Rob Naylor
New member
A couple of year ago I was introduced to the work of Harry Callahan, I was struck by the stark, simplicity of his images but the depth of intrigue his images invoked.
With the intent of trying to capture the same feelings and as a homage, I created this set with my wife Mandy boldly offering to be the subject.
At the time I was quite pleased with the results and I feel the series holds together well, without being too repetitive, but of course that is just my opinion, and clearly I have a biased judgement.
Have a look, and tell me what you feel, it might be nothing, you may shout "cliche", or it might offer a similar intrigue I felt while taking them and seeing them on screen as a series afterwards.
As a series, is it better to keep the same landscape or portrait orientation throughout? Rightly or wrongly, here I chose the orientation to help the image composition.
I do enjoy making photo series, sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the individual images - but not always ;(
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
This was originally part of the set, but overexposed in error, maybe should they all be overexposed, rather than all being slightly underexposed as now?
With the intent of trying to capture the same feelings and as a homage, I created this set with my wife Mandy boldly offering to be the subject.
At the time I was quite pleased with the results and I feel the series holds together well, without being too repetitive, but of course that is just my opinion, and clearly I have a biased judgement.
Have a look, and tell me what you feel, it might be nothing, you may shout "cliche", or it might offer a similar intrigue I felt while taking them and seeing them on screen as a series afterwards.
As a series, is it better to keep the same landscape or portrait orientation throughout? Rightly or wrongly, here I chose the orientation to help the image composition.
I do enjoy making photo series, sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the individual images - but not always ;(
#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

This was originally part of the set, but overexposed in error, maybe should they all be overexposed, rather than all being slightly underexposed as now?
