The series is growing, with each new person something expands and changes in the process.
For some reason, I initially decided that this series wasn't interesting to me. I'm all for minimalism, but it's boring. Studio photography is boring, a dark background is boring. There's nothing here for me. And so, for the third day now, I've been looking at this photograph, once again convinced that it's pointless to confine the immensity to a small box labeled "mind." A box where only countless stereotypes live and multiply. Whether it's a personal liking for the subject that draws me to this shot, or the well-placed hands, or perhaps the lace or the penetrating, deep gaze, it doesn't matter, the fact remains. The fact is that everything absolute is entirely relative, any "I know" is based on the shaky foundation of "I don't know," and opposites are a double-edged sword.
Mono, Interesting. That's what I'm talking about, but perhaps it's too confusing. It was a revelation to me that with all the same "simple" you can end up with "complex." "A slightly different person," but how differently the photograph is perceived. For me personally.
This doesn't mean this shot is better than others in the series; it's simply a matter of attitude. What I didn't like in the previous ones, caught the attention of dozens of others. The beauty lies in the existing differences. That's why I'm talking about stereotypes
On the other hand, what does "interesting" mean? Why should a person be more interesting than something else? For example, a snail or the folds in a pair of trousers. It doesn't matter what games a child plays—for them, only the game matters. It's the same with the mind. But if we delve deeper, we'll come back to the question of stereotypes and individual preferences. The habit of considering a person more interesting than everything else is just a habit.
And I'm not suggesting taking a photo of your own pants instead of a person's face
Simply a stunning portrait. Of course, I understand that the author will ignore the question again, but I'll take a chance and ask: how was the lighting positioned in this photo?
grimy, Sorry, I didn't see the question right away. It's simpler than you might imagine. The light comes from three windows in the studio. The windows are above the model's eyes and are located in the center and on the sides. So, I didn't set up any lighting at all.
And so, for the third day now, I've been looking at this photograph, once again convinced that it's pointless to confine the immensity to a small box labeled "mind." A box where only countless stereotypes live and multiply.
Whether it's a personal liking for the subject that draws me to this shot, or the well-placed hands, or perhaps the lace or the penetrating, deep gaze, it doesn't matter, the fact remains. The fact is that everything absolute is entirely relative, any "I know" is based on the shaky foundation of "I don't know," and opposites are a double-edged sword.
Thanks for another "boring" shot.
This doesn't mean this shot is better than others in the series; it's simply a matter of attitude. What I didn't like in the previous ones, caught the attention of dozens of others. The beauty lies in the existing differences. That's why I'm talking about stereotypes
On the other hand, what does "interesting" mean? Why should a person be more interesting than something else? For example, a snail or the folds in a pair of trousers. It doesn't matter what games a child plays—for them, only the game matters. It's the same with the mind. But if we delve deeper, we'll come back to the question of stereotypes and individual preferences. The habit of considering a person more interesting than everything else is just a habit.
And I'm not suggesting taking a photo of your own pants instead of a person's face
Of course, I understand that the author will ignore the question again, but I'll take a chance and ask: how was the lighting positioned in this photo?