Yevgenia (Second of a Series)

Yevganis (some nudity) Second of a series. Please let me know what

you think. This is the second posted photo of this young woman.

John

The pose is a bit naff, like a careless 'manual of glamour photography' shot. The face seems to morph into the neck. Just an opinion.

John,

First what would be your inspiration for this photograph. What are you trying to portray. I see some elimental problems. Uneven background. The light I find a too harsh and the pose looks awkward. Unelss your trying to demonstrate an agressive female, I would refrain from the light you used and the pose. A female should have softness in light and texture and flow in pose and propping.

The lighting is clinical. Use softer, warmer light. The drape is not doing you any favors either.

This indeed is a takeoff of a 'glamour photograhy' shot. However, the spot meter was on and metered for the background, unknown to me, compressing all the usable photo information into a narrow histogram range, which I had to 'elongate' to bring out usable information, which did not help the lighting here.

 

It was truly a shame.

 

How does this compare, however, to her other shots, which I don't see your critique on -- there are three others?

 

John (Crosley)

Please see the explanation about the lighting, above. It should explain the issue I faced (in today's modern world, the word 'issue' has replaced 'problem' as software and computer people have devalued the word 'problem' into one of 'issues'. For instance, 'my computer doesn't work; it has functionality issues.'

 

; - ))

 

Thanks for contributing,

 

John (Crosley)

I've explained about the lighting, above, but the pose has issues -- I've explained the word 'issues' also, above.

 

As to the posing, this is a learning experience, and I get better with time and with good critiques. Where is your critique on her other three photos?

 

How are they?

 

John (Crosley)

John,

 

I didn't realise that I had to comment on the other photos of the same subject for the critique to be valid.

 

However, I had a look. To be perfectly honest, I don't like them. The poses are contrived and unimaginative. The whole effect, as I said on this image, is of a glamour shoot class.

 

 

Well, a glamour shoot class implies that someone is teaching just that.

 

I guess, the question is 'are you a teacher?' and 'did you start somewhere?' and 'where did you start?' -- up there with the great artists of the age taking new and innovative shots, or did you begin by taking 'standard' shots then breaking away from that and improvise?

 

I found it interesing that you chose the absolute worst of the four posted shots to denigrate, and only when called to back up your judgment you 'found' the other three and minimized them also. It hardly seems like a balanced approach to critiquing to me. I do like honest critics who have constructive things to add rather than just denigration, and to the extent you have things that will improve my shooting, you are always welcome here.

 

There seems to be a mode or manner more common today among a very few critics, especially those who are insensitive, to 'diss' others' works without offering helpful criticism.

 

When I critique, and I critique some of the worst images for which critique is requested, I am always very sensitive to the poor people who put their 'best' work up, only to have completely 'missed the point' -- sometimes with no subject, tilted horizons, etc.

 

But I am kind to them, and some of them genuinely want to learn and welcome any photographic life ring anyone will throw them, and are most happy to be treated with respect.

 

I expect the same and if am image is found wanting and it's part of a group, I expect the critic (not as an afterthought in a self-justifying way) to examine the group, not the sole, worst image, and then to make an honest comparison.

 

I have many friends on Photo.net who offer me serious criticism and not all of it is so happy; I miss the mark many times -- that's what this forum is all about, but when I critique and other experienced members critique, it always is from a place of great kindness and gentleness, and that breeds respect.

 

I hope you understand.

 

John (Crosley)

John,

 

I found this photo while browsing pics, it's not reasonable to expect that I should then go and examine the whole of your portfolio or even one folder. It stands by itself.

 

I found this photo wanting, and since you drew my attention to others, I did not much like them either.

 

I also gave my reasons, not particularly detailed but then this photo did not deserve a lengthy examination either. Had I gone into details, I'm sure you would have liked them even less.

 

Regards.

I personally believe that beating about the bush is not necessarily good and sometimes the honest truth is that no improvement is possible and this photo should not have been taken. If your confidence is shattered by in-your-face criticism, then perhaps you should not be putting up your product for random public to see.

 

Feel free to say WHATEVER you like on my photos if you wish, I assure you I won't bite back!

It's not that you say, or what you say, but how you say it. You should beat around the bush; it's the oil that lubricates society. We can agree to differ.

 

There is NO photo that 'should not have been taken' -- that's heresy as far as I'm concerned.

 

I take tons of photos that you would ban, to get the one photo that everyone praises as 'original' and 'out of the box'.

 

I do so by breaking rules and taking an original (for me) look and definitely not by looking over my shoulder at critics who think there are photos that 'should not have been taken' -- at elitist view at the very worst.

 

I have consistently scored very high on 'originality' just for my willingness to 'take chances' and been rewarded (sometimes not, as here) but I am willing also to take chances, and won't be browbeaten by one person who dislikes one photo out of 700+.

 

Whether or not this photo is 'original' to you or some 'glamour photo class' paradigm for me it was a take-off on glamour photography as done at some era -- and whether it was well-executed has already been re-hashed as well as my metering problems.

 

I am sure now you have more constructive things to do than dwell on this.

 

John (Crosley)