Petros Koublis

Ooooh. I've finally got the ipad in use. Might subscribe to this now. For under £50 annually, cheaper than buying the magazine.
 
Meh...
 
Cannot really say it does all that much for me :(

Edit: Should really add more the reason I'm not to keen on it is I don't really find the subject all the engaging it left me getting bored after spending a few minutes looking through the portfolio as most seems to centre around a common formula and the processing/look just left me not really wanting to look at the next photo after looking a half a dozen or so
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
His work had the same effect on me as Salgado - sublime/ridiculous. Some of it I love, some of it is chip paper....
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. I looked at the photos on that site and some of them I thought were superb, others I was surprised were by the same photographer.

That said, we're talking about him. ;)
 
I like it, it's different..... I like the use of muted and sometimes washed out colours....it kind of forces your attention to specific parts of the image, it emphasizes parts of the image that you otherwise wouldn't have paid much attention to......
Thanks for the link
 
Marmite photography.
Art is like that, there is no correct view.

Just enjoy, or not!
 
I quite like them, the muted washed out colours seem to be a bit of a thing at the moment, but there are a few in there that look out of place though.

I surprised myself, and actually quite like the flash ones :)


P.s The BJP on the iPad is just perfect, I was loving the print version, but was a tad damaging on the pocket!
 
treeman said:
P.s The BJP on the iPad is just perfect, I was loving the print version, but was a tad damaging on the pocket!
Click to expand...

I started a thread asking about that the other day. At £47 for the year I am thinking of getting the iPad version os I have just gotten an iPad. A few other things to prioritise first but wasn't sure about iPad vs printed.
 
As you probably now, the printed copy is a very nice magazine with good quality paper, and I was reluctant at first, but now I've got used to reading stuff on the iPad, it was a no brainer for me.
 
Bit of a mixture for me, some images I like, some don't do anything and some I would have binned...
 
I'm with the 'meh' crowd on these. I looked and though that many of those images, if placed in the critique section here would have been either ignored or told to learn about composition with a link to some tutorials. But maybe I'm looking at it from a far too logical view?
 
george g said:
I'm with the 'meh' crowd on these. I looked and though that many of those images, if placed in the critique section here would have been either ignored or told to learn about composition with a link to some tutorials. But maybe I'm looking at it from a far too logical view?
Click to expand...
I wonder if that doesn't tell you more about the myopic prescriptiveness of photography forums than it does about this chap's work.
 
ghoti said:
I wonder if that doesn't tell you more about the myopic prescriptiveness of photography forums than it does about this chap's work.
Click to expand...
That is uncalled for.
The only thing that can be said about members of a photography forum is that they have an interest in photography.
The religious and political views, their background and education, even their location will hardly make forum members short sighted about other photographer's work.
 
kendo1 said:
That is uncalled for.
The only thing that can be said about members of a photography forum is that they have an interest in photography.
The religious and political views, their background and education, even their location will hardly make forum members short sighted about other photographer's work.
Click to expand...


I don't think it was meant as a general slur on all the view of the members. I read it as a poke at the formulaic 'rules' that tend to be referenced to (which I do admit to following fairly religiously) when talking photos and asking for critique. ;)
 
kendo1 said:
That is uncalled for.
The only thing that can be said about members of a photography forum is that they have an interest in photography.
The religious and political views, their background and education, even their location will hardly make forum members short sighted about other photographer's work.
Click to expand...
I'd tend towards disagreeing with this, forums do develop a pack mentality, and the general level of critique tends towards not creating anything too demanding.

Back to the artist in question, I too felt some of them were great and some were a bit rubbish. But that's art for you.
 
george g said:
I'm with the 'meh' crowd on these. I looked and though that many of those images, if placed in the critique section here would have been either ignored or told to learn about composition with a link to some tutorials. But maybe I'm looking at it from a far too logical view?
Click to expand...

There would certainly be that happen but as with this thread there would be those that really like the work, those that are indifferent and those that hate it...I'll be honest I didn't see that many composition guidelines that were broken in the ones I saw...
 
MWHCVT said:
There would certainly be that happen but as with this thread there would be those that really like the work, those that are indifferent and those that hate it...I'll be honest I didn't see that many composition guidelines that were broken in the ones I saw...
Click to expand...


Without going too far off track, isn't composition rule number 1, never put anything dead centre of the frame - use thirds instead? So many of his images are just something (a horse, tree or hole etc...) in the middle of the frame with little interest elsewhere.

But I digress, as is always said at the end of every compositional talk, rules are there to be broken, and if it works for him and others then so be it. I just can't get worked up about them.
 
Last edited:
george g said:
Without going too far off track, isn't composition rule number 1, never put anything dead centre of the frame - use thirds instead? So many of his images are just something (a horse, tree or hole etc...) in the middle of the frame with little interest elsewhere.

But I digress, as is always said at the end of every compositional talk, rules are there to be broken, and if it works for him and others then so be it. I just can't get worked up about them.
Click to expand...
No! There are plenty of composition 'rules' that allow for central subjects. It's just the most commonly quoted rule is the rule of thirds, which appears to make central compositions 'wrong'.
 
I liked Yv's comment (literally and metaphorically). Some of his work is inspirational and the sort of thing I'd have hanging on my walls. And some of it is, to quote Yv, "chip paper" ...


Phil V said:
... But that's art for you.
Click to expand...
So true :)
 
george g said:
Without going too far off track, isn't composition rule number 1, never put anything dead centre of the frame - use thirds instead? So many of his images are just something (a horse, tree or hole etc...) in the middle of the frame with little interest elsewhere.

But I digress, as is always said at the end of every compositional talk, rules are there to be broken, and if it works for him and others then so be it. I just can't get worked up about them.
Click to expand...

It's not going off track at all we are discussing his photos the whole point of the thread and central composition that could certainly be argued however there is also a case for central composition in a minimalist setting, as most of these are...it's why I try and say composition guidelines these days are rules is just to rigid
 
george g said:
Without going too far off track, isn't composition rule number 1, never put anything dead centre of the frame - use thirds instead?
Click to expand...

Says who.. and why? :)

I hate putting something on a third for the sake of it. Placing things centrally can give it dominance, and sometimes that's what you want.
 
I don't suppose he cares what we think,he had his work publish in the BJP, little pay day and your work getting around :)
 
Some of it works for me, some doesn't. Seems to be more of an exploration of the landscape of an area, rather than one off masterpieces depicting the landscape in all it's grandeur.

Good to see landscapes that don't adhere to the golden hour / nd filter / rocks in foreground / long exposure / dramatic skies we see so much of on here and in the popular magazines.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Says who.. and why? :)

I hate putting something on a third for the sake of it. Placing things centrally can give it dominance, and sometimes that's what you want.
Click to expand...

Many years ago, during a time as single parent and a camera was beyond my means, I joined a local art club [water colours and paper were cheaper than film/developing] The guy that ran it was a neighbour of my parents and persuaded me to come along, despite the majority of the members being retired folk. One week we had had the rule of thirds discussion, so the following week, to 'disprove' the 'rule', he brought in a print of a painting of a tree, sat bang on the middle of frame, slightly uphill from the eyelevel atthe top of ploughed field, horizon across the middle. The plough furrows converged towards the tree, but more noticable, so did the cloud patterns [I seem to recall that the painting had always caused some disagreement amongst the art community, whether artistic licence had been used to 'arrange' the cloud formation in such a way, but its by the by]. So in effect, the painting was a mass of 'lead in lines' all pointing at the tree, and I loved it! Ever since then I have been aware that whilst RoT is a good starting point, and indeed I use it a lot, there are plenty of times when a different point of view will work better.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Says who.. and why? :)

I hate putting something on a third for the sake of it. Placing things centrally can give it dominance, and sometimes that's what you want.
Click to expand...

LOL, we had a camera club lecturer once who pretty much insisted on the rule of thirds in his lecture on how to take landscape photographs, demonstrating it through his mediocre photographs. I made my excuses and left at the earliest opportunity.......
 
Yep. Agreed.

People who just place things on a third as a matter of rule are just limiting themselves. Your work will be formulaic and all the same.
 
Last edited:
Some of the horizons look wonky. He should use a tripod with a spirit level :)
 
I see a horses arse. ;)

But seriously, I somewhat know and love Greece. The processing is hard to get past (and the site is incredibly slow) but it's a very mixed bag, even though they have a unified style. Maybe his eyes see things differently, or maybe he's just 'avin a larf with the photographic world. Interesting use of on-camera flash in Ombelico. Loved Albedo, but the rest don't stir me and some I'd definitely have binned if I'd shot them.

I have a friend from Kastoria who has taken some quite odd multiple exposure images, and he definitely sees the world differently to most.

Thanks for linking David.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top