Published: Saturday 17th of July 2004 07:04:16 PM
This is constructive criticism and I thank you for expressing it. To make personal and bitter remarks like you have in the past is detrimental not only to the process of interraction that people wish to encourage on this site, but also to the image of the person that is venting his personal frustrations in this manner. You don't like my photography, that's just fine. Please take every opportunity you can find to critic what you wish, that's why I post my images. That is even why I show some of the pictures that I don't like myself! Only a fool could imagine I believe that 500 photos that I have posted are all worthy of praise. Now get that chip off your shoulder Mr Harrison and join the community. Believe me, it is so much more fun making friends in life, rather than enemies - you may even get to enjoy it. ...
Michael, I have been using the same lighting technique since I was a schoolboy .... a flash attached to the camera that I usually bounce off the wall! Sometimes it works out ok, other times it gives results that are a little strange. One may or may not like the effect above, it's really very subjective. Technically speaking though, there is obviously a clear lack of definition due to the poor lighting conditions and I fully sympathize with critics that point that out.
Nice, surreal but nice.
The photo is good but the pose need some work.
What's with the Headpiece? For me, thing that spoils mostly this image is "napkin" on the head. Makes it quite manly. Also the lighting causes the legs to look hairy. Ouch. This is my least favourite image of all your work...BUT on the bright side, I think this is a good idea (Pose+background wise). Cheers... To many more...
Aha .. surreal ... thank you Niko. It was the same day that we took the somewhat surreal mother daughter pictures with the salvador dali props.
No problem if you don't like the picture. As I frequently point out, there are lot's in my file that I don't like either! Shame about the "napkin" though, it's a Dior !
David, some may suggest the opposite! As for the pose Martin, thank you for your comment, it's interesting, but I wonder why you think that it doesn't work? The curves intersect the diagonal lines and, with the tilt of the arms and the position of the head, we end up with more or less classic 1 to 3 pattern, with the face acting as the pivotal point. I would be interest to hear yours or anyone else's view on this point. Thank you.
W J Gibson
hmm, maybe it's me I am not sure what the background and the model have as a connection. the art object on the right edge is cut in half, which seems a little odd to me. having the model stand so close to the wall and with the aperture used all is in focus which is not a choice I would make, but that doesnt really matter. Seems like flash light is strong, maybe too strong (?) on the left side. "art" in front of art is an idea to play with. as you may recall, I admire many of your photos, but this one doesnt quite work for my eye.
No problem. Thanks for the comment. It's colourful, playful. That's about it.
I personally very much like your work John and would be disappointed if you did not continue to post.Surely photography is about the display of pleasing(& evocative)images and I can't think of anything more pleasing then the female form tastefully presented in the manner that you do. I would be interested to know what forms of lighting you use:-Studio,slaves,Omnibounce??Any post processing?I find the lighting very good-but you may not want to give away your knowledge!? Cheers
John: Absolutely fantastic.
John, I didnt take your comments so seriously and certainly not negatively. As for your respect for the models privacy, I am amazed so many women allow you to display them so candidly. So of course, I respect their own wishes not to be exposed any more personally than they have already allowed. Peter
What two people see a woman the same way ... he he. Thanks for your comment. John ... ADDED LATER on July 21: Peter, I hope yesterday's answer to your question will not be misunderstood. By saying that no two people see a woman (or anyone come to that) in the same way, it was my way of diverting the question with a little attempt at humour. I really do try to say the minimum possible regarding anything personal that concerns my models. It is an implicit understanding that we have together and that is how I maintain their trust. I'm sure you understand too. Best wishes, John
Bohemian The only criticism I can suggest, is to reduce the heavy shadowing around her legs which would create a balanced lighting more appropraite for this image. Then again, I would point out that it is not something which I noticed when first looking at the picture. Aesthetically, I find the image contains a strong and pleasing mix of background colours, that combine with the women's headscarf and underwear, facial make-up and body language, to create the atmosphere for a portrait of bohemian looking woman. It would be interesting to know if such a description fits the woman herself... Peter
La belle epoque?
I love the diag. angle between the elbows. Fine shot John. regards, -Jim
Thank you Peter. They do understand that this is in the interest of art, and that is why very often they accept to pose. However, the great majority of them also consider that their private lives and persons should not be discussed. It may seem paradoxical, but that is how it is. Thanks for your understanding. That being said, the photos are often so very different from the personalities and physical appearance of the models. It is the ability of art to render images as we perceive them. You know, Pascal once wrote that "the true secret of art is to correct nature". I don't think that he had any ladies in mind when he made that statement though! We could never render them as beautiful as they really are.
Different from your norm for sure and it works just fine. Has a very relaxed natural feel
When I read a comment like, I wonder sometimes if the reviewer is trying to insult the artist or those that otherwise comment on his work. Thank you for taking the trouble to look nevertheless Stephanie. I fully appreciate that we cannot all have the same tastes. Now you have given your opinion and I have replied. Can we leave it at that? In the meantime, I shall examine your work for inspiration. Have a nice summer Stephanie, filled with generosity and grace, John Oh.. may I add that I never use such terminology (tits) when describing the female form. Maybe we have a different concept as to what denotes respect towards women.
Though there are more elegant ways of expressing it, you have every right not to like my work Stephanie, thankfully unlike many other female members of PN that graciously follow my work, but that does not dispense you from remaining a lady. I would imagine many people find that more distasteful than many of my images. Now I am spending a few rare days of vacation with my family and would appreciate you venting your intolerance and bad manners elsewhere. Thank you.
Gratuitous! I have already said above that you have every right to dislike my work and to comment on it. What I deplore and certainly others too is the unecessary insulting tone and the outrageous language that you use under one of my photos regarding a woman's anatomy, supposedly in order to express your distaste. The 'well educated people' that you refer to behave with dignity in all circumstances. Education is not a privilege to be flaunted, it is a duty. Presumably, you accept criticism too, not only dish it out, or do you become defensive as above ?! I apologize for using such stupid slogans, but then they do look so different when adressed to oneself, don't they Stephanie.
What time is it .. ? Something a little different from my usual glamour shots ...