Untitled

Jim,

 You do very nice work, but there are two things here that I suggest need some rethinking.  When I was young and I worked for several different photo studios, I was told to always make the vertical and horizontal in their correct positions.  Bill Eng, a Chinese photographer who worked at the U of W told me that a tilted horizon meant only one of three things: either it was taken on a boat and it was tipped over due to the tilt of the sail, the photographer was drunk or he was on drugs.  I would be interested in knowing what your artistic motive is in a picture framed this way. For me the non-horizontal water level in the window view is most distracting.

 The second thing that is a problem is that you are losing shadow detail. Her hair is going too dark and losing texture.  Much of that is because digital photography is set up differently than film.  Film could be used to advantage with its toe of the characteristic curve and shadows could be luminous.  Digital uses half the available pixels for the highest tone, a forth for the second brightest tone and so forth, so that the shadows lose detail for lack of enough pixel definition.  There are post processing techniques that can help that.

My regards,

Jerry

Just a little dark for my taste, thus lacking some detail on the model's face, but that is a minor issue. I very much like your compositions when outside the studio, bravo, not meaning that I don't like the studio work for different reasons of course.

Now for our friend Jerry, whose opinion I do value (he has made recommendations to me about things I never even knew existed, never mind know how to control them).  He has heard me on this one before, but no one ever answers to my satisfaction  .. : -)

We are in the middle once again of Photo Month in Paris and so, alike every year, the long march through the various galleries and exhibitions is on. What strikes me and admittedly makes me smile a little every time is the number of slanting images,  crooked walls and horizons, burned out areas, missing ears and fingers etc., I see regularly that many of our friends go on and on about on PN.

Why is it that the successful works that make the galleries and museums consistently have these qualities, whereas we amateurs on PN cite inexistant rules that we want applied to others' works. Naturally, all this is done in perfectly good faith, and to each his valuable opinion,  but when does advice begin or cease to have authoritative value, this is a question that I struggle with.

Why should realism, impressionism, fauvism, pop art, abstraction and whatever be acceptable in painting, but anything that is not "square" not be so in photography?  I stand by the saying that there are no rules in photography, only good photos and one either likes them or one does not .. "Ansel Adams". However of course one may disagree with this and one has every right to say it and I guess still others (alike me) to respond.  

Both Jerry and John make very good points about this controversial subject.  Because it interests me, I'm going to throw my two cents into the works, hoping not to offend anyone.  I do see a lot of tilted images these days, and I too, have had my hands slapped on PN for sometimes not having perfectly straight lines.  And before making photography a discipline several years ago, I was guilty of slanted snapshots all the time!

I have come to the conclusion that it's preferable to know the rules of photography, so you are educated and that you know what you are doing when you decide to break them.

In my mind, and in my expressions, art-nude photography is as much an art as it is a science.  It is a wonderful mixture of both!  I think this opens the door for us to be a little more bold in exploring different ideas that are outside the box (if you'll pardon the cliche'), if we wish too.

I have seen some artistic images that are tilted, and that actually made the image a brilliant one, in my opinion.  I've also seen some that I wouldn't personally have tilted, but then I wasn't the photographer who took them. 

For me, this image was tilted a little too much, but that's just a personal difference between photographers.  I am more pleased that Jim is experimenting here, trying different things.  John, you mentioned Ansel Adams.  If he hadn't done any experimenting, we would have never had the Zone System.  So, it's my opinion that we all should encourage each other to push the boundaries - even step outside them - see what new frontiers we may discover!

As far as this beautiful model's hair goes, some simple dodging would make it pop.  Again, just my two cents!

If the lines work in the viewfinder and in the finished print, who cares what the angle is?

I don't think that I have ever deduced from a rule when composing a shot.  The rules seem to be made up ex post facto when analyzing why one likes a photo.

Jim, I really like the warm colors on this one.  Good to know that you haven't let the chilly weather slow you down.  I love your outdoor shots, but, when one goes inside, I have to say that I like using ordinary settings (if you can call this room and setting ordinary) better than studios.

I am the ultimate non-expert on nudes, as well as on all of photography.  If I like it, I shoot it.  I don't think too much about the whole process except to check my exposure variables and depth of field (and most of the time I forget the latter).  I go with my instincts when shooting.  I don't know that I try to bring a lot of intellectual analysis to the shooting process.  I compose on the fly.

Then again, no one is beating a path to my door to buy my prints. . . .

Great work, in any case.  You seem to get great results with this model, whether your shoot her indoors or out, whether in nice lounging scenes like this or in factories.  They are all good.  I like the shots by the river, wherever that is made.  Looks safe enough--and very inviting.  The river near where I live in Salisbury does not afford any good places to shoot that I know of.  Too many darned snakes and no nice rock outcroppings. . . .

I wish that I could do this kind of work, but I would not have a clue as to how to begin.   One first of all has to have a model and second of all a good place to shoot.  My house is too cluttered with tripods and telescopes and bookshelves and computers to offer much of a backdrop, and I don't have an extra large room in which to put up a backdrop.  Last year's holly and berries are still on the mantel, and there are two space heaters at each end of my den so as to cut down on natural gas usage.  My garage has two kayaks and a non-functional motorcycle.  The cars are outside in the drive.  Really a classy joint. . . .

On the other hand, this really is a classy place that you have here, and the model seems relaxed and easy to work with.

Very nice work!

--Lannie

P.S.: I'm glad you managed to do this without cutting off her toes.

Oh, my Lord, she's naked!  I didn't notice that.

--Lannie

Ha, the more I look at it, the more I like the inclination. There is a wonderful multiple of angles in this image, strongly accentuated by the configuration. 

When Gary Winogrand was asked about the tilt in his images he replied... "Tilt? What tilt?" Me? I love the angle of view here I do... A LOT! I always tell my students that if you are going to tilt the horizon, do it dramatically or it will look like you were too lazy to notice. Here we have drama personified. O... such a Lovely model and a most lovely image you've made of her too!

-r-