find out what makes the difference. The difference is within each of them. That's what they need to find. I would like them to do two things by the time they have left me: to appreciate other photographs and to appreciate their own.
I'm not here to make them famous or provide them with an income. They are amateurs. They want to express themselves in their chosen pastime. Just like I do. And possibly you. They won't get that imitating me or wandering aimlessly. When they do wander along new paths I am close behind, whispering in their ear and listening to what they say. We share ideas and pictures and discuss them with one thing in mind; to find the pathway.
It's a pleasurable pastime for me. I see people grow. I see their enthusiasm flourish and I see them, sometimes, find their expression. At the end of the day, for me it's always about the people I meet and share ideas with. I have made many friends among these students. They share their lives with me. That's when the photo becomes superfluous.

I wouldn't see much difference in Mark's approach, yours or mine. And there is certainly no argument about who has the best approach. This isn't a competition. It's just each of us being helpful in our own way.