Shadowscape Studio wrote:

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.

Word...

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

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.

thanks, does stripping off the date allow a higher res image to be up loaded and do they look better with the color gamut shift?  I edit at 300 DPI and save that file for prints I then reduce it to 72 DPI for the web.  the current image of Catharine just jumps off the screen at 300 dpi but looks listless at 72. 

Might not read or respond to this again tonight.  I've just been 'holding" her hand after she messaged me about some a$$#0

PHOTO dw wrote:

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?

We discussed this in short yesterday.
This is when being moderator of the thread, one gets a headache.
I looked at it this way:  If the model/MUA/whatever has the right to post the image, they have the right to have it critiqued if they so choose.  They were part of it's creation and are entitled to get feedback on their work.
I won't go into copy right stuff here.  It has no bearing. 
So, until I get thrown in the brig for allowing a model to have an image critiqued of her work when they want it critiqued, I am going to let them.   I assume the site Mods have been monitoring this thread with very close eyes the last few days.  I have not heard any muttering from them, so I am assuming they agree with me on this.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

thanks, does stripping off the date allow a higher res image to be up loaded and do they look better with the color gamut shift?  I edit at 300 DPI and save that file for prints I then reduce it to 72 DPI for the web.  the current image of Catharine just jumps off the screen at 300 dpi but looks listless at 72. 

Might not read or respond to this again tonight.  I've just been 'holding" her hand after she messaged me about some a$$#0

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
And I was going to sit back and not talk tonight because I had sooooo much work to do.

https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id= … id=5206256

244 dpi, 1500 x 1500, sRGB, @ 420 kb

PHOTO dw wrote:


https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id= … id=5206256

244 dpi, 1500 x 1500, sRGB, @ 420 kb

On MM it is 800 X 800 and 77.83 KBs in sRGB

Now I really have to get some work done.  Argggggggg!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

Stripping off the EXIF data takes that much file size away.  If you have a kb requirement on file size you can upload, this may allow you to improve the resolution (which increases file size) and still keep within the limits of allowable limits for file size.
I don't know what color space you keep your images in.  If it is anything other than sRGB you will get a color shift when you upload an image because it will be converted to sRGB.  "Save to web" will shift your work to that color space allowing you to see it like it would be when you upload it.  If the shift altered the colors slightly (and it will if it was not an sRGB color space on your computer) you can then make some color corrections to it before you send it off into cyberspace.
I use to submit work to another site daily.  I was alway frustrated by the way the images looked after I uploaded them.  Black backdrops showed wrinkles; color was a bit funky; shadows were off...  Michael McGowen grabbed hold of me by the shirt tails one day, slapped me up side the head and taught me the niceties of "Save To Web".  Until that point I thought it was for point and shoot people to show snap shots to family members.  But understanding it I saw how I could eliminate the problems I was having with web images looking different than what I thought they should look like.
Valuable tool if you use it for what it was intended.

Stripping of EXIF data will save you no more than 2kB.  It helps.  I don't use "Save to Web" anymore.  Although the compression and size reduction is good in best quality, there is enough colorshift in a lot of images after upload for me to abandon the method.  I do convert to sRGB, must for web publication and viewing on monitor, reduce the pixel size to 600 x 900 or 500 x 750.  I don't care for 300-dpi or 72-dpi, it doesn't matter for your monitor as that one will still display 600 x 900 pixels if that was the original size.  I then save as JPG with 5 or 6 compression setting (on a scale of 12)  I find that this beats the "save to web" option in quality while keeping image size well below 200kB.  By keeping the size somewhat larger, I'm giving the uploader compression some more room.

YMMV

Rudi.

PHOTO dw wrote:

Word...

Thanks for this .... I never even knew that this existed, and this is a good reason to use it.   Amazing the things that you learn in a day!

I feel like such an amature :-(

Magicc wrote:

Thanks for this .... I never even knew that this existed, and this is a good reason to use it.   Amazing the things that you learn in a day!

I feel like such an amature :-(

yeah me too i have no idea what they are talking about but I sure hope I can learn cuz it sounds important.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
That image falls into the category: Many people like it, including my wife who thinks it is one of the better things I have done, and what I think of it.  I have off and on relationships with it.  At the moment I am not all that crazy about it.

This mirrors almost exactly my relationship with the image of Tiana that I opened this thread with. I think that it has too many 'fine art' cues for me to really love it (mine I mean). And again, that is precisely why I chose that one to launch this - hoping to start dicsussions about tastes. It's looking as if this is becoming pretty much an art thread and that's cool too.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
What I do like is that it was not a PS creation.  I also like the memories of it.  Lake Superior in Late September, with a water temperature of about 40 degrees.  I like the brown rocks under the water.  I think it gives a nice balance to the image.  But...I get tired of looking at that broken body.  Maybe I have just been looking at it too long.
The image is sitting framed in my studio where it has resided for better than a year now, unable to find a home in a gallery show.  It just does not fit in with the rest of my work.
Maybe that is why I do not care for it.

Oddly (and so perhaps not surprisingly), I value things that don't fit in with the rest of my work. In fact to some extent I've tried to create enough variety to make that concept invalid. But an image that Tiana and I made last Summer was quite a departure - B&W, miles of DOF and sort  of Newton-ish, I love it and it's one of the more popular in her MM portfolio. Part of what I like about it is that it doesn't fit in.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
And I appreciate your vote. Even if you are an odd duck.

Quark, quark.

And I am happy and proud to report that there are many who love me because I am an odd duck. Go figure, eh?

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
You are correct on the 72-300 dpi, it makes no difference for the file size or viewing.  That only means something to your printer.  And you are also correct that EXIF data does not eat up much space.  I find that Save To Web does give an accurate rendition of what the rest of the world will see, or you will see once the image is uploaded however.
Or you can convert your work to sRGB color space and see what it looks like and go from there.  Either way the image will color shift if you do not have it in sRGB.

I use EDIT:convert to profile and use the sRGB profile....does the same thing i think.  Then I use SAVE AS....jpeg, or whatever...fixes the colors so that MM can't have its way with them.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Morning all.  Tea pot on?

Morning Dave!  Just rolled in from a long night of saving lives and stamping out disease....guess i missed a lively discussion.  Can't decide whether to go to bed and submit later on or stay up and regret it tonight.....

Nancy Wishard wrote:

Morning Dave!  Just rolled in from a long night of saving lives and stamping out disease....guess i missed a lively discussion.  Can't decide whether to go to bed and submit later on or stay up and regret it tonight.....

Almost noon here.  Nap time

Nancy Wishard wrote:
Morning Dave!  Just rolled in from a long night of saving lives and stamping out disease....guess i missed a lively discussion.  Can't decide whether to go to bed and submit later on or stay up and regret it tonight.....

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Almost noon here.  Nap time

I have opted for the nap as well....be back later...

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Almost noon here.  Nap time

This'll wake him up...

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Dennis' image
https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id= … id=5206256
was in the running for awhile but the crop on the top and bottom just did not seem to work for me.  I would have liked to see all of her head in this one, and the heal resting on the bottom crop seemed cramped.  Love the space used though.

Tommy Dee wrote:
PHOTO dw
http://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=5206256

Another that I liked a lot. I'm prejudiced toward this approach to framing (as opposed to symmetrical or almost so). The lighting is excellent as is tonal range. Model's pose and expression fit perfectly. While it wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me, I agree with the comments on the vertical cropping.

Ok, I think I'm seeing good reasons why our votes are so spread out. It's the parameters we are using to "disqualify" images. In the image above both of you disqualified it in your personal preferences by the crop. Now I know we all don't follow the rules of photography all of the time, at least I don't, but I was trained that it was OK to crop like that and in a lot of cases, preferable. As with the image of Deborah, I think that you both found it "uncomfortable" let’s say, that the crop had the subject in the center of the photo.

Now please keep in mind this is not a bitch session by me and a defense mechanism put in place to try and convince you why you should drop your preferences and vote for my images. As Tommy pointed out, I need to take it on the chin a few more times before I can have whine privileges. (I'll have the '99 Cotes de Castillion please) I'm having fun playing and it really doesn't kill me not to win or even get any votes. I have so many images I couldn't latch onto just one or two and be crushed because my favorite didn't win. I like winning, it's just not as important to me as participating in this type of thing. This thread and the learning and exchanging of ideas are what I want from MM.

I find it all neatly curious to discuss and pick your brains about these things, and I learn a lot in the process...

Back to my point...and I do have one.

You voted for this image:



and it won! In fact I was wrong about the vote count yesterday. This one got 9 votes!

You didn't vote for this image:



It got one vote and the disqualifiers seem to be the cropping.

Same model. Same rear end. Same tonal range. With the exception that the first one was cut off at the knees and wrists!

This image has 3 comments and got one vote:




This image got none and none:




They are identical in the cropping department. The second one had the window taken out to focus more on the action of the subject.

This one also won and got 4 votes I think:



No head, cut off at the shoulders, and cropped at the knees. That photo appeared in my 2006 Lingerie Calendar where the theme was anonymity and focus on the product. (see Herve Lewis)







All of them cropped to stay within the theme of anonymity throughout the calendar.

This one from the 2008 Calendar is cropped the same way:



Here is an example of Hollywood headshot cropping http://more.showfax.com/dox/headshots1.htm

And closer to home, a thread here on MM concerning the very same thing we are talking about.

https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=135496&page=1

Now while I have seen evidence of some of the disqualifiers spoken of in this thread actually in the portfolios of those members, I won't get into a discussion about it because that’s not what this thread is about.

Some of my "criteria":

Model Choice

1. Breast Enhancements - This is a models personal choice and a photographers choice to shoot them. Having that in my criteria doesn't say that they are bad, good, or even unattractive. (see below)

2. Breast Size - I'm an itty bitty titty club guy.

3. Breast Shape - Tommy has a perfect example of my preference.

4. BMI - I like them skinny, what can I say?

5. Body Shape - Somewhat of a summary of all the above.

6. Genitalia - Some people have unattractive genitalia, some don't.


Now the rest falls under compositional elements, contrast enhancement, tonal range, DoF, Post-processing, cropping, etc, etc....Mostly falling under the responsibility of the photographer.

Now before you get that Big Red Cartoon question mark above your head, let me point out once again that NONE of the above criteria used by me will disqualify a superior photograph in my eyes.

As with Tommy and David, I know that they don't particularly like that type of cropping. I don't think they are saying that if I cropped all of my images that way then I should never expect them to vote on my image submissions. I think like me, they could look over it for a photograph they simply love, or by attrition, the only one left on the list. That, I guess, as opposed to not voting at all. I would love to hear what everyone else’s criteria is.


This rambling page long post was brought to you by Folgers and Jolt! cola

Jacqui Faye wrote:
Just a quick note from me, Dennis.

Your shot yesterday was beautiful and was extremely close to having my vote.  Again, yes, it was the crop that did it for me.  Unlike some of the others though, I love the use of negative space and therefore I like the landscape orientation of the shot.  Where you lost me was that I didn't feel losing the top of her head added anything to the photo....had it been a headshot, i could completely understand - it would draw closer attention to the eyes and the facial features (the goal of a headshot).

Had the shot been cropped a little closer, too, to lose the lower portion (feet or calves) it would have created balance with the cropping of the top of the head. As it was, it felt to me like a beautiful full length shot with great tonal range which didn't quite cut it as full length...if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Maybe I am being nitpicky, but voila.  Still a gorgeous photo, though and very well done.

Ok Jacqui. Thanks. That makes sense. But I didn't mean to say that I didn't understand WHY they didn't like the crop, I wanted to generate a discussion about our criteria we use for disqualifying and voting. And I really appreciate the consideration but please, I am not defending my cropping of that image. I DO see what everyone is talking about.

Magicc wrote:
This rambling page long post was brought to you by Folgers and Jolt! cola

Brought to you by home sick and nothing better to do except refresh MM pages all day.

PHOTO dw wrote:
This'll wake him up...

Yep, that woke me up.
Models cropped at the knees, above the eye brows, on and on are wonderful crops when need be.  My issue with crops being too tight are when just a slice off the top of the head is gone, or a single toe is whacked off.  If you are that close to getting the entire model in the image, why would you nick a tiny little portion off of her/him. 
Now each image is going to be different, and I'm sure someone can find an image where doing that works, but for the most part I will have an issue with it.
In your sample images #1 was cropped so that we understood that this was a portion of the model only.  #2 said to me, "Here is the entire model, but I just couldn't back up far enough to get her in the frame".  #3 & #4 are totally different images to me.  The pose of the model works in #3 for that setting.  #4 she looks like it was awkward for both of you.  #3s composition works with her centered because the window offsets that.  With the window gone in #4 she is blundering around in the middle of the picture looking for some direction. 
That's my take on it Dennis.  You probably didn't want to hear from me on this, but you are the one who woke me up remember.
And, I mean this with all of my heart, I really like your work. 
It's no fun picking on a bad photographer though.

Edit:  Damn, I guess I missed the point of the entire exercise.
***goes to sit in the corner***

PHOTO dw wrote:
Ok Jacqui. Thanks. That makes sense. But I didn't mean to say that I didn't understand WHY they didn't like the crop, I wanted to generate a discussion about our criteria we use for disqualifying and voting. And I really appreciate the consideration but please, I am not defending my cropping of that image. I DO see what everyone is talking about.

Sorry...wasn't trying to overstep any boundaries.

As for criteria for voting against....Its easier for me, I think, to identify what I look for in an image that will get my vote.

Primarily I look at lighting...hard to be specific here because there are so many different styles and techniques.  In general, though, I look for light that accentuates the model, as well as whether or not it creates a mood or adds to a theme.

Next, I tend to look at the creativity of composition and posing.  Is it awkward?  Does it tell a story?  Where is my eye drawn?

Post processing - unless its extremely well done, less is more with me. 

And lastly, when it comes to models....personally, I am far more drawn to natural looking subjects.  To me, its much more interesting to look at someone who is comfortable with themselves and not someone who is trying to look like they want to fit into a neat little box of idealized beauty.  Not sure how better to explain that, so I hope it makes sense.

PHOTO dw wrote:
SNIP----->  I would love to hear what everyone else’s criteria is.


This rambling page long post was brought to you by Folgers and Jolt! cola

Interesting to see your criteria listed out for us all to see.  You asked...so I will share mine.

I think I come at this a bit differently than most photographers on MM.  I have an exceptional career that is not photography.  Yet I feel I am passionate about my photography, and I DO occasionally exhibit.  I don’t do ANY of this with any intention in mind other than creating images that appeal to ME.  Up until about a year ago...I had only ever shot models in college photography courses...and that was ... damn... a decade prior, you can blame my wife/model/muse for getting me started on this type of work.  I really considered myself more of a landscape guy, though truthfully, I hate being pigeon holed into any genre.  I am a photographer…plain and simple. 

That all said…I don’t know that I have a definable criteria.  I could give two rat farts about the physical attributes of the model in a photograph.  If you want to know what I find attractive…well I married it…go look at my port and you will see (not only is she a looker…she has it where it counts in the heart and mind).  

What I look for in any photograph, in any genre, is first and foremost some sort of emotional connection.  The photographs I like the most are those which cause a response…positive OR negative.  I equally enjoy images that both elate and aggravate.  Whatever the reaction is…that’s what I look for first.

The second thing I look at, and it is a distant second, is the technical merits of the image.  I grew up in the home of a professional photographer and was tutored from a very young age.  I DO understand the technical aspects of photography, and while this is beneficial, I have had to train myself to put this behind emotion.   

While it may appear, on the surface, that my compositions/lighting and the present body of work is more classical.  This is a learning process for me and I have started with the classic forms…a walk before you attempt to fly approach.  This however doesn’t mean that classical compositions and lighting are what ‘do it’ for me.    When I say technical merits I am talking basics, proper exposure, good focus, control of depth of field and I prefer unique compositions.  I am not overly picky…but if for example I am looking at a portrait the eyes should be the focal point of the image…in focus, light well placed, etc.  I don’t have a set look that I like..rather I look more at matching the emotions to the technical approach. 

Hope that makes sense and what you were lookin for!

Jason

Jacqui Faye wrote:
And lastly, when it comes to models....personally, I am far more drawn to natural looking subjects.  To me, its much more interesting to look at someone who is comfortable with themselves and not someone who is trying to look like they want to fit into a neat little box of idealized beauty.  Not sure how better to explain that, so I hope it makes sense.

Fake boobs don't look good unless the person is vertical and wearing clothes.
(She didn't say that, or necessarily imply it.  My thoughts only, expressed here, and I will accept the full brunt of the replies to it)

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Fake boobs don't look good unless the person is vertical and wearing clothes.
(She didn't say that, or necessarily imply it.  My thoughts only, expressed here, and I will accept the full brunt of the replies to it)

i can certainly think of several scenarios where i was quite happy with the appearance of implanted boobs.  i shall not expound on the basis of the 5th amendment!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

Yep, that woke me up.
Models cropped at the knees, above the eye brows, on and on are wonderful crops when need be.  My issue with crops being too tight are when just a slice off the top of the head is gone, or a single toe is whacked off.  If you are that close to getting the entire model in the image, why would you nick a tiny little portion off of her/him. 
Now each image is going to be different, and I'm sure someone can find an image where doing that works, but for the most part I will have an issue with it.
In your sample images #1 was cropped so that we understood that this was a portion of the model only.  #2 said to me, "Here is the entire model, but I just couldn't back up far enough to get her in the frame".  #3 & #4 are totally different images to me.  The pose of the model works in #3 for that setting.  #4 she looks like it was awkward for both of you.  #3s composition works with her centered because the window offsets that.  With the window gone in #4 she is blundering around in the middle of the picture looking for some direction. 
That's my take on it Dennis.  You probably didn't want to hear from me on this, but you are the one who woke me up remember.
And, I mean this with all of my heart, I really like your work. 
It's no fun picking on a bad photographer though.

Edit:  Damn, I guess I missed the point of the entire exercise.
***goes to sit in the corner***

He he, no. Thank you. That's excellent and just what I wanted. I DID want to hear you get down and dirty with it.

Jacqui Faye wrote:

Sorry...wasn't trying to overstep any boundaries.

As for criteria for voting against....Its easier for me, I think, to identify what I look for in an image that will get my vote.

Primarily I look at lighting...hard to be specific here because there are so many different styles and techniques.  In general, though, I look for light that accentuates the model, as well as whether or not it creates a mood or adds to a theme.

Next, I tend to look at the creativity of composition and posing.  Is it awkward?  Does it tell a story?  Where is my eye drawn?

Post processing - unless its extremely well done, less is more with me. 

And lastly, when it comes to models....personally, I am far more drawn to natural looking subjects.  To me, its much more interesting to look at someone who is comfortable with themselves and not someone who is trying to look like they want to fit into a neat little box of idealized beauty.  Not sure how better to explain that, so I hope it makes sense.

No boundaries crossed at all. Seriously. This is what I want to hear.

Z_Photo wrote:
i got so absorbed in the wonderful game LSU won last night geaux tigers!!! that i logged on right atvote time.  by the time this agonizingly slow site cooperated i was too late.

this would have gotten my vote
https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id= … id=5206256 18+

for me a crop has to look like it was intentional rather than an accidental merge with the edge of the frame.  this one just slips by for me.  also, the phenomenon  of highlights drawing the viewer's eye certainly drew mine to a wonderful place!  i like the composition, the pose, the lighting, the model, and that warranted my almost-vote

Thanks Kyle. She lives right down the road from you.

Jason A Hopkins wrote:

Interesting to see your criteria listed out for us all to see.  You asked...so I will share mine.

I think I come at this a bit differently than most photographers on MM.  I have an exceptional career that is not photography.  Yet I feel I am passionate about my photography, and I DO occasionally exhibit.  I don’t do ANY of this with any intention in mind other than creating images that appeal to ME.  Up until about a year ago...I had only ever shot models in college photography courses...and that was ... damn... a decade prior, you can blame my wife/model/muse for getting me started on this type of work.  I really considered myself more of a landscape guy, though truthfully, I hate being pigeon holed into any genre.  I am a photographer…plain and simple. 

That all said…I don’t know that I have a definable criteria.  I could give two rat farts about the physical attributes of the model in a photograph.  If you want to know what I find attractive…well I married it…go look at my port and you will see (not only is she a looker…she has it where it counts in the heart and mind).  

What I look for in any photograph, in any genre, is first and foremost some sort of emotional connection.  The photographs I like the most are those which cause a response…positive OR negative.  I equally enjoy images that both elate and aggravate.  Whatever the reaction is…that’s what I look for first.

The second thing I look at, and it is a distant second, is the technical merits of the image.  I grew up in the home of a professional photographer and was tutored from a very young age.  I DO understand the technical aspects of photography, and while this is beneficial, I have had to train myself to put this behind emotion.   

While it may appear, on the surface, that my compositions/lighting and the present body of work is more classical.  This is a learning process for me and I have started with the classic forms…a walk before you attempt to fly approach.  This however doesn’t mean that classical compositions and lighting are what ‘do it’ for me.    When I say technical merits I am talking basics, proper exposure, good focus, control of depth of field and I prefer unique compositions.  I am not overly picky…but if for example I am looking at a portrait the eyes should be the focal point of the image…in focus, light well placed, etc.  I don’t have a set look that I like..rather I look more at matching the emotions to the technical approach. 

Hope that makes sense and what you were lookin for!

Jason

Right, yes! And remember I am only talking about this particular MM contest. It is a nude contest or it wouldn't be 18+ so a few normal criteria for me get thrown out because of that.

If the model is overweight, has a slightly unattractive figure, has less than pretty boobies, etc, etc...but is making eye contact with the viewer, has pretty eyes, and the other photographic elements are midline.....

To me that sort of strays away from the reason for the contest to begin with. So I guess I'm wondering if we aren't forgetting what this thing is all about and focusing too much on other things best left for a different genre or contest.

Just things to think about. I'm only trying to generate interest and stumulate discussion.