India by Dariusz Klemens

You're on Page 2 of 3
Go to
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    Thanks for the link Maciej.
    nice photos ... I loved them ... It gave me lots of new ideas.
    BTW I am going to India for six months in July end and I am still contemplating if I should buy the 70-200 mm L lens by canon .... I do have the 17-40 mm L.
    I will be mostly trekking in Ladakh and other parts of Indian Himalayas and the only kind of photography that I was thinking about doing with 70-200 mm L would be probably to take a close up of the moutain peaks during the sunset ... but than carrying another lens on a trek would pose another dimension of problems too .... i was wondering what would be your view on this issue ... should I buy and take the 70-200 mmm lens with me or not.
    Your feedback would be very appreciated ...
    regards .... sarju
    The only kind of photography that I can visualize
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    Hi, Greg. I actually think his photos do have great feeling, which is expressed not directly from what he shoots, but, and so important for vibrant personal photography, how he shoots it, because of who he is.

    His angles and space positionning are varied, his approach to color is both visceral and mature, and I seem to discern quite a lot of respect for his subject (let's say India!). It may not be emotion worn on the sleeve, but photography actually does not lend itself too well to outward sentimentalism projected from the photographer. His technique allows him to tell us in many ways, not only about India, but also about himself. I think for myself, that maybe what Maciej mentions in opportunities lost may have to do more with totally expressing oneself thru photography than just catching something missed and doing it well. that type of photography may induce feelings, and even catch prizes and publishing contracts, it's the first type that will leave its mark, and reveal what is behind the image.

  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    Oh man! You are not kidding Maciej, stunning work with deep colors and metoculous compos. Inspiring. Thanks so much for this, which proves that just when you think you've seen evetry way there is to capture India, youre wrong!
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    With all due respect, Claude is a highly revered "teacher" for many of us on TE, a Pro among Pros, and for very good reasons. There is in his work a refusal to PUSH colors beyond credibility, to remain true to the orginal cast of colors, a delicate sense of composition (partly inspired by his profound study of certain painters), and a rare sensitivity to his subjects.
    I suspect that he finds Klemens' work a little "vulgar" in its treatment of color and differing form his own.
    I personally like both in their different ways.
    For you to describe Claude's stirling work as "dull, bland and uninspiring" is beyond isn't even fair.
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    naturally Claude has every right to express his opinion not because he’s a good - or a bad - photographer, but because he’s an individual. However, Claude did not express a reasoned opinion; saying that the pictures “aren’t all excellent” and that he “likes them better on the site” than in the book are broadly negative comments that tell us nothing at all about ‘why’ Claude feels this way about the images - either in the book, or on the site.

    I thought this was unhelpful and turned to his pictures to understand where Claude – as a photographer - might be coming from; what he might consider to be an “excellent” photograph. There would be no “logic” in the thought that “someone showing his work about the same subject cannot express his opinion”. My logic is that someone showing his photographic work AND expressing such a vague, unsubstantiated opinion means to let his own work speak of his photographic criteria. Perhaps I was guilty of assuming that Claude’s photographic standards were exemplified by his own work.

    I found his pictures to be comprehensively dull and I said so, specifying that his framing and his exposure made his work bland, and therefore IMO uninspiring. I am not sure why you find this so unacceptable; I simply said what I liked, what I did not like, and why. I thought that’s what discussion forums were for. Astonishingly, not a single one of the replies to my comments addresses the points I was hoping to throw into the debate; we still don’t know what Claude – considers an “excellent picture”, or why he prefers one medium over another.

    Ultimately, the problem is not that I don’t recognize Claude’s right to express an opinion - the problem is that you believe that only photographers have a right to express a view on the work of other photographers. That’s like claiming that only musicians have the right and the ability to pronounce on music.

    While it may be frustrating to think that the person judging your work is not a photographer, in real life, photography is not about what you “have in your portfolio” – an expression used mostly by photographers - but what images you have that grab the imagination of ‘the public’. Sadly perhaps, the public is not made up only of photographers.

    In real life, what makes a ‘great photographer’ is not the occasional good shot, or even the multiple - but unrelated - good shots. A great photographer is – amongst many other things - one who can present a coherent body of work that is consistent in both quality and style. That’s why discussing quality and style is – or should be – important on a forum such as this, which aims to foster critical debate about photography.

    Perhaps my intervention was unpalatable, but neither “cowardly” nor “anonymous”. As for the accusation of “blind idolatry”, you confuse admiration with adulation, forgetting that a ‘critical view’ need not be a ‘negative’ view. Unfortunately, to a non-photographer, criticisms put forward in the absence of a reasoned critique, inevitably end-up sounding like “sour grapes”.

    I hope the above clears up the cowardice matter. It may surprise you to know that there are people like me, who join discussion forums for the pleasure to ….well…discuss! I did not realise that on TE you had to show a portfolio in order to comment. Perhaps someone could clear this point for me?
    If on TE a “worthless coward” is someone who does not take pictures, then I am one. But if on TE the general rule that a coward is a spineless, fearful person applies, then you might look closer to home, to all those who area afraid to engage in an open debate.
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    Francis, thank you for restoring a much-needed measure of civility to this discussion. In light of your comments, I attempted to re-visit Claude’s portfolio, but it seems to have disappeared. Where else can I see his work? You say he’s a pro, can you direct me to any of his publications please? Unfortunately, it’s been so long since I saw his work, it’s hard to comment from memory. Perhaps that’s just the point – his images were not memorable for me, they did not touch me in any way.

    The overall impression I had of his work in India was of a lack of colour, and poor – in the sense of ‘over-self-conscious’ framing, as I recall. In any case, those are technicalities, and as such they don’t really describe the impact – or lack of – any photograph. Colour, composition, framing etc. are necessary categories we use to dissect a photograph; but a photograph is much more than the sum of these things. As Herve acknowledges, a photograph is - or at least can be - a two-way mirror; in an image, the eye that orchestrates the different elements comes through. We may talk about this in terms of ‘missed’ or ‘captured’ opportunities, but these are such on account on whose doing the looking.

    Hence, perhaps, the curious phenomenon of those pictures which, despite being ‘perfect’ in every technical respect, leave us totally un-moved and their opposite, the pictures that break every rule in the book– and yet make perfect sense - visually.

    I think you are saying that Klemens artificially manipulates his colours; I don’t know about this, (though somewhere on he says he doesn’t) but I can think of other photographers whose colours of India – and elsewhere - are equally saturated; foremost amongst them, of course, the Master, Steve McCurry. If their colours are “vulgar”, what would you make of Allan Harvey’s acid greens and scarlet reds present in so many of his pictures of Cuba? And what about Alex Webb’s work? You see my point, I think – how do we decide whose colours are credible?

    I’m sorry if I offended your guru. Not being familiar with his reputation on TE, I did not realize that saying that IMO his work was “dull, bland, and uninspiring” would create such offense. But judging from the defensiveness of most responses, I suspect many of you know that such an opinion would only be taken as “harsh and unfair” within a small, virtual community. That’s the point I was trying to make to Jose – in the real world, strong images hold up to scrutiny - regardless of which ‘portfolio’ they come from.
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    <b>”Astonishingly, not a single one of the replies to my comments addresses the points I was hoping to throw into the debate; we still don’t know what Claude – considers an “excellent picture”, or why he prefers one medium over another.”</b>

    Maybe that happened because you made an aggressive “kill entry” and murdered the entire mood for a civilized discussion!!!

    Do you think that Claude could not substantiate more his opinion? Do you think he is that dumb?!

    If you did not agree with him and felt that he did not give solid arguments why haven’t you asked for him to be more specific? Why the need to automatically bash down his work?

    <b>"people like me, who join discussion forums for the pleasure to ….well…discuss!"</b>

    In this issue you’ve got something to learn… politeness… And not to rush into conclusions over someone based on a simple opinion…

    As I said, if you’ve got doubts over someone’s opinion try to get more information from him to build a good argument. That’s the way to DEBATE ideas. What you did was to discuss with people - in the negative sense of the word.

    This thread is dead a buried to me - after all Claude’s not a member here anymore.
  • Re: India by Dariusz Klemens
    I hope the above clears up the cowardice matter. It may surprise you to know that there are people like me, who join discussion forums for the pleasure to ….well…discuss! I did not realise that on TE you had to show a portfolio in order to comment. Perhaps someone could clear this point for me?
    with pleasure, ever heard of the phrase talk to talk, and walk to walk? Right now you are just talking, and if you were walking you would be looked upon differently, that applies everywhere not just TE. You alse made a mistake of crapping on Claude's work as a whole, quite pointless here, the thread is about Klemens' work, should stay on track, you want ot comment and critique Claude's work, go to his photographs or his portfolio and do it there. Why didn't you stop after one paragraph about Klemens? such negative and shallow remarks about someones portfolio aren't in the spirit of this site, and aren't helpfull one bit. You want to express your opinions go to individual photos and point out the good, bad and indifferent, post your own samples and explain why you think it could be done differently and how. Want to be a part of discussion forum, by all means, but joining for a single purpose of participating in one thread doesn't make you a community member at all.

    And if you want you can see Claude's photos in the link, I am sure he is looking foreward to hearing from you again?
  • wild west
    Watch out: here comes the Clint Eastwood of discussion forums – he who knows how to talk the talk and walk the walk. Peter, I’m sure discovering there was no conspiracy behind my comments was disappointing, but really: get over yourself! I’d ask in what measure my remarks are any more “shallow” than yours but as it’s clear by the tone of yours and Jose’s riposte that you have no discernible critical stand-point, that would be futile.

    Jose, I never suggested, or implied, that Claude was unable to substantiate his opinion; I merely remarked that he had not done so, on this occasion. Thank you both for enlightening me on the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ of virtual etiquette. Noted that I don’t fulfill the minimum requirements for ‘belonging to the community’ you so efficiently police.

    Perhaps this will put an end to the ‘the evil intruder’ sub-thread and permit those who are interested to focus on what matters: the photographs.
  • Re: wild west
    focus on what matters: the photographs.
    You’re right- the photos are what matter. don’t have any. Why should we believe anything you say? There’s no proof that you have any idea about what you’re talking about. Instead, you just kind of insulted some people. But let’s put that behind us for a moment- you’re what I’d call a new member (not time, but activity). We all make mistakes when we’re new members. Why don’t you post some work, show us your skills, do some critiquing and maybe give some advice (Not dissing other members, but advice). That’s kind of what TE is about- it’s not just a forum. So Alex, welcome to TE- I hope you’ll be able to be a valuable member. You obviously sound like a very opinionated person- use it for the good; prove yourself worthy of your “get off of my planet” slap-downs.