Pick 3...Boricua

[icuneko]

<...those blindoldfartz ...>

 

Uhh, takes one to know one?

[ericamcdonald]

S. Linke, I hope/think you know I was referencing Peter's quote

and not members of the Leica forum. Edmo, you know I like your

work. You don't have any aspirations to ever be paid for what you

shoot? Have you worked at an unrelated job and wished you

could support yourself doing what you truly love?

[ericamcdonald]

I guess I can't if that is the Queen's English. We're you

misunderstood?

[edmo]

<i>Have you worked at an unrelated job and wished you could support

yourself doing what you truly love?</I>

<p>

How do you know i don't? Monogamy isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

<p>

Do you love to shoot for folks sittin' behind a desk? I didn't particularly find it that appealing or enjoyable.

[edmo]

wtf is queens english?

[fjords]

no boke, no glow, boring light, a few funny relationships in #2. AAA gives free road maps

to it's members. p.net is more darwinian.

[fjords]

make that pseudo-darwinian

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Erica I think you have picked a valid style in which to present this series, and people (guys) are judging them by the standards of "street" as practiced in this forum. Somewhere in my library I have seen similar series of shots of people. Ist certainly has similarities with Mary Ellen Mark's "Twins" series(I can hear the howls already).

 

I'm pretty certain that had all these women been "babes", the reaction would've been more positive.

 

The pix are original and stylish and sassy, like a plastic miniskirt. But then, I'm a blind old bastard from the Leica Forum.

[ericamcdonald]

" if an edit of your work was gunna be based on an open call for

input from a forum like this or any other, clearly your standards

regarding editorial inut are pretty low." I guess I was mistaken in

thinking you had the ability to edit well?

 

" Worse still, these shots posted above aren't worth asking

people to 'edit' there is nothing in them to edit there is no-thing in

there to talk about " A truly self-exposing statement. I just got

finished teaching photog. to complete newbies. Trust me, if one

has interest in helping another grow there is always something

in the photo to talk about. I think you must be very young in this

process irrespective of your age.

 

And Edmo, I wasn't talking about shooting for hire when you

dislike it. I was asking if you ever wanted to shoot what you loved,

and be payed for it.

[ray .]

<i>I was asking if you ever wanted to shoot what you loved, and

be payed for it.</i><p>Where do I sign up? Did they restart the

WPA?

[ray .]

I wouldn't be quite so harsh on these as Pete, but I'm not sure

that any work that well. They do seem to need more context. It

also looks as if you posed the couples to the extent of having

them face each other. Have you tried just suggesting things to

them or being looser with your directions?

[edmo]

<i>And Edmo, I wasn't talking about shooting for hire when you dislike it. I was asking if you ever wanted to shoot what you loved, and be payed for it.</i>

<p>

in cash?

[ericamcdonald]

Edmo, I hope so. I'd hire you myself if I could. Peter, as to 'don't

get mad, get even', why are you talking about a discussion forum

as if we are emotionally challenged children? It seems you and I

are coming from vastly different places in our intent of this forum.

That you see nothing in the snaps ( a word I love and appreciate)

is fine with me...I was asking for your opinion. The way you share

it is bizarre to me. In my eyes, if you have the time and interest to

type a response, you don't need to waste it by issuing attack

'blindoldfarts' types of observations.

ANYWAY, here are the rest from that series.<div></div>

[ericamcdonald]

<<div></div>

[ericamcdonald]

<<<div></div>

[ericamcdonald]

,<div></div>

[ericamcdonald]

,,<div></div>

[michael s.]

If I may -- not on behalf of any of the (other) photographically challenged, thoughtlessly generous, undiscerning old f --- s [read: fogies] who populate the other Forum, but for myself only -- here are my thoughts:

 

Of the entire group, only 'lovers' and 'bori' (last one) are strong photos. 'Lovers' would be better w/out the tree behind the head, or perhaps with different ps handling of the tree. But I've looked at both photos a few times now, and I like them.

 

On 'pr' and 'car' the bright sunglasses reflections dominate and keep them from my 'strong' list, but both are still certainly decent street shots.

 

First six are just not my cup of tea -- tea being the preferred beverage of the genteel superannuated denizens of the other Forum. Anything stronger and we just lose it -:)

[ray .]

Those are better, particularly the first two. I'd be cautious about

looking too specifically for Arbus visions, as in the last one.

 

I thought Pete's last critique was a good one.

[Brad_]

Agree with Pete, Ed (on needing so much approval from others), and Ray. The bori shot is

killed by clutter. Maybe it's time to move on...

[barefoot]

<i>I thought Pete's last critique was a good one</i>

<p>

shame it wasn't in english.

[tholte]

The fill flash is too strong, tone it down and make things a little more natural, which in turn makes your subject more un-natural, which it seems that you are trying to do. I am either a genius or a complete moron, take your pick.

[dxphoto]

What is wrong with Leica Forum? I don't have a Leica.

[kipling]

technically these pics suck *ss but i find them somehow appallingly attractive. repulsively

lovely. innocently ugly. yes, the innocent ugliness is what i like about em most. nice.