Photographer
Z_Photo
Posts: 7079
Huntsville, Alabama, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
Z - could you edit out James' list so folks won't think your quote is the list? sure. but it WAS the list
Photographer
Coarse Art
Posts: 3729
Lexington, Ohio, US
Z_Photo wrote:
sure. but it WAS the list Precisely - WAS being the operative word.
Dave requested that folks not bump that list because he is going to try to keep it current.
As soon as your name is added, your quoted list will be out of date. Conversely, if Mike or someone decides that they wish to withdraw their name, if there are quoted lists in the thread they will still be included in those lists. This might lead people to critique the work of those who do not wish to be critiqued.
For clarity: Dave is not able to edit your posts. So if you place the list in your post, only you will be able to modify it. That would make it a nightmare to try to synchronize.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Good morning all. Y a w n n n n n n ! A soon a I get the tea kettle on, I will have at your image Tom. Critique of Tom's image: https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4686670 First, I like the image very much. If it were mine, it would most likely hang in my home, taking up residency at the end of a hallway or some such place. Would I make a gallery print of it? Probably. Technically the image falls into, "It has it all". Composition is good, but I think I would have tweeked it just a tad differently. That is not important enough to quibble over however. It is simple and uncluttered. Triangles up the wahzoo. Diagonals and wonderful tonal range. She has a statue look about her, and I love that. Lighting is fantastic. Placement of her in the water for the reflection...great. Now...to the meat and potatoes. She is not looking at the viewer. A big plus in my book here. Tiana has come right out and separated the scene from the viewer. She is unaware that we are here looking at her. And, we are not invited in. This removes it from the category of fantasy, where our mind takes over the story shown in an image and continues it, dreaming of what takes place next. We have no control here. This is a voyeur scene, where events will unfold in front of us. A scene where we must absorb things as they are. The lack of disturbance on the water surface; hair wet, but face dried, tells me she has given pause while she looks intently at something on shore. This makes me wonder what I am not seeing. Her facial expression, especially the mouth, does not give indication of pleasure, as though she were looking at a cute furry animal, but more of an unexpected event is about to take place. A noise she hears, and the fear of an intruder approaching into her private world? Or is she just staring off into space giving thought to something that has recently affected her? I'm drawn to that face and wondering what I am not privy to. What is she seeing, with her eyes or with her mind? The image itself, on paper, is simple. The story told is complicated and beyond our ability to control. And I want to know more. Yepper, I would be a proud owner of this one. It will be interesting to see others take on this image.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Tom,
Ref your comment about me selling you, James and Dennis short, I was joking with ref to Dennis' statement, "The Model is the subject of the photograph and should be the center of the rulemaking or breaking in an image.", and was just poking fun at myself.
I get the "Where is Waldo?" comments quite frequently and have learned to roll with them.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
I can see this easily drifting in the direction of a critique thread, and I don't want to see that happen. I think we have a good tool here if we use it properly.
For those of us who are allowing critiques of our images, let us ask for certain images to be discussed when we have questions as to why an images is judged differently than we expect it to be, such as Tom's images above.
I don't want to see, "Critique Me, Critique Me". There are other threads for attention seekers out there that are better suited to that.
Agree?
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I can see this easily drifting in the direction of a critique thread, and I don't want to see that happen. I think we have a good tool here if we use it properly.
For those of us who are allowing critiques of our images, let us ask for certain images to be discussed when we have questions as to why an images is judged differently than we expect it to be, such as Tom's images above.
I don't want to see, "Critique Me, Critique Me". There are other threads for attention seekers out there that are better suited to that.
Agree? Yes.
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
The photo in question:
http://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4686670 18+ DISCLAIMER: The comments offered by me are in no way intended to try and sound like I know all about photography or modeling. Far from it. My opinions about a photo are just that, my personal opinion.
I can surely echo David's take on this photo in many ways. I believe it has the potential to be a phenomenal photo. I don't know why I don't remember this one. To me the lack of detail on her chest would have been the single reason I moved on. Tiana has a textbook beautiful chest in my opinion. My personal dissapointment at not having them both above the waterline to see would not have been enough for me to count this out. I can get past that, but I really feel like my criteria here would have been the overexposure in that one area. The slight overexposure on her forehead I could have gotten past also, but since the theme of the photo is "Female Nude", I would have had a problem with that portion of her body being overexposed.
Out of curiosity Tommy, did you post process this photo in CS2? And if so, did you run it through Shadow/Highlight?
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Okay. Critiquing. I don't like doing it. I like giving praise for photos that I believe had a good amount of thought and skill injected into them. I don't like hearing it myself. I don't mind hearing from the group here but I don't want some rank amateur telling me, "Great pic, but the model failed you in this one". Wtf does that mean? What I am doing is not so much a critique of your skill or the models but more of a reason based on my criteria of an image. You won't hear me say, "I think the model put on a few pounds since she bought that outfit". Thats just mean and has no bearing on what we are trying to do here. Here's what I mean: Why I didn't, or wouldn't, vote for this image. https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1735590 1. I don't feel like there is enough nudity to be considered an 18+ image. My thoughts are, if it can squeeze into the other POD then that's where it belongs. That's not to say that a model has to be completely nude for me to vote for the photo, quite the contrary. 2. I feel like the garter and possibly the stockings are a slight distraction to me. This is something the model and photographer should be on top of and in agreement of. Case in point: The shot linked here http://lh6.google.com/photodw.birmingha … 20copy.jpg was one that Oksana and I agreed should have been fully nude. We started her out with a pair of panties and then moved to draping her with sheer fabric. Nothing worked. She suggested we shoot it like this and when we saw the shot we both agreed that was the way we wanted it. It is a gorgeous shot Tom, no doubt.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Note to self...Calibrate monitor tonight. I went back to Tom's image when you talked about over exposure on the forehead and chest. I had not seen that. I still did not see that, so I brought it up in PS and ran it over. I find that indeed the forehead and chest are off scale. My monitor has not been calibrated for about a month. Now I wonder what my images that I have been posting really look like to others. As for this image: http://lh6.google.com/photodw.birmingha ⦠20copy.jpg I find the feet growing out of her butt a reason to move on. I do not like disjointed body parts for the most part. There was one posted today on the main thread that had a disjointed hand. In that case it worked. Heels sticking out of butts never seems to work, with me anyway.
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Note to self...Calibrate monitor tonight.
I went back to Tom's image when you talked about over exposure on the forehead and chest. I had not seen that. I still did not see that, so I brought it up in PS and ran it over. I find that indeed the forehead and chest are off scale. My monitor has not been calibrated for about a month. Now I wonder what my images that I have been posting really look like to others.
As for this image: http://lh6.google.com/photodw.birmingha ⦠20copy.jpg
I find the feet growing out of her butt a reason to move on.
I do not like disjointed body parts for the most part.
There was one posted today on the main thread that had a disjointed hand. In that case it worked. Heels sticking out of butts never seems to work, with me anyway. He he, good one. That was just an example of the kind of angle I was talking about.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Im behind on things here....just did do a quick scan thru the comments so far, sound great. Got distracted with a lil thread post problem yesterday, and I just found out I have a new granddaughter...YAY!
I will also listen to critiques...put me on the list.
As someone else said, its easy for me to listen to critiques from someone who has a good body of work, even those whose work is mostly from a different genre than my preferences. Not to say a half-baked rookie photog wouldnt make a good observation, one never knows. But of course the odds on that decrease.
Im more artsy than glam, but.....a good image ought be judged on its individual merit, not on whether it fits my style.
To make a point.....I collect and love early period antiques, art of the realism-Hudson River school genre. However while I wouldnt buy much from other periods-styles, I still appreciate the good stuff from all areas.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
Wow, thanks guys! Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Good morning all. Y a w n n n n n n !
A soon a I get the tea kettle on, I will have at your image Tom.
Critique of Tom's image: https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4686670
First, I like the image very much. If it were mine, it would most likely hang in my home, taking up residency at the end of a hallway or some such place. Would I make a gallery print of it? Probably.
Technically the image falls into, "It has it all". Composition is good, but I think I would have tweeked it just a tad differently. That is not important enough to quibble over however. It is simple and uncluttered. Triangles up the wahzoo. Diagonals and wonderful tonal range. She has a statue look about her, and I love that. Lighting is fantastic. Placement of her in the water for the reflection...great.
Now...to the meat and potatoes.
She is not looking at the viewer. A big plus in my book here. Tiana has come right out and separated the scene from the viewer. She is unaware that we are here looking at her. And, we are not invited in. This removes it from the category of fantasy, where our mind takes over the story shown in an image and continues it, dreaming of what takes place next. We have no control here. This is a voyeur scene, where events will unfold in front of us. A scene where we must absorb things as they are.
The lack of disturbance on the water surface; hair wet, but face dried, tells me she has given pause while she looks intently at something on shore. This makes me wonder what I am not seeing. Her facial expression, especially the mouth, does not give indication of pleasure, as though she were looking at a cute furry animal, but more of an unexpected event is about to take place. A noise she hears, and the fear of an intruder approaching into her private world? Or is she just staring off into space giving thought to something that has recently affected her? I'm drawn to that face and wondering what I am not privy to. What is she seeing, with her eyes or with her mind?
The image itself, on paper, is simple. The story told is complicated and beyond our ability to control. And I want to know more.
Yepper, I would be a proud owner of this one.
It will be interesting to see others take on this image. In my OP I mentioned that this was one of those which isn't a particular favorite of mine but one which others seem to be quite fond of.
I chose this image specifically to open the critiques in this thread for a reason:
This image, my reaction to it and others' reactions to it I think are at the core of the hippo, anteater and horse races I mentioned in one of the original 18+ POTD threads.
Personally I am always looking for directness and the human connection. I prefer the elegant punch of blues over a Bach trio piece (although I like the Bach also). You sensed that in your joke in this thread - that I want the model to be central. And really not the model's body or physical being but rather some emotion being conveyed - I want her to be real and to be appear to be there and ready to deal. Her physical being should of course support this and often is an essential part of that conveyance.
While I really like your take on it, I personally don't find it very voyeuristic - voyeurism for me is more along the lines of:
![https://www.blackflute.com/images/nic01010019s.jpg]()
But (and?) this is precisely my point. While typing this I was reminded of a line from some mostly forgotten Jesse Winchester song, something like "some folks like the taste of smokey whiskey, others think that tea's too strong".
Now ... I'm writing this as if I am doing the teaching here. But I asked an honest question and you gave me an excellent answer. You see things in this photo that I do not (or that do not affect me in the same way). Your description helps me see the subtleties that draw people to it.
And thank you for the kind words - like John Prine, I may learn to love it
Again, the point here was that we're going to see things differently. With no more coherent rules than 'It must meet the MM criteria for 18+', entries and votes are going to be all over the place.
Thanks again Dave!
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
PHOTO dw wrote:
DISCLAIMER: The comments offered by me are in no way intended to try and sound like I know all about photography or modeling. Far from it. My opinions about a photo are just that, my personal opinion. Before I address what I feel to be the germane issues please humor me and accept this:
For me, "edgy" means at the edges of exposure . I like zones I - III and VIII - X, usually with slight perference to VIII - X.
I have always sucked at monitor calibration and so even though I don't see it I will buy the blown highlights.
For purposes of this discussion, will you buy that in the print there is detail everywhere except the catchlights?
PHOTO dw wrote:
I can surely echo David's take on this photo in many ways. I believe it has the potential to be a phenomenal photo. I don't know why I don't remember this one. To me the lack of detail on her chest would have been the single reason I moved on. Tiana has a textbook beautiful chest in my opinion. My personal dissapointment at not having them both above the waterline to see would not have been enough for me to count this out. I guess that I get to see 'em often enough to allow me to 'squander' them in this one in favor of the shapes created by the reflection. I'm joking about squandering her breasts but personally I like where I placed her. In a way that was one of the points of the photo ... having breasts fully out of the water would have changed the character of the image significantly IMHO. Ah jeez now you have me pleading the case for subtlety
PHOTO dw wrote:
I can get past that, but I really feel like my criteria here would have been the overexposure in that one area. The slight overexposure on her forehead I could have gotten past also, but since the theme of the photo is "Female Nude", I would have had a problem with that portion of her body being overexposed.
Out of curiosity Tommy, did you post process this photo in CS2? And if so, did you run it through Shadow/Highlight? No, I use PS 7.0 and don't know from Shadow/Highlight (a filter?).
Do you know if CS2 works under Wine? I've heard good things about it and should probably look into it. However as you point out, it probably won't make much difference with a mis-calibrated monitor. I'll see if I can re-work a web size image that reflects the print better.
Thanks so much for taking the time!
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
PHOTO dw wrote:
Okay. Critiquing. I don't like doing it. I like giving praise for photos that I believe had a good amount of thought and skill injected into them. I don't like hearing it myself. I don't mind hearing from the group here but I don't want some rank amateur telling me, "Great pic, but the model failed you in this one". Wtf does that mean?
What I am doing is not so much a critique of your skill or the models but more of a reason based on my criteria of an image. You won't hear me say, "I think the model put on a few pounds since she bought that outfit". Thats just mean and has no bearing on what we are trying to do here.
Here's what I mean:
Why I didn't, or wouldn't, vote for this image.
https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1735590
1. I don't feel like there is enough nudity to be considered an 18+ image. My thoughts are, if it can squeeze into the other POD then that's where it belongs. That's not to say that a model has to be completely nude for me to vote for the photo, quite the contrary. ON THAT POINT I AGREE. IT ISN'T 18+ BUT I DO LOVE IT FOR WHAT IT IS AND I WOULDN'T PERSONALLY CHANGE ANYTHING.
2. I feel like the garter and possibly the stockings are a slight distraction to me.
SEE THIS FOR ME IS A MATTER OF TASTE- I LIKE THE STOCKINGS AND AGRTERS. BUT IF I WERE SHOOTING FOR A MORE ARTISTIC SHOT I WOULD ELIMINATE THEM.
This is something the model and photographer should be on top of and in agreement of. Case in point: The shot linked here http://lh6.google.com/photodw.birmingha … 20copy.jpg was one that Oksana and I agreed should have been fully nude. We started her out with a pair of panties and then moved to draping her with sheer fabric. Nothing worked. She suggested we shoot it like this and when we saw the shot we both agreed that was the way we wanted it.
I LIKE THE SHOT FAR AS THE LACK OF PANTIES GOES BUT I'D GET RID OF THE TWO BUMPS- I THINK HEELS- IN THE BACKGROUND. THEY ADD NOTHING TO THE COMPOSTION AND LOOK OUT OF PLACE VISUAL COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE IMAGE.
It is a gorgeous shot Tom, no doubt. I AM A REGULAR IN A NEWSGROUP WHICH DOES THIS KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME. MOST OF US HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS SOME 15.
THIS CAPS AND INSERTING IN THE DISSUSSION IS HOW WE KEEP TRACK OF WHAT QUESTION OR COMMENT OR WHATEVER WE ARE ADDRESSING.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
PHOTO dw wrote:
Here's what I mean:
Why I didn't, or wouldn't, vote for this image.
https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1735590
1. I don't feel like there is enough nudity to be considered an 18+ image. My thoughts are, if it can squeeze into the other POD then that's where it belongs. That's not to say that a model has to be completely nude for me to vote for the photo, quite the contrary. I can give you a much better reason that you didn't and won't vote for this one: It has never been and never will be entered in the 18+ POTD thread for the very reason you iterate. It does not meet the MM criteria for an 18+ image. That's why I linked it inline in the beginning of this thread instead of one of those from the same series in which nips showed. ;-)
PHOTO dw wrote:
2. I feel like the garter and possibly the stockings are a slight distraction to me. This is something the model and photographer should be on top of and in agreement of. Case in point: The shot linked here http://lh6.google.com/photodw.birmingha … 20copy.jpg was one that Oksana and I agreed should have been fully nude. We started her out with a pair of panties and then moved to draping her with sheer fabric. Nothing worked. She suggested we shoot it like this and when we saw the shot we both agreed that was the way we wanted it.
It is a gorgeous shot Tom, no doubt. Again I think matters of taste here. For us to some extent the black lingerie was an important element - did the fact that we were shooting images for a lingerie catalog at the time pollute our senses? Probably. LOL
Thank you for the compliment. And again as example of cheeta vs. sloth, I find the images in this series much more appealing and satisfying than the 'art nude' that I posted above for critique.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
jandj studios wrote:
I AM A REGULAR IN A NEWSGROUP WHICH DOES THIS KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME. MOST OF US HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS SOME 15.
THIS CAPS AND INSERTING IN THE DISSUSSION IS HOW WE KEEP TRACK OF WHAT QUESTION OR COMMENT OR WHATEVER WE ARE ADDRESSING. and i prefer the forum's quoting mechanism to SHOUTING.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Oh yeah, I'd be happy to go on the list that would like to listen to critiques on my work.
I'm too damned old to really get hurt by negative constructive criticism as long as it is given in a helpful manner. Personal attacks i'll ignore as if i were stone and stick. or rubber and your glue. LOL
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
I live a very sheltered life. My wife and I live (truthfully) out in the middle of nowhere. My nearest neighbor is miles away through the woods. I spend my time alone with the dog and my work. About the only time I talk with real people in person is at art openings. I have geared myself to that style of conversation over the last ten years.
As silly as these people are, and they are very silly in my eyes, they live for viewing art. When I started galley work I avoided openings. I did not want to spend an evening dissecting my work by people who were not there when I took the image. Who the hell do they think they are? Telling me what I meant when I took this image? Asshole art people! Over the years I have learned to listen to them. I actually enjoy art openings now. Maybe I have slipped into being one of them (hateful thought), or maybe I have learned that I did in fact mean something when I took the image, and they are correct.
What we do out of instinct sometimes does have a deeper meaning to us. And sometime that meaning shows up in our work.
I dislike studio work. I mean, I really dislike studio work. Not yours. Mine. Not because of the images, but just because I don't want to be there. I want to be outdoors working. Studio work is just that for me...work. I like to think I am somewhat good at it, but I don't like it. I want to be out hiking around in the wilds with my model, using waterfalls and such as backdrops. I can't wait for summer.
The first two things that strike me when I first look at an image. 1) composition 2) is the model looking at the viewer (me). This looking at the viewer separates the image into categories. Inviting the viewer to partake in the image (porn related), or, keeping the viewer at bay because they do not belong in the scene.
When I say porn related, I am not classifying the image as bad. I love good porn. Just not many good porn image out there. Some of the great masterpieces of the world fall into that category, where the subjects eyes are looking at the viewer, inviting them to partake in the scene.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
and i prefer the forum's quoting mechanism to SHOUTING. i'm cool with that. as you will find out pretty quick I'm very easy going.
I just might need some help figuring out how you split quotes up like you did .
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
and i prefer the forum's quoting mechanism to SHOUTING. see I am very new at this- "shouting" - where does that come in?
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
jandj studios wrote:
see I am very new at this- "shouting" - where does that come in? Was (trying to) gently poking fun - on USENET and many other text based venues, typing in all caps is considered to be shouting.
For these forums, the [quote=username] Text to be quoted. [/quote] mechanism makes a nice clean method for this.
Sadly it's broken a bit (nesting does weird things sometimes) but generally works well.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
typing in all caps is considered to be shouting. yikes, seems that means I've been shouting at people for a while. Haha, they seemed to have taken it well. I'll be more circumspect in the future.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
You are on the list DJ
Seems like most of the regulars are on board for discussions about their images.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
************************************************
************************************************
List of critiqueable (is that a word?) people on this thread:
Shadowscape Studio
Confidential Photo
Tom deL
Tommy Dee
Curmudgeon
PHOTO dw
SLE Photography
Mike Caffrey
Z_Photo
Cherrystone Studios
jandj studios
I will move this list down throughout the thread as is goes along so people will not have to hunt far to find it.
************************************************
************************************************
I have one request here. Please do not bump this list down the page for me. I will need to edit it from time to time and I don't think I can do so to another person's posting of it.
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
*** Post Vote EDIT *** It was suggested that this thread could be used to point out why we were voting for that which we are voting upon. That wan't my original intent for this post but it fits perfectly: Mike made a sensitive portrait of a beautiful woman. Captured her glamour very well, see below. LOL *** End EDIT *** Shadowscape Studio wrote:
2) is the model looking at the viewer (me). This looking at the viewer separates the image into categories. Inviting the viewer to partake in the image (porn related), or, keeping the viewer at bay because they do not belong in the scene.
When I say porn related, I am not classifying the image as bad. I love good porn. Just not many good porn image out there. Some of the great masterpieces of the world fall into that category, where the subjects eyes are looking at the viewer, inviting them to partake in the scene.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
But she is not looking at you, or I. She is looking at him. We do not exist in this setting. We are outsiders, looking in at a private moment.
Had she been looking at the viewer, the entire image emotion and direction would have changed to one of inviting us into that setting and partaking of whatever our evil little minds conjured up as to story line.
With this image we do not set a story. It is already set by the people involved in the scene.
As a side note: Mona Lisa is not looking at the viewer either, but rather glancing off to the side.
I'll be back shortly...
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
But she is not looking at you, or I. She is looking at him. We do not exist in this setting. We are outsiders, looking in at a private moment.
Had she been looking at the viewer, the entire image emotion and direction would have changed to one of inviting us into that setting and partaking of whatever our evil little minds conjured up as to story line.
With this image we do not set a story. It is already set by the people involved in the scene.
As a side note: Mona Lisa is not looking at the viewer either, but rather glancing off to the side.
I'll be back shortly... Agreed. My post was not to be monolithic 'gazing into camera' but rather about glamour.
Edit
This might belong in a PM instead but: I'm frankly a bit disappointed that this was all that you of all people took from my post. It's about the charm - whether we are invited parties directly or vicariously.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
Agreed. My post was not to be monolithic 'gazing into camera' but rather about glamour.
Edit
This might belong in a PM instead but: I'm frankly a bit disappointed that this was all that you of all people took from my post. It's about the charm - whether we are invited parties directly or vicariously. This is all that I took from it because I agree with you on the rest. I saw no point in rehashing your statements on glamour when I concur. I also agree on the charm. But I still believe the entire mind set of the viewer changes when eye contact is made between the subject and the viewer.
I was looking for an image to support my thoughts on the subject staring at the viewer, but I have misplaced it in my filing of some 60 thousand images.
tel est la vie
______________________________________________________
Had the girl in your image above had eye contact with the viewer it would have said to me, "I'm here with this man, but I want you". And at that point my thoughts would have gone to a fantasy of her sneaking away from him and meeting up with me behind some backdrop.
OK, maybe not exactly that story, but you get my drift.
As it is above, I see the charm, the desire, the beauty of it. But it does not take me to the place a slight shift of her eyes would have.
I'm not attempting to argue with you, but rather get my point across about eye contact with the viewer making a whole different scene out of it..
Photographer
ArmageddonTThunderbird
Posts: 1633
Norwalk, Ohio, US
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
This is all that I took from it because I agree with you on the rest. I saw no point in rehashing your statements on glamour when I concur. K ... hope I didn't sound testy. Sometimes I do you know.
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I was looking for an image to support my thoughts on the subject staring at the viewer, but I have misplaced it in my filing of some 60 thousand images.
tel est la vie I have gobs, feel free to borrow ;-)
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Sorry Tom, I continued in my post above.
I hate when people do that too.
Shadow/Highlight is an adjustment that started in the CS versions of Photoshop. With it you can lighten just the shadows or darken just the highlights. Nice tool if not abused.
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Cherrystone Studios wrote:
and I just found out I have a new granddaughter...YAY! Congratulations!!!
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
PHOTO dw wrote:
Congratulations!!! I expect to receive a cigar in the mail.
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
I have always sucked at monitor calibration and so even though I don't see it I will buy the blown highlights.
For purposes of this discussion, will you buy that in the print there is detail everywhere except the catchlights? Absolutely Tommy, and I meant to put in there that I thought it was a beautiful piece. I just forgot. I'm sorry. I love everything about the photo and should have added the positive points about it.
Tommy Dee wrote:
No, I use PS 7.0 and don't know from Shadow/Highlight (a filter?).
Do you know if CS2 works under Wine? I've heard good things about it and should probably look into it. However as you point out, it probably won't make much difference with a mis-calibrated monitor. I'll see if I can re-work a web size image that reflects the print better.
Thanks so much for taking the time! Would you be opposed to me editing the original image? In private of course unless you chose otherwise.
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
Tommy Dee wrote:
*** Post Vote EDIT ***
It was suggested that this thread could be used to point out why we were voting for that which we are voting upon.
That wan't my original intent for this post but it fits perfectly:
Mike made a sensitive portrait of a beautiful woman. Captured her glamour very well, see below. LOL
*** End EDIT *** Ah, Isabella - I could have taken most of my best photos of her with my eyes closed. I'll take lighting credit, white balance credit, but that's basically it - the camer does the focusing. As a model, I'm not sure what it is that she does or understands about how to model, but when I shoot her I'm distincitly aware at how skilled she is - I don't even know what that means, but it's blatantly obvious during the shoot.
As far as post processing, I used preview for everything in my port, mainly to bring up the gamma a little. The ones with the frame are unaltered and none have been cropped.
Recently I looked through a bunch of old photos that were still on my CF card, but i was zoomed in a bit. It was really interesting to see what could be accomplished with cropping. Mainly I prefer the process of capturing the images and don't enjoy the editing process that much. I want an editor!
Photographer
PHOTO dw
Posts: 159
Birmingham, Alabama, US
He he. I just got stomped like a narc at a biker rally. Not one friggin vote.  That photo got a Daily Deviation over on deviantART and I was selling those for $125 at one point. So now I get to pose to the crew, what do you see in this photo and why would/wouldn't/didn't you vote for it? https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id= … id=5053267 I was actually going to enter the other one in my port from this session but since this one had no comments I was kind of curious as to how it would do. Looking at the thread above me it looks like I have some catching up to do. There are a lot of things I want to talk about and add to.
Photographer
Coarse Art
Posts: 3729
Lexington, Ohio, US
jandj studios wrote:
i'm cool with that. as you will find out pretty quick I'm very easy going.
I just might need some help figuring out how you split quotes up like you did . And sometimes I'm really slow on the uptake, sorry. I really meant that with the shouting lightheartedly.
To split up the quotes:
Click on 'Quote' it will open a text area in which you can type. The text area will contain the original post within [quote=username] and [/quote] tags.
These are 'balanced tags' - there is an opening tag [quote=xxxxx] and a closing tag [/quote]. The quoted text will be between those tags.
To insert your response, put a closing tag ([/quote]) at the end of the phrase to which you want to reply. Then type your reply.
To resume the next section you will need to insert another opening tag. You can highlight the original opening tag (swipe it with your mouse then hold the key while pressing the 'C' key) ... place the cursor after your reply (just before the next section of the original message) and hold and press the 'V' key.
The important thing is that the original post be broken into bits all of which are surrounded by [quote=xxxxx] and [/quote] tags. Your responses will then go between these tags - closing tag from the section to which you are replying and opening tag for the next section.
The saving grace is that the 'Edit' link has returned to you can go back and fix it if it doesn't work.
HTH - please feel free to PM me or even ask for my IM ID if you need help.
-Tommy
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Just finished calibrating my monitor.
I will have a go at your image Dennis.
When I brought your image up in the thread I was attracted to several things right away. It's clean, simple and well lit. The tonal range is good.
Let me say something here before I continue further. I am not a stickler for rules of composition. I teach them in photo classes, but only because the students in my classes are beginners. They are learning how the cameras work, and hopefully I can get across to them some of the basic rules that help them create a better image. For those of us who know what the hell we are doing, the rules don't mean squat.
Now, back to yours. I don't like the composition of the image. The objects in there are fine, the models pose is wonderful. The arrangement of the model and the vertical cloth do not seem the best to me. It may be that she is not plumb with the vertical cloth, or appears not plumb because of the perspective. But I think it is that the folds in the vertical cloth that head toward her butt need to continue to her rather than fade away. It would better bring my eyes to her hips and hands, which I see as the central focus point here. Whatever it is, it is giving me trouble The model is smack dab in the middle of the image. That bothered me a bit. I took it and cropped in on the left hand side to where the fabric is bunched on the floor, a bit off the top and bottom to bring the ratio back into play and found that with her a bit off to the left of center the composition looked very pleasing, to me.
I do like that space you have given her on the right hand side.
A tad bit soft on the forehead. This may have been due to the lighting or movement and not your editing, I don't know.
If it helps, your image was one of the final two that I was going over tonight.
I will not comment on the other one as that photographer has not been added to our list yet.
It is a beautiful image, and I hope I have not said anything that pissed you off.
And remember, this is my view of the image. I will not argue someone else's point of view. We each have our reasons, and yours may be totally different than mine.
I would like to see someone else have a go at this one.
|
