Eyes of Laura Mars

Eyes of Laura Mars

I was inspired to write this short introduction to this film from 1978 starring Faye Dunaway called "Eyes of Laura Mars" by someone on a photography forum that said that some of my imagery reminded them of the film. I had totally forgotten how affected I was by this film as I had not yet been a photographer, nor had I ever considered the profession at that time.

In watching this vignette about the film, I was struck by the mastery of the images being shown and it dawned on me that none of it was manipulated in Photoshop. That is how I learned photography, never considering, what will I do in post prod once the photo shoot was a wrap. Yes there might be a painted by hand fine paintbrush skin retouching and some dark room manipulation, but not at all what we are capable of doing in post production today.

Some of the images look like they were taken by Guy Bourdin or Helmut Newton. The models were definitely the Top Models of the epoch like Lisa Taylor in the outdoor location girls fight scene.

Some great lighting and great photography from a film that really did (and this is rare) depict an epoch in fashion that no longer exists.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1198

If I recall correctly all the photos were by Newton for this iconic movie.

Yes that was a formative period for me - the late seventies. I was heavily into fashion and clubs like the Embassy (similar to Studio 54)...I sometimes think the Seventies was the last decade of innocence where 'anything goes' before we all became too self conscious

The fashions and photography and style of that period all have a kind of naiivete, and I am a huge advocate of framing everything within the viewfinder and printing what you see. I see PP as a necessary but kind of artificial process in digital photography

It's one of my pet criticisms of modern photography, particularly amateur photography, that once photoshopped, there is a depressing sameness about so much work.

All skies are perfect summer or heavy 'moody' cloudy. All pictures tonally cover the entire brightness range. Skins are blemish free. There are no trees or telegraph poles in the 'wrong' place.

In the end, amateur photography is becoming a series of picture postcards.

I'm obviously generalising here and there are great exceptions to what I'm saying. But this sort of 'prettify' process is so easy to do with PS that it is becoming ubiquitous and ultimately boring. Just as there is 'lift' music, we are now getting a kind of 'lift' photograph.

And I don't exclude myself from this process, I hasten to add!

A man after my own heart. I hate the homogenising of photographs too. Ok so the human eye has a greater dynamic range than a digital camera sensor but it doesn't mean we have to make everything "tonally cover the entire brightness range". Sometimes in real life we have to squint because an area is too bright for our eyes...it's actually ok to blow highlights and burn out areas in photos to create an effect or emphasize or de-emphasize something. Shock! horror!

No 'elevator' pics for me thank you

Although I can understand what both lemmy and bodyheat try to say, I think a little bit of nuance might be given. If I want to show the blunt reality of a certain view or subject I'll make a video

All depends on what the photog sees or wants his audience to see. As the old painters before us, we as a photographer are capable to turn or twist the truth a bit to our convenience or liking. If I see a beautiful landscape in front of me, I can get very annoyed about that one pylon polluting the scene. I have no problem in helping mother nature to restore order. If I see that castle on the mountain side in France, beautifully lit my the evening sun in that magic hour, I have no problem in cloning out that piece of scaffolding on one of the towers. Does that make me bad?? If so....I can live with it. If I take a picture, I know on before hand there is still some work to do during PP. Its a fact of this digital life we are living in. Denying that would be very naive. Of course you can take the purist approach, but than you have to commit your self to old fashioned slides. ( The larger format, the better)

And how much I like it, It isn't a viable option for me, these days.

I think a good approach should be: Try to make the best effort in camera, with as little as PP possible, without forgetting your own signature/taste/style. It's what separates you from all those others out there. Be prepared to adjust if needed , but respect the overall intention mother nature provides you. So in short: Darken the sky a bit to make it a little moodier.....YES. Change a washed out sky for a more interesting one.....NO. Come back later when the light is better.

Just my 2 cents, obviously.

Martin.

That was pretty much HCB's approach. He never printed anything, and didn't like his pictures to be cropped.

I use the adjustments in a RAW converter purely as a way to get close to what I saw in the viewfinder.

Anything else is not photography a I prefer to think of it.

Well, that's the theory. Of course, I cheat at times! The prerogative of the talentless.

G

All I said, was that I was beginning to find much amateur photography formulaic and bland. That can't be construed as making anyone 'bad.'

Certainly, I don't think that because I don't like something it or its maker is 'bad'.

I really was just stating my point of view. And anyway, just as many people enjoy bland lift music, I am sure many people enjoy what I might consider 'lift' photography.

But hey, Martin, if the cap fits wear it.
As a lifelong blues guitar player, I find nothin' wrong with bein' bad to the bone as John Lee would put it