Randall Slavin "Achromatic" exhibition

Thanks for posting the pics Renegade! Some of the pics have the feel n look n style from Peter Greenaway's TV Dante Inferno - ahhh happy days when Channel 4 was quite frequently showing nudity in arty programmes in the afternoon!

 

FINALLY CHRIQUI - INCREDIBLE!

 

It's better not to click on the pics, enlarging them only makes them look terrible. Anyway thanks for your effort renegade, I just wish we got a look at the original pics before they were blurred.

 

Auto Contrast is exactly what I used. Anything more just muddled it more.

 

This photographer took some very beautiful women and made them ugly. What a shame. His exhibition is pure crap. Sorry but why revert back to the day of the Kodak Brownie and cheap lenses. He should never be allowed to photograph anyone!

 

We can only hope that the outtakes from these shoots see the light of day

 

I'm no art critic, but it's his vision. You can still appreciate the curves of the female form without high-resolution closeups of nipples and labia. I understand the frustration, though.

 

I usually enjoy black and white photography, but these images are just criminal.

 

Thanks, renegade!

 

this photographer is an absolute wanker. imagine having these gorgeous women in front of you, butt naked, and he takes such stupidly shit pictures. dickhead

 

Im no fancy pants artist but I just being black and white and blurry doesn't make it or artistic or great pictures unless you are 14 and just discovered the blur and black and white filters in photoshop.

 

Hmm. Okay.

 

This Randall Asshole build them from Lego , i'm sure

 

When I see boring/nothing all that interesting photos like this and the fact it's getting an exhibit, the first thing I think of is...

1 -Who were/are the parents of this person? Are they socialites, celebrities, famous fashion/celebrity photographer, or some type of big industry person?

2 -Who is this person married to? See above for the types.

3 -How attractive is the photographer? If it's a female, she's typically model looking. If it's a guy, you can expect him to look like the lead singer of a alt-rock band.


It's usually answered immediately with those three questions and find my generalizations are right a good 90%+ of the time.
I've been involved with photography for a long time. If you have exceptional talent/hard work, you can make it big.

It's just not the case a lot of the time....when it's photography that makes you think "this is nothing special, how is this person getting famous people to pose, a book deal, an exhibit, etc.." almost every time it's a combination of 2 or 3 of those generalizations mentioned above. The photography industry is full of these types while so many of the truly talented are ignored.

 

I, like everyone else, seem to be frustrated that there weren't clearer pictures released, but it's his art and he can do as he pleases. It wasn't just about taking nudie pics; it was an homage to a different photogs style using beautiful models instead. Again, I couldn't give a crap about all that and just think we're lucky to see some of our favorite actresses (Emmanuelle) and models naked at all especially when they wouldn't be otherwise. I take consolation in the fact that the original or outtake images are out there somewhere.

 

Seriously, we likely never would have seen Emmanuelle without this exhibit, no matter how shitty you think it is. And on top of that, the cleanup work the guys on the forum have done have given us a pretty damn good look - I'm just happy her pic was from the front, not laying down from the side!

Btw, would be super grateful if the rest of the pics on this thread could get the same level of cleanup work that Emmanuelle's has - would love to see Jarah's especially!

 

totally agree with this. that'd be so good

 

Wonder if we'll see the Kelly Brook and Natalie Loren nudes he's got.

 

I feel like the point of his exhbition was to wave it in everyones faces that he can get hot chicks to pose completely naked for him, some even with legs spread and stuff... and he gets to see it and the rest of us get to see just enough to know what he got to see. There is nothing artistic about it. My rule of thumb is, if i can recreate it, its not art. And taking the famous hot models out of the equations, i could recreate this garbage...

 

He doesn't need a gallery to show that. His entire career is proof of who and what he can shoot, beginning with his Charlize Theron pictorial for Playboy. This was his attempt at art. Whether it worked or not is subjective, but he doesn't need to validate his career to the likes of us. He doesn't know or care about people posting on forums like this.