« DxO News | Main | Just Right: The Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 SL II Aspherical in Canon EF Mount »

Friday, 11 December 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I like :)

Love it.
Excellent heads-up to a previously (to me) unknown.

Cool geometry.

I am seldom envious of other another photographer's work, but in this case I make an exception. Galassi's photos are so good they hurt my feelings.

I have always found this type of photography fascinating. Thank you for posting this.

Thanks Mike for pointing out Gianni Galassi's site. I've added its RSS feed to my reader.

It's not too often that I run across a site that makes me say "Oh! I've got to see if I can duplicate that style!" But this site definitely had that effect.

See Ralston Crawford.

Along with Sheeler, often overlooked talent as photographer in addition to painter.

Rome! Damn, I'd love this guy to teach our summer photography courses in Lugano (1 hr north of Milan, click the name for more). I love those compositions and I'll be checking his blog regularly for some inspiration.

I spent about an hour on his site last week. I believe I found it due to his commenting here on TOP.

Fabulous sense of composition and the geometric form, if maybe a bit cramped at times.

Punchy color is great in this case and I love work that transcends size, in that, these could easily be printed 5 inches or 5 feet.

I'd silkscreen these on canvas huge and hang them in a home littered with 18th century American furniture.

Classic stuff.

Mike, I got a WARNING from Norton on his site - they said it is unsafe!!

"I believe I found it due to his commenting here on TOP."

Me too. [g]


Black shadows? Are those permitted?

There's one photog who doesn't have to wait for dawn or dusk to do his best work.

Beautiful work. As to shooting raw+jpeg it seems to me to be an unnecessarily complex approach ending up with two files for each shot. Which is why I shoot raw only.

beautiful work, thanks for pointing it out.

Perfect for digital!

Thank you all for your comments, I'm really flattered.
If you like my work, please stay tuned.


PS: A special thank to Jeff for mentioning Ralston Crawford.

PPS: Jake, we can talk about courses.

"Mike, I got a WARNING from Norton on his site - they said it is unsafe!!"

WTF? I didn't get any warning. It's hosted by Typepad - the same one this is hosted by. You're waaay off.

I like it, too. It is stunningly graphic.

But it doesn't seem particularly photographic to me. Is every image that originates in light falling on a photosensitive medium or device a photograph by definition? Is this the only definition we need when we think about what a photograph is?

The designer in our publication shop frequently begins her work with a photographic stock image and ends up with something so stylized that the creative work is clearly all in the process--what she has done to the base image. She wouldn't call it a photograph. Would it be different if she had made the original exposure herself?

Let me reiterate: I like the work. I'm just askin'.

Black shadows? Are those permitted?

Only if they don't have noise ;-)

Very good site. Seems to verdict the use of 3/4 as he used GF1.

On bit I was surprise is that the flickr format actually affect his photo format (Square). I like square format but have not thought about that flickr is square format. But it is. Good eyes!

In response to Bill's interesting questions: "Is every image that originates in light falling on a photosensitive medium or device a photograph by definition? Is this the only definition we need when we think about what a photograph is?", my vote is yes and yes.

I think Bill catches an interesting point: should any image coming out from a light-sensitive device be semantically considered a photograph, no matter the apparent breadth of the post-production process?
As well as Murray has a point: the image is qualified by the technology it has been generated from. A photographic device can only give birth to a photograph.
Well, we are dealing with an interesting topic here. Personally, as an art viewer, I have always been fascinated by all works pushing a little further the boundaries of their specific language. And this is what I have been trying to do in my imaging activity in the last ten years.
But I would like this discussion to continue.
And I'll try to put my musings on this matter in order and post an article in my blog within the next weeks.

Inspiring photographs. Giani has a sharp eye for abstract graphics. For me, the standout photograph is the non-square Millennium Church, Rome (shown under the heading "Raw Facts" and again in the linked article for Photo Travel Review Magazine) which looks like a panel opening outwards on a giant telescope dome.

Gianni states "in terms of real world photography jpg and raw looked exactly the same" from his GF1 camera. I'd be interested to hear the reaction of other GF1 owners.

When you look at Caravaggio's paintings you think "They are so good they look like photos!" About Gianni Galassi's works you can say the opposite: "They are so good they look like paintings!" Congratulations, beautiful pictures. Gerolamo Alchieri

""Is every image that originates in light falling on a photosensitive medium or device a photograph by definition? Is this the only definition we need when we think about what a photograph is?""

Is that young woman in the bikini engaged in dodging and burning her very own print as we speak?

Specially for americans:
Louis Kahn [who was stonian] had something very similar, but drawn with colour pencils.
Still, mr. Galassi, very good and recalling Giorgio Grassi and Aldo Rossi.

Very postmodern, but not very eighties.

These pictures are quite surprising. Those photographs where all texture has disappeared could be seen as a kind of revival of an art form called purism which was developed in the early nineteen twenties by Fernand Léger and some friends, all of them painters. Le Corbusier, better known in his capacity as an architect, did also paint along these principles. I would dare saying he also build with this specific sense of shapes in the back of his mind.

For me Gianni Galassis's pictures that show some textures are the more appealing ones. Perhaps photographs live better with some texture than some paintings do.

@ Dave Kee: he explains why he shoots both on his blog.

Rod S.: I likewise have been using a GF1 (and before that, a G1) for much of my "serious" photography and while I wouldn't say the .jpg and RAW files are identical, I can say that 99-plus percent of the time, I'm happy enough with the .jpgs that I don't feel any need to bother with the RAW files. And this is true despite the fact that I'm photographing under very demanding circumstances (nighttime urban scenes where exposures range between 15-60 seconds at f4-5.6).

Although I'm helping out the GF1 a bit by hanging very good glass off of it (Olympus' stellar F2 zooms) and also by converting my images to b&w, my other camera is an 8x10 Toyo, so my quality standards are fairly high.

As Ctein and others keep stressing, the proof is found in the image and not the specs of the camera that captured it!

(And if you're curious, you can find some of my GF1 images at my Flickr site and search for the "GF1" tag)

Jeffrey Goggin,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply regarding jpeg vs raw files on the GF1. I've stayed with medium format and 4x5, but your comments and Gianni's are tipping me towards the GF1 as my first digital camera.

Thanks, Rod S.

I, too, like Gianni's images very much. Very frank, uncomplex technique and concept.

Jeffrey Goggin,

PS: Your Flickr site contains some delightful photographs. After searching on the GF1 tag as you suggested, this photograph stood out: http://www.flickr.com/photos/16926484@N05/4142430886/

Wow! Very impressive. Gianni also selected it as a favorite. Regards, Rod

Thanks for the kind words, Rod ... I'm glad you and Gianni like it. You might also want to check out my photoblog as I'm posting most of my new GF1 images there:



Thanks for pointing these out. Really great style here and certainly something different to look at.

I'm particularly interested as I've been making a series called 'patterns in nature' and these photos have given me inspiration to try new things.

Normally I wouldn't take the camera out during the middle of the day but this just gives me reasons to reconsider.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007