Oleg Volk

2008-09-25 09:42 am
[personal profile] archerships

If you’ve enjoyed Oleg Volk’s pictures as much as I have, you may wish to know that he could use your help.

Original: craschworks - comments

Date: 2008-09-25 05:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merccom.livejournal.com
women have it so easy, all they have to do is wear a dress and they get to carry a gun anywhere! ;)

sorry, couldn't help it.

Date: 2008-09-25 07:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] daphnep.livejournal.com
Ha! I thought "Fundamentalist Mormons are immune from gun laws?"

He should add dates. The picture on the left is way too modern in spite of the dress, the slick photography style alone obscures the point. The cat, while cute, obscures it even more.

Date: 2008-09-25 09:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joblessmusician.livejournal.com
She needs a bonnet, and to be sitting in an old rocking chair, knitting (with the cat on her lap, of course). Then it'd look a little more authentic.

Date: 2008-09-25 09:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] daphnep.livejournal.com
Or if it was just a little more raw...faded, and sepia toned, with a front and center composition (the way everyone took photos, for years and years, until they didn't any more). Or if the model looked more vintage.

It's a crisp black and white photograph of a very contemporary woman kneeling on a floor in an old dress (goth costume?) with a gun and a cat, in studio lighting, no less. I thought it was a portrait of a specific person in the news I just didn't know about, yet.
Edited Date: 2008-09-25 09:13 pm (UTC)

Date: 2008-09-25 09:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joblessmusician.livejournal.com
Yeah, I was confused at first, too. Then, I realized that, in the old days, cats were lethal fluffy killing machines.

Date: 2008-09-25 11:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] infrogmation.livejournal.com
Agreed; see comment below. Sepia effect isn't enough; the whole pose just doesn't look like what would have been done a century and a quarter or century and a half (whatever it's supposed to be) ago. There are lots of subtleties that make the big difference between something looking vaguely old-timey (in the manner of people of today who enjoy a few retro touches in style) and actually looking like something from an earlier era. I suggested changing the caption to simply SAY what era this is refering to.

Who are they?

Date: 2008-09-25 10:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] infrogmation.livejournal.com
Okay, I plead ignorance and don't recognize either of those women and don't know their story. I didn't find an explanation at the link.

Clue/story/context, please?

Re: Who are they?

Date: 2008-09-25 11:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] infrogmation.livejournal.com
Okay, I found it at this post

Probably because I work with archival materials a lot and have internalized some of the subtleties, despite the model's old-timey dress and gun style, a split second look says it is clearly a recent photo, and it didn't occur to me that the photographer intended the audience to mistake it for something it wasn't.

I suggested a change in caption, something like "In 18XX [whatever year relevent] her right to self-defense was recognized by all states" / "Now it isn't".

Re: Who are they?

Date: 2008-09-25 11:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] daphnep.livejournal.com
Yeah, exactly. They're both great photos, but nothing about the one on the left said "In the past..."

And when you're looking at it going "what does the goth kitty girl have that the tattooed girl doesn't?" the whole point gets missed, sadly.

Re: Who are they?

Date: 2008-09-27 04:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reichart.livejournal.com
If you go back to the source of the image, I tweaked it to be more...engaging...


(bottom of this post http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/472588.html )