1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Detail matters

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Learning, Feb 21, 2017.

  1. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I like the 'Classics Revisited' articles in AP. Sometimes I like the AP recreation better than the original. For me the latest example failed at the first view. I am refering to the recreation of Louise Brooks by EugeneRobert Richee in the latest AP.
    The choice of model, the hair styling, make up, wardrobe ,lighting, and pose are spot on. So much has been done to get this shot right yet it failed. It took a few minutes to realise why, although it just didn't seem right at first view.

    So much of this photograph is down to the near perfect parabola of the lower loop of pearls. This parabola is essential and dominant to the composition. Now I could imagine Andrew being a bit shy about precisely moving the pearls over such a delicate region as a lady's breast but how could not anyone on the shoot not notice what was wrong? Did the team kick themselves after the shoot was done. That kink in the pearls as it passed over the model's unseen nipple spoils the whole thing; a gentle touch to the right would have made all the difference. There is also a slight kink in the upper loop as it passes over the right collar bone but this also occurs in the original; also if that kink had been corrected then the pearls would have encroached on the white skin and is probable best where it is in both photographs.
    Looking at this further, there is also something not quite right just above the neckline at the model's right.
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  2. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    If we are being nit picky about details should not that curve be described as a catenary, not a parabola?
     
  3. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Yes. You are correct. The catenary is a beautiful natural curve. I like catenary suspension bridges better than these nasty efficient cable stay type bridges as well.
    Sorry for the error. Mathematically I seem to remember that it is better described by a hyperbolic function rather than a conic section. Perhaps you can enlighten me. The technical mathematical stuff is so long in my past.
    Edit. Never mind the maths, although I started it, what do you think about the photograph? To me that slight kink, so slight, spoils an otherwise perfect recreation.
     
  4. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Sorry but I am not going to comment until I get home and read the article properly - at the moment I have only seen it in the cover photo reproduced in this forum!

    Incidentally you are in good company in thinking it is a parabolic curve, Galileo apparently thought so too and had to be disabused! Probably in some form of Renascence ding-dong. Also yes I do like the curves of "proper" suspension bridges.
     
  5. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    The recreated version did not offend me when I first viewed it on Saturday but, having revisited it in response to your post, I can see exactly what you mean.

    My problem is that I now find my mind concentrating upon the difference in shape and size of the breasts of the two models - features which cannot be compared directly in the images but can, by the "fall of the beads" to which you have drawn my attention.
     
    Jimbo57 likes this.
  6. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    I hereby dub this scandal 'Nipplegate'.

    Cheers, Jeff
     
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    To be less controversial, how about Curvegate?
     
  8. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    There could be some interesting suggestions if anyone tries to put the two .....gate suggestions together
     
  9. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    Took me some time finding a half-decent copy of the original so that I could do the comparison. I prefer the original.
     

Share This Page