SLE Photography wrote:
This place is like anywhere on the internet... it's like a diamond mine.  Lots of treasure, but TONS of mud.  You have to be willing to look thru the mud to see the sparkle of the gems.

And I agree with you about the competition aspect, I just brought that up as an indication to why you shouldn't give up on the contest due to low votes... we have a LOT of different people posting in very diverse genres and coming from vastly different backgrounds.  You may not win or get votes when you post but at least some of the viewers are bound to be those who'd qualify as your peers & who will bring positive attention to you & your work 

To Mike C.: In addition to my PM, the votes thing really needs to be put in perspective. While I haven't counted, it seems as if there are usually more entries than there are votes. The point being that IMHO at least you shouldn't put too much weight on votes/no votes. If the voting contingent are largely 'fine arts' types and you enter a 'mood' photo ... you get my drift.

Speaking of mood, I have suggested that a discussion thread might be started to parallel this one because there is some potential for constructive conversation. Lacking that:

Oxford Artistic Photo wrote:
Yes, I like a clear crisp photo, and consider my grainy ones (that way because they were underexposed when shot, and had light edited in) to be bad or worthless shots, however it is unbelievable to me the remarks, votes, and comments, and wins, that many of what I consider grainy junk do get.  Maybe I am missing something, or do not see the value in a "poor underexposed grainy shot".

As JandJ mentioned, sometimes grain is intentional. The point of (some forms) of model photography is to create a mood. Things like grain can be tools to be used toward this end. Just like selective use of DOF, motion blur or intentional overexposure.

Oxford Artistic Photo wrote:
Take yesterdays winner! Sure it was a "stimulating" shot, and a good pose, and I even kept it as a contender for a while,  but I felt that it lacked quality as a photo. Yes, she was a beautiful model, but she had her left foot cut off!,  poor detail on the body, and "hot spots" in the background.  Yes, I know the focus was to be on the model, not the background, but...................

It isn't always about DOF from near to far and perfect detail in every portion of the frame. More often that not I work hard to selectively lose detail.

And framing is another important tool - if you need to keep all bits 'in the box' you are missing many opportunities in composition and mood creation.

One of my friends is a pro in the wedding/seniors field. He has IMHO a much better eye than most ... but he often remarks when viewing my work 'Man, I wish I could shoot that way!' - not because he is incapable but rather because his clients won't let him. If he uses creative framing to say, enhance a subject's eyes - he gets 'You cut her head off!'.

Oxford Artistic Photo wrote:
Well, maybe it is all my lack of experience.  I have been a landscape, agriculture and outdoor photographer for many years.....half a century +, and only in the last few years have I gotten into "shooting models".

Your comments welcome....either here or in direct messages.

Well I (and several other regulars in this thread) come from a similar background. My hands were stained for many years of darkroom work. Used to make 8X10 Ektachromes for use in lit shadow boxes for architectural clients ...

Not saying that you should change your approach but looking at the work of others from a different POV might help you refine your model photography. Also not saying you should even like the work of others ... but maybe let it guide you in showing us how you see it.

Cheers,
  -Tommy

*** Edit ***
Revisiting this, it dawned on me that I had originally composed this for the 18+ POTD thread. I suppose that when there isn't the possibility of photos being seen as entries, examples could be given (following MM 'decency' rules of course).

DOF control and framing:




Sometimes it is all 'inside the box' and deep DOF - even if using dramatic framing:




And sometimes everything is wrong. Handheld at 1/25th or so IIRC, BAC way too high and only ambient light.

(The BAC thing is only with models who also happen to be friends, don't try this at home kiddies)

Curmudgeon wrote:
Glad I looked before I posted this ... was going to do the same. So thanks! And here 'tis:

SLE Photography wrote:
This place is like anywhere on the internet... it's like a diamond mine.  Lots of treasure, but TONS of mud.  You have to be willing to look thru the mud to see the sparkle of the gems.

And I agree with you about the competition aspect, I just brought that up as an indication to why you shouldn't give up on the contest due to low votes... we have a LOT of different people posting in very diverse genres and coming from vastly different backgrounds.  You may not win or get votes when you post but at least some of the viewers are bound to be those who'd qualify as your peers & who will bring positive attention to you & your work 

To Mike C.: In addition to my PM, the votes thing really needs to be put in perspective. While I haven't counted, it seems as if there are usually more entries than there are votes. The point being that IMHO at least you shouldn't put too much weight on votes/no votes. If the voting contingent are largely 'fine arts' types and you enter a 'mood' photo ... you get my drift.

Speaking of mood, I have suggested that a discussion thread might be started to parallel this one because there is some potential for constructive conversation. Lacking that:

Oxford Artistic Photo wrote:
Yes, I like a clear crisp photo, and consider my grainy ones (that way because they were underexposed when shot, and had light edited in) to be bad or worthless shots, however it is unbelievable to me the remarks, votes, and comments, and wins, that many of what I consider grainy junk do get.  Maybe I am missing something, or do not see the value in a "poor underexposed grainy shot".

As JandJ mentioned, sometimes grain is intentional. The point of (some forms) of model photography is to create a mood. Things like grain can be tools to be used toward this end. Just like selective use of DOF, motion blur or intentional overexposure.

Oxford Artistic Photo wrote:
Take yesterdays winner! Sure it was a "stimulating" shot, and a good pose, and I even kept it as a contender for a while,  but I felt that it lacked quality as a photo. Yes, she was a beautiful model, but she had her left foot cut off!,  poor detail on the body, and "hot spots" in the background.  Yes, I know the focus was to be on the model, not the background, but...................

It isn't always about DOF from near to far and perfect detail in every portion of the frame. More often that not I work hard to selectively lose detail.

And framing is another important tool - if you need to keep all bits 'in the box' you are missing many opportunities in composition and mood creation.

One of my friends is a pro in the wedding/seniors field. He has IMHO a much better eye than most ... but he often remarks when viewing my work 'Man, I wish I could shoot that way!' - not because he is incapable but rather because his clients won't let him. If he uses creative framing to say, enhance a subject's eyes - he gets 'You cut her head off!'.


Well I (and several other regulars in this thread) come from a similar background. My hands were stained for many years of darkroom work. Used to make 8X10 Ektachromes for use in lit shadow boxes for architectural clients ...

Not saying that you should change your approach but looking at the work of others from a different POV might help you refine your model photography. Also not saying you should even like the work of others ... but maybe let it guide you in showing us how you see it.

Cheers,
  -Tommy

Nicely stated Tommy.

I took pictures of wallets and suitcases and rings, thousands of diamond rings.
I always had to be in focus from foreground to background. Maybe sometimes i do grain just to see it. LOL. I hope it serves the purpose of the "mood" i try to create.
I am an unabashed romantic. Which isn't to say I don't appreciate Mapplethorpe or
Newton or others like them. Just not my cup of tee.
more of a David Hamilton( in terms of technique) or Robert Farber kind of guy.
And I can still sell them so there must be a few others out there like me.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Chase your dreams, not your competition.

I try to but with the loss of memory that has become a bit like chasing ones tail.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Is that a Moto Guzzi Tom?

It is. 1969 or so V7 (VIN 30xx so I think it's a 69) that I bought the ex-wife in the mid 1980's for $300.00. She liked it cause she is a Southpaw and it shifts on the "wrong" side. She got the money, I got the bikes, guitars and banjos.

I prefer the 850cc loop frame five speeds that were imported into the States as the "Eldorado" model. Some were also imported as the "LAPD" model - heavier generator and disc brake on the front (woohoo, she will stop too!!!). All of mine except this one are Eldo's - and one LAPD.

The V7, while not my favorite seems the most - don't know if "reliable" is the correct term, maybe "always willing to run"? - and so ended up in the right place at the right time for this shoot. My favorite Eldo "Old Blue" would have been a better choice, she's now black with red and yellow flames, but "New Blue" was there. That's the term! Not "Reliable" but rather "Closing Time Queen" ... always ready.

See how horribly off topic this has gone already?

Mike Caffrey wrote:
After reading a bunch of the forums, I'm developing a very different take on this place.

Mike, if you stray outside of General Mayhem you're gonna get bit. I try to shield my eyes from some of the things I see, especially in OT. That’s not the place for me. I don't like arguing or fighting with people and that's usually what ends up happening in those types of threads. In addition, I don't want someone googling my name and without even entering the realm of MM, seeing my company name as posting in a thread with a title that quite honestly might turn them off. I am no saint mind you but I just don't have anything to add or take away from there.

My advice: Take it with a grain of salt and LOOK at the portfolios of those that are behind the avatars. It's telling I assure you.

SLE Photography wrote:
And I agree with you about the competition aspect, I just brought that up as an indication to why you shouldn't give up on the contest due to low votes... we have a LOT of different people posting in very diverse genres and coming from vastly different backgrounds.  You may not win or get votes when you post but at least some of the viewers are bound to be those who'd qualify as your peers & who will bring positive attention to you & your work 

This is a great reason in itself to stick around.

SLE Photography wrote:
I have addressed the idea that there's a "clique" here before & I simply don't feel it's true.

Ok, where is the clique that I keep reading about? And I seriously would like to know where we're seeing this.

SLE Photography wrote:
Dennis Wright has won four times in the last 7 days, but he only came in to the thread & STARTED submitting in the last month.  He seems to be taking a bit of a break now.

A well deserved break. Why do we wear ourselves out when we are supposed to be on holiday? We eat too much, drink too much, travel too much, SPEND too much, and watch too much crappy football.

...sorry, back on topic

Tommy Dee wrote:
I think that there is a parallel here to the studies which showed that certain areas of trails in National parks were photographed far more often than were others.

This was not necessarily because they were more photogenic in their own right as much as that they were a transition. Coming out of the woods into a clearing, approaching an escarpment from level ground.

There may be more photogenic spots but the ones near the transitions were always the "crowd pleasers".

I think this is a well thought out statement with a lot of clarity towards explaining some of the things that have been addressed Tommy.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I would like to see members ignore posts from outsiders that may show up from time to time, just to avoid confrontations.

...and you took the words right out of my mouth.

I have my own personal criteria that I use for voting on another’s images. I fully realize that we all do, but tend to wonder how close to the center of this we all get when the parameter details of these criteria overlap. I am not close minded in looking at an image but I do have things that I feel are more attractive to me and my eye.
That’s where my vote goes.

I guess as an example I could add this: Each of us do come from different backgrounds and mine centers a lot on the Model herself and her presence within an image. An image can be technically spot on but if the Model is technically off in her pose or expressiveness, that to me trumps a simple rule of thirds. The Model is the subject of the photograph and should be the center of the rulemaking or breaking in an image. If the subject were a chair, the client could care less if the carpet was last years drab color as long as their product in the shot was perfectly represented. And that’s the crux. The Model must be perfectly represented.

I would like to ask that we pose a civil and creative critique of offered images in this thread. I would like to give some of my reasons for choosing to vote for an image and reasons not. I will offer my images as a start, if we agree, for the same critique from all of you. It doesn't matter to me how long you have been shooting or how much better or worse you think you're images are than mine or anyone else’s in here. I am interested in the singular reasons behind a choice. I happen to think it will reveal a lot.

Let me know and I will post the links.

Curmudgeon wrote:
To Mike C.: In addition to my PM, the votes thing really needs to be put in perspective. While I haven't counted, it seems as if there are usually more entries than there are votes. The point being that IMHO at least you shouldn't put too much weight on votes/no votes. If the voting contingent are largely 'fine arts' types and you enter a 'mood' photo ... you get my drift.

I made the mistake of taking competition way too literally. It's worth doing even if it's just in a "shared photo of the day" kind of way.

Part of what bugged me is the cumulative effect of the general attitude I've been seeing around here (people lacking basic professional common sense and a variety of attitudes that I just don't get).

Also, you don't have to look too deep to see what's influencing some of the voting.

I only have a couple more photos left that I'd consider submitting, unless I'm going to resubmit the same ones. Unfortunatly I'm sure that my adult onset mentally retardation will prevent me from accurately counting 15 days and I'll get myself in trouble...

PHOTO dw wrote:
I guess as an example I could add this: Each of us do come from different backgrounds and mine centers a lot on the Model herself and her presence within an image. An image can be technically spot on but if the Model is technically off in her pose or expressiveness, that to me trumps a simple rule of thirds. The Model is the subject of the photograph and should be the center of the rulemaking or breaking in an image. If the subject were a chair, the client could care less if the carpet was last years drab color as long as their product in the shot was perfectly represented. And that’s the crux. The Model must be perfectly represented.

And you took the words right out of my mouth. This thread was started out of need I think but the immediate impetus was someone stating some honest opinions and asking some honest questions. What you say here is exactly what I was trying to convey above: that the image should serve its subject and not some arbitrary rules of thumb.

PHOTO dw wrote:
I would like to ask that we pose a civil and creative critique of offered images in this thread. I would like to give some of my reasons for choosing to vote for an image and reasons not. I will offer my images as a start, if we agree, for the same critique from all of you. It doesn't matter to me how long you have been shooting or how much better or worse you think you're images are than mine or anyone else’s in here. I am interested in the singular reasons behind a choice. I happen to think it will reveal a lot.

Let me know and I will post the links.

If Dave is up to doing the Springer bit here that sounds interesting.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
List of critiqueable (is that a word?) people on this thread:

Shadowscape Studio
Confidential Photo

I try to keep it to my nude profiles here but since senility is getting its toenails into my three remaining brain cells and I forget, I nominate:

Tom deL
Tommy Dee
Curmudgeon

Tommy Dee wrote:
If Dave is up to doing the Springer bit here that sounds interesting.

I'm willing to give it a whirl.  Tilt a whirl, but a whirl none the less.

If anyone wants to get on the list of "I don't mind if people say why they voted for my image, or didn't vote for my image and why", let me know and I will add you.

And I certainly do not mind if you care to post a link (only) to an image here for critique purposes.

Dennis, do you want to be added to the list above?

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Dennis, do you want to be added to the list above?

Absolutely

SLE Photography wrote:
You can add me & my images to the Critique list

Thanks James.

Mike Caffrey wrote:
I guess I'm open to critiques too.

It kind of depends on the motivation behind the critique. I did just get a great one from Dennis on my last submission.

I'll add you on Mike.  If you change your feelings about this later on, let me know and I will be glad to take you off.

I do think it will be an education for all of us if it is kept civil and informative.  I have hopes!  It will give each of us a look at how others see our work and view art.

Being a landscape photographer that likes to include a nude in there somewhere, I will no doubt be thrashed by Dennis, Tom and James on some of them.  Right off the bat I don't agree that the model needs to be the center of attention.

Mike Caffrey wrote:
Part of what bugged me is the cumulative effect of the general attitude I've been seeing around here (people lacking basic professional common sense and a variety of attitudes that I just don't get).

Yup.  That's why I STRIVE to maintain a professional & courteous tone in the PotD 18+ thread, and why Dave's trying to do the same here.
It CAN be done on this site, I've seen it 

Mike Caffrey wrote:
Also, you don't have to look too deep to see what's influencing some of the voting.

That's another one of those things I hear people say, like the clique thing, that I don't feel holds true.
This's partly my fault for being such a slacker about the gallery, but speaking as a guy who can easily look at ALL the entries at once there is a LOT of diversity in them.  Yes, certain themes & images win more, but it's hardly just one thing & some people who've said things like "it's only sex that wins" are plain wrong.

Mike Caffrey wrote:
I only have a couple more photos left that I'd consider submitting, unless I'm going to resubmit the same ones. Unfortunatly I'm sure that my adult onset mentally retardation will prevent me from accurately counting 15 days and I'll get myself in trouble...

An easy way to track it is to keep a text file in your Documents folder & just make a note of the image title & the date(s) you entered it.

And of course, shoot more nudes 

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
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 would also recommend keeping it it updated in the first post

SLE Photography wrote:

I would also recommend keepint it updated in the first post

Good idea James.  Thanks.

SLE Photography wrote:
That's another one of those things I hear people say, like the clique thing, that I don't feel holds true.
This's partly my fault for being such a slacker about the gallery, but speaking as a guy who can easily look at ALL the entries at once there is a LOT of diversity in them.  Yes, certain themes & images win more, but it's hardly just one thing & some people who've said things like "it's only sex that wins" are plain wrong.

Sometimes sex sells.  But Wednesday's vote, and recent votes for Dennis' work show that there are people here looking at quality, not sex.  My image Wednesday was far from sexual.  The woman was only a small portion of the image.  Dennis' images that have won in the last few days were not sexually arousing.  Very well done with a respectable talent. 
I think for the most part the voting has been very good to date.  A few days have gone by where I shook my head, but very few.  I don't always vote for the image that wins.  But I find myself going over the winning image again in an attempt to understand why others voted it so highly.  Sometimes I figure out their motives, sometimes not.  That is where this thread will be interesting, I think.  I want to hear why so-and-so voted for something, and why they did not vote for one I liked.

Note people:  I am a night owl.  I will try and check in around 9am (earliest that I get up is 8:30ish) central time. Most days I will be here off and on all day until about 2:30-3:00am central time.  I spend a good deal of time in the dark room in the evenings, so if I'm not around for a question or whatever, hang in there and I will poke my head out soon.  The regulars from the 18+ POD can probably answer questions as well as I can, so they are free to pipe in.  I view this thread as a self regulating one in which we all can pitch in a bit and help out when needed.

SLE Photography wrote:
I am making a real effort to get the Winner's Gallery updated
I think having that as a resource to view will aid in the discussion here

Hooyaaaaaa!  Also will help boost the participation in the main thread, I think.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Being a landscape photographer that likes to include a nude in there somewhere, I will no doubt be thrashed by Dennis, Tom and James on some of them.  Right off the bat I don't agree that the model needs to be the center of attention.

And I feel that you are selling me (and I expect Dennis and James as well) short.

We don't need to agree on the intent or focus do we? The fact that you desire to see things in a certain way is no reason for a thrashing. I think that all of us are at some level looking for that which reaches us - and we seem to (thankfully) all speak slightly different dialects.

Some find the Carolina Piedmont accent absolutely charming while tha Texas drawl grates. Others vice versa. (now thinking of Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda LOL)

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I do think it will be an education for all of us if it is kept civil and informative.  I have hopes!  It will give each of us a look at how others see our work and view art.

Alrighty then in that spirit please allow me to start this by requesting a critique - not sure that is even the word - input, insight, discussion maybe.

Often enough to give me pause, works that are not favorites of mine turn out to be huge crowd pleasers. Writing this I am reminded of John Prine talking about one of his songs - that he never cared that much for it. When someone recorded it and made a (relatively) huge hit of it and the royalties started rolling in, he learned to love it.

So, one of those is my only 'win' here. What I consider an 'OK' photo. Out of curiosity, what do folks see in it? I have pretty good ideas about why it isn't a favorite of mine but will save them for later.

The photo in question:
http://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4686670 18+

Z_Photo wrote:
add me.  i not only have a thick skin and desire to learn, i am good at rejecting comments i don't think are productive

Z - could you edit out James' list so folks won't think your quote is the list?