JLC Images wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=4782d0dd5dc59&date=2008-01-07%2020:24:47&id=260467&pid=5210142

So far I love the tones and pose of this image the best.

I would only suggest change the name of it to
"Worst Toilet Paper EVER"




On a serious note I would love to hear more about this image

Be glad to.
This was a model that I had been using for several years.  She had not posed nude before she came to work for me and was rather inexperienced in modeling.  After about six months we had developed a good working relationship and she knew what I was after in my outdoor work.  I do like somewhat contorted poses, and she was good at giving me those.  Very flexible and lean.  I took her on two trip.  One to Arizona for a week and one where we just drove around the country stopping wherever there looked like a good place to shoot.  She never wanted her identity to be known so I used the name of Faith for her.  On this shot we had stopped at a small river with these boulders strewn about in it.  I let her do what she wanted this time and she struck this pose.  That's about all there is to that story.  I had to stretch it out to write something here.  She left me for the hip hop industry a couple of years ago, but I have some 6 thousand images of this fine lady to wade through from time to time.

Topless New York wrote:
Woo!  Got my first vote ever tonight (at least I don't remember having gotten one before).  In celebration, add my name to the critique-able list.  I've got a thick skin and I want to become a better photographer, though I do think I've improved already.

You are on, thanks.

LalaineNudes wrote:
I want to know what people didn't like about mine. But I have normal skin so be nice, lol.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5185202

I am not really feeling the color or the crop.  I kinda feel like it needs to breathe a little more

Amedeus wrote:
I had following favorites after battling slow servers for the 40 minutes it took to see all the entries today ...

Broke my heart to have to choose out of the above and it appears I can't comment why the last image in the list got my vote ... maybe I get back to this later ...

There were others I "liked" but didn't have enough oomph to make it to the list.

Rudi.

Yep, things were very slow going tonight. 
I find it interesting that quite a few people who do not win, take their images down right after the votes are counted.  I guess to make room for a new upload.  I find myself guilty of that too sometimes.  I have regulars that I like to leave in my portfolio and they have either been seen already or they are not 18+.  I have a couple of spaces I rotate images in and out of.  But I find it intriguing that someone thinks their work is good enough to enter, yet pulls it down because of others not thinking it was great.  One ends up producing what others want that way and not producing what you want.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

Yep, things were very slow going tonight. 
I find it interesting that quite a few people who do not win, take their images down right after the votes are counted.  I guess to make room for a new upload.  I find myself guilty of that too sometimes.  I have regulars that I like to leave in my portfolio and they have either been seen already or they are not 18+.  I have a couple of spaces I rotate images in and out of.  But I find it intriguing that someone thinks their work is good enough to enter, yet pulls it down because of others not thinking it was great.  One ends up producing what others want that way and not producing what you want.

Mine is still up. I like it. Who cares what you boneheads think!

LalaineNudes wrote:
But I have normal skin

Looks kinda blue to me...!

LalaineNudes wrote:
I want to know what people didn't like about mine. But I have normal skin so be nice, lol.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5185202

I had two issues with yours kiddo.  First, I liked and was happy with the crop.  The color didn't bother me either.  I liked the contrast.  That is what really drew me in.
What did bother me was: 1) That one wad of hair on your shoulder.  Didn't need to be there, and it took away from the lines of the body.  2)  the eyes and mouth (at least I think that's what I am seeing) were so blackened by the elevated contrast that it looked cartoonish.  Catch 22.  Loved the contrast for the hair and skin but didn't like it for the facial features. 
Gorgeous body and pose by that model though!

"Mine is still up. I like it. Who cares what you boneheads think! lol"

Give em hell girl!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

I had two issues with yours kiddo.  First, I liked and was happy with the crop.  The color didn't bother me either.  I liked the contrast.  That is what really drew me in.
What did bother me was: 1) That one wad of hair on your shoulder.  Didn't need to be there, and it took away from the lines of the body.  2)  the eyes and mouth (at least I think that's what I am seeing) were so blackened by the elevated contrast that it looked cartoonish.  Catch 22.  Loved the contrast for the hair and skin but didn't like it for the facial features. 
Gorgeous body and pose by that model though!

Thank you.

LalaineNudes wrote:
I want to know what people didn't like about mine. But I have normal skin so be nice, lol.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5185202

I didn't dislike it at all.  I was just missing.

First the blue...it wasnt apparent to me why, what you all were trying to convey.  I think that give the composition and lighting...the blue is a distraction.  The hair covering the face, there is little connection between the subject and viewer.  But in all truthfulness...the lighting on the photo was just really flat looking to me.  You have a lovely figure...some minor tweaks in the light and you could have looked quite a bit better.  In my mind...those three points kinda left me flat.

Please also understand.  This is not a slam on you...the model.  Your a lovely woman...I just think the combination of flat light, obscured face and blue tone was confusing and detracted from you..the model.

Jason A Hopkins wrote:

I didn't dislike it at all.  I was just missing.

First the blue...it wasnt apparent to me why, what you all were trying to convey.  I think that give the composition and lighting...the blue is a distraction.  The hair covering the face, there is little connection between the subject and viewer.  But in all truthfulness...the lighting on the photo was just really flat looking to me.  You have a lovely figure...some minor tweaks in the light and you could have looked quite a bit better.  In my mind...those three points kinda left me flat.

Please also understand.  This is not a slam on you...the model.  Your a lovely woman...I just think the combination of flat light, obscured face and blue tone was confusing and detracted from you..the model.

Thank you for your input. The covering my face was my call. At the time I did this set, I wasn't sure if I wanted my face showing in my nude shots.

LalaineNudes wrote:
I want to know what people didn't like about mine. But I have normal skin so be nice, lol.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5185202

This was one of the pics I "liked" but crop is tooo tight for me ... translates to: I didn't see the purpose of this particular crop. 

I wanted to see the lips in this one.  I'm ok with the hair and lack of eye contact

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

Yep, things were very slow going tonight. 
I find it interesting that quite a few people who do not win, take their images down right after the votes are counted.  I guess to make room for a new upload.  I find myself guilty of that too sometimes.  I have regulars that I like to leave in my portfolio and they have either been seen already or they are not 18+.  I have a couple of spaces I rotate images in and out of.  But I find it intriguing that someone thinks their work is good enough to enter, yet pulls it down because of others not thinking it was great.  One ends up producing what others want that way and not producing what you want.

I totally agree with your last sentence here.  Space can be an issue though, I'm no stranger of rotating pics in and out myself.  Got the 100 slots now so I really don't have to do this anymore for a while ... lol

Amedeus wrote:

This was one of the pics I "liked" but crop is tooo tight for me ... translates to: I didn't see the purpose of this particular crop. 

I wanted to see the lips in this one.  I'm ok with the hair and lack of eye contact

You can kinda see them if you look hard, lol.

LalaineNudes wrote:
Thank you for your input. The covering my face was my call. At the time I did this set, I wasn't sure if I wanted my face showing in my nude shots.

I totally understand.  Glad to see by your port you decided to show your face.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I've got to jump in here and say that I just went through Tuesdays submission that have been entered already.  You think Monday was tough.  Wow!  Going to be one heck of an evening tomorrow.  Hope things run a bit faster on this site by then.

I'm not entering EVER AGAIN! **cries**




Ok, totally kidding, lol. Let me know when it's a weak day.

LalaineNudes wrote:

I'm not entering EVER AGAIN! **cries**




Ok, totally kidding, lol. Let me know when it's a weak day.

If you don't post something of yourself for me to look at I will have to come there and take my own pictures of you.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

If you don't post something of yourself for me to look at I will have to come there and take my own pictures of you.

You know that makes me want to NOT post, right?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Since I've already received two comments on this image both having  to do with lighting I thought I say how it was done.  If thats a rule violation let me know and I'll pull this post


18 +

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=5212597

18+

This was shot in a very small hotel room so small in fact that there was no room for the 'standard' spread on the light stand legs between the bed and the wall on the Model's right.  I was using two Speedotron black line heads fired off a 1200 w/s Speedo power supply into 36 inch silver umbrellas one on either side of the model at ceiling height but not necessarily aimed directly down at her.  Against the wall to her left was a red backdrop. 

Camera: Pentax K10D with the 18-55 lens.  ISO 100

OK your honor since the defense brought it up I guess he's open to criticism.

You forgot to mention that it was at f/11 with the lens at 45mms. 
Just thought I would mention it...

LalaineNudes wrote:

You know that makes me want to NOT post, right?

We are going to have to work something out soon.  My skin is drying out from all these cold showers.

Jason A Hopkins wrote:

Oops sorry...guess I missed that.  Note made.

I want to apologize for the late vote Jason, not that it would have mattered in the end but....

16 images voted on, if you include my latecoming, 14 of them got one vote each, with first and second getting 3 and 2 respectively. We're like the SEC this year, we're knocking each other out of the running for the prize! I guess that's odd to me that the votes would be spread out like that. I look at the entries and I expect for some of them to get 6 or 7 at least but if I'm not mistaken winners rarely get more than 5. Is that right?

The variation in vision and composition of submissions is understandable, but it seems our tastes are even MORE varied.

Here's what I looked at tonight in such a rush:

Bobby G wrote:
http://theintimatelook.com/gallery2/d/1 … 9616bw.jpg

18+

I loved this one. I usually don't go for genitalia photos, not that I'm opposed to them I just don't happen to think it's the most attractive portion of a woman. This is beautiful and well lit. I just felt like there was a little too much smoothing on her skin. But it's a very pretty..umm, shoe!

I have more but I can't deal with the mayhem tonight. Too damn slow.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

You forgot to mention that it was at f/11 with the lens at 45mms. 
Just thought I would mention it...

The EXIF data shows?   How do I see that on this image.  It shows in Bridge.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

The EXIF data shows?   How do I see that on this image.  It shows in Bridge.

You did not run it through "save to web" which strips off the EXIF data.  Still there for the world to see.

PHOTO dw wrote:

I want to apologize for the late vote Jason, not that it would have mattered in the end but....

No worries...I sincerely appreciate the vote...even if it doesnt count.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

You did not run it through "save to web" which strips off the EXIF data.  Still there for the world to see.

I don't mind that. How would I get to see it on someone else's image?  Save to my computer and open in PS or some other EXIF viewer?

PHOTO dw wrote:

Jason A Hopkins wrote:
Oops sorry...guess I missed that.  Note made.

I want to apologize for the late vote Jason, not that it would have mattered in the end but....

16 images voted on, if you include my latecoming, 14 of them got one vote each, with first and second getting 3 and 2 respectively. We're like the SEC this year, we're knocking each other out of the running for the prize! I guess that's odd to me that the votes would be spread out like that. I look at the entries and I expect for some of them to get 6 or 7 at least but if I'm not mistaken winners rarely get more than 5. Is that right?

The variation in vision and composition of submissions is understandable, but it seems our tastes are even MORE varied.

Here's what I looked at tonight in such a rush:


I loved this one. I usually don't go for genitalia photos, not that I'm opposed to them I just don't happen to think it's the most attractive portion of a woman. This is beautiful and well lit. I just felt like there was a little too much smoothing on her skin. But it's a very pretty..umm, shoe!

I have more but I can't deal with the mayhem tonight. Too damn slow.

I too liked the lighting on this image.  Very nice.  The top edge of her right leg had a funky white line with jagged edges though.  I thought it was a resizing problem, so I brought it to Photoshop and opened it up to get a better look.  Something amiss there.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I don't mind that. How would I get to see it on someone else's image?  Save to my computer and open in PS or some other EXIF viewer?

As far as I know MM does not support a EXIF viewer, but yes, save it to PS and open it up.  FILE>FILE INFORMATION.
I think most people here use "save to web" which eliminates that data. 
I would like to see MM add a EXIF viewer someday when they get the place running right.  Other site have them and it makes it nice to see what other photographers did to get the shot.  Good learning tool.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I don't mind that. How would I get to see it on someone else's image?  Save to my computer and open in PS or some other EXIF viewer?

Right click, save as. Go to the pic in the folder and right click and look at properties. Click on the summary tab and if it's not in advanced, click the advanced button. All the EXIF data is there if it hasn't been stripped. I strip mine.

EDIT: PC only.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

As far as I know MM does not support a EXIF viewer, but yes, save it to PS and open it up.  FILE>FILE INFORMATION.
I think most people here use "save to web" which eliminates that data. 
I would like to see MM add a EXIF viewer someday when they get the place running right.  Other site have them and it makes it nice to see what other photographers did to get the shot.  Good learning tool.

Or....

PHOTO dw wrote:

Or....

Doesn't leaving it on give you some sort of security although false that you can ID the image when stolen.  Or why would you strip it off?

LalaineNudes wrote:
Monday, January 7th

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5185202

Ok, something I wanted to talk about earlier but got distracted. This photo. Why I did or didn't like it. What can I say about it? The photographer isn't on our list.


Let's say Model Jane posts a submission in the PotD 18+. Win or lose she decides to enter into the thread here. She gives up her name to put on the list and asks for a critique of her photo. I give her a critique. Didn't like the coloring. Didn't like the crop. Didn't like the composition and the image failed to pop.

Photographer Bob gets wind of it and raises hell because I am offering an unsolicited critique of HIS image.

I have seen a thread on this forum with the most ill mannered and rude "critiqier" absolutely pulling no punches in their "solicited by the Model" critiques of images. If I were to come across one of mine in that thread and seen some of the shit that was doled out to this Model about MY image, I would raise hell no doubt. I have never seen anyone get away with slamming MULTIPLE photographers work as I did there. So I pose the question: is it an unsolicited critique when the "Subject" of the photo solicits the critique but the "owner" of the photo does not, when in fact it's the photographer who is getting the critique after all?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Doesn't leaving it on give you some sort of security although false that you can ID the image when stolen.  Or why would you strip it off?

If you have the orig. image with the data on it I think for the purpose of Id that would be enough.
Reasons to strip it off: Stripping off the data reduces the file size for loading a higher quality image to meet the kb requirements.  Also, some people think the world is out to steal their knowledge and don't want to share.
Me?  For web use I always use the "save to web" function because you do get a slight shift in colors and look when you upload an image to the web.  Save To Web creates an image that looks just like it will when I upload it.  It reconfigured it to 72 dpi and sRGB color space for viewing on a monitor, along with reducing the file size to the lowest form available.  As all of my images are something other than sRGB I can note the color shift and make adjustments to the image on how others will see it. 
I don't care about whether it strips off the EXIF data or not...but it does.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Doesn't leaving it on give you some sort of security although false that you can ID the image when stolen.  Or why would you strip it off?

Don't want anyone to know I shot it with a $28 camera. Or a $22,000 camera. Or what my focal length was, or my shutter speed, or aperture, or that the image I am submitting to the PotD is 7 years old.