Nude 6. Part of a series. Please critique. Thanks.

This one is part of a series of nudes that I've been doind. I'd

really appreciates comments, critiques, ratings...especially comments.

 

Thanks

Ed

Why don't you explain it for us?

Sorry I cant see any artistic qualities. Not even as an abstract.

It reminds me of the Miller High Life commercials. If you've seen them, you may recognize the grainy circa 1972 home movie quality. It's good to experiment, but I don't think this one gets there, but maybe I don't know where you're going...

 

(If you found my comments useful, please rate and/or critique my photos.)

The grain is actually just the result of a poor scan. My scanner is a bit scratched up and does a few weird things.

 

The actual image has very fine grain.

 

 

Isn't there a forum for people learning to focus their lenses?

The focus is on the edge of the table in left of frame on purpose.

 

Just because you have a limited idea of what is art, doesn't mean you need to be snarky and fill all of someone's folders with 1/1 ratings. I believe that is considered abusive spamming not to mention rude.

I don't feel qualified to leave a rating, but I like this photo. The color of the chair is appealing. I could tell that the focus was on the table. I know it's all subjective anyways, but this photo caught my eye. - Gerald

You are certainly giving us some clues... but I can't grasp their significance. Of the set you have posted, only two really seem to work in concert, the others are employing a different lexicon that I can't bring to a cogent context with this image and the other like it (in which we see the entire figure). That you have focused on the tables edge, implies that has some significance. A blue and glowing bottle competes for my attention, but I don't know why... as does the arangement of flowers. Perhaps an implication of a formal meeting or arrangement? But why the low angle of view?

Create more that have these strong sylistic characteristics, and edit carefully, both after the photo session, and before hand, when you should be concentrating on the concept that should support this series. Try making these pictures in your head, before you even pick up a camera. The palette and techical approach is valid, but the concept needs to be brought forward in the presentation, if for no other reason than to silence the pinheads who make idiotic, pointless jokes about techical issues and completely ignore intellectual content. Photography need not be entirely about technique. Onward... t

Oh yeah... don't sweat ratings... the whole idea sucks and is a pointless excercise in ego gratification and political slamming. The ratings have nothing to do with quality. I don't rate images, never have, never will... t

Hello Ed.

 

Actually what you are trying to do (at least what I think you are) is pretty clever. Sadly, the vast majority of Photo.net readers are not Artist, nor have the trained preception of aesthetics. Very few of them can even put it into articulate words what they do like. This is a common plauge of photographers. However, you are making a fine effort in going away from that.

 

As for the photo, the color is has a nice intense saturation to it. I thought for sure was cross processed. However, the composition is a bit questionable. I do like the table in the forground, it catches the eye. But it does need to fill a bit more of the frame. The softness is hard to rate, mainly because you loose a bit too much detail on the persons body itself. This could be the scan or even the lighting.

 

Good work.

 

and if the non-objective comments get to ya, check out Marks work at www.oatney.com

Out of focus never looked so good. Many publications agreed!

 

(m)

I love the soft image, particularly Uta Barth. I've been exploring a couple of ideas with these nudes (as a set they may seem pretty disjointed but I've only uploaded a few and I don't consider them all to be a part of the same set).

 

In this picture, as in several others not posted, I've been playing with slective focus on rather unimportant details, leaving the important details obscured in the bakground.

 

I am particularly interested in doing this with nudes, where we sense an erotic form that, if we would just refocus our eye, would be clearly seen.

 

Basically what we see when we are looking at something else.

 

Also, the scan is quite poor, the colours became more muted and the image appeared grainy where the original is quite bright and fine grained.

Especially the bottle. You're right - it works particularly well with nudes. Your eye wants to re-focus on the background. I think it's the best of the series, though.

I realized that I should have been more clear with my titling. The titles right now (which are nothing more than the refernces I made for myself when I scanned them) infer that these are all part of the same series. They are, in fact, mostly all parts of different series. Oops. Should have paid more attention when I was filling in the info. Live and learn.