Zipping Up

Apologies and thanks to Levi Dixon who left the following comment when I first uploaded it.

 

"still chasing girls huh? ;) i like how candid this is, keep up the good work david! its always a pleasure seeing whats new.

 

Levy "

I am not sure if the model was surprised or confused by the fact I wanted to take this shot. However, take it I did. In any case, I thought I would post it here.

 

Feedback apprecitated.

 

Should there be anyone looking for my more daring work, you can always do a search for me on photopoints or photosig where I have uploaded some new images along with some of my deleted images. I am sure to be uploading more soon.

Tom, Gone are the days when I get upset about ratings. That said, when you read the site feedback forum, you do find that all those serious about sharing their work do not approve of anonymous ratings. What most people want is a critique. However, those that run the site want brain dead anonymous people to come on and give a few mouse clicks without sharing their thought process describing why they have judged the way they have. Maybe I have just answered my own question, putting things in words requires a thought process which most of the people rating are incapable of.

 

Thanks for your input. Thanks for understanding the concept of fun!

I love this one, even in color. The composition is excellent and this is one of the few times placing the model dead center works. Send me a B&W version if you have converted it. I truly do like this and hope that it is the beginning of a story that will evolve. Great one.

 

-Owen

As one of those braind dead anonymous people who rated, I'll critique. The model shot is blah and the background is the worst possible thing I could imagine. You have some great, clever, fun stuff in your portfolio, but this is not one of them. Sorry, but "Woman zipping up pants while floating on color chart" doesn't work for me. I don't get how making bad images is "fun".

Owen, As always, thanks for the kind words. I will email you soon.

 

Derek Dammann, If I may quote you.

 

"As one of those braind dead anonymous people who rated, I'll critique. The model shot is blah and the background is the worst possible thing I could imagine. You have some great, clever, fun stuff in your portfolio, but this is not one of them. Sorry, but "Woman zipping up pants while floating on color chart" doesn't work for me. I don't get how making bad images is "fun". "

 

Opinions are like arse holes. Everybody has one. The fact that you don't like is of little concern to me. There are many photographs on this site that I don't like but I can appreciate the thought and artistic talent that a photographer has put into creating it. If everyone took photos the same way, this would be a boring site.

 

To your critique... "The model shot is blah." Your intelligence for conveying your feelings and pointing me in a direction that will help my photographic prowess is very much appreciated.

 

As for having fun. I like women and I like photographing them. So that is fun. Maybe you should stick to taking your inane repetitive images that every man and his dog takes. Your images are not bad. However, I have yet to see one as original as this. So yes! The fact that you are brain dead, is only emphasised by your comment.

Ok, I see now why everyone rates you so poorly. Your attitude stinks, you're a troll, and you're not actually looking for critique of any kind.

 

The model shot is "blah", and to a photographer with any talent that wouldn't require further explanation, but since you seem to need more here goes: the lighting is flat and uninteresting, the pose is completely uninteresting, and very unflattering to the woman. If I were trying my hardest to make the worst model photo I could, it might look something like this.

I think you should take a long hard look at your own work.

 

-Owen

Ok, I did.

I tend to respond to people the way they respond to me. Rating without giving an explanation is the action of an ignorant being. (I appreciate the site encorages it but I am entitled to my opinion because I too have an arse hole!) My comment must have hit a nerve. You rated this lowly and anonymously and so why did you feel the need 'blow your cover' just because I stated my opinion on how I feel about anonymous raters? Should you care to look, you will find that most of the people who contribute to the site feedback forum are of the same opinion as me. It saddens me that you cannot see this.

 

It is my opinion that you have still not critiqed this image. What you seem to be saying is you don't like it. That is fair enough. The three other comments above yours seem to put you in the minority. Also, as I have pointed out, I often comment and critique images I don't like and I try to do so in a respectful way.

 

Anyway! Thanks for getting back to me and this image. I am not going to enter any more debate with you. Suffice to say, it is clear from our exchange who the 'troll' is.

 

addendum - This image was taken for the model. She loved it. I fail to see how an intelligent woman (and trust me she is) can assume a pose that she finds unflattering.

"You rated this lowly and anonymously and so why did you feel the need 'blow your cover' just because I stated my opinion on how I feel about anonymous raters?"

Does this even need a reply? Didn't you just answer your own question? News flash: this website has a link at the top called "Rate photos", and people sometimes click on it. Just because they did that doesn't mean they're brain dead idiots. Anyone who thinks that is, in fact, the brain dead idiot. I clicked through about 5 or 6 of them and rated them as fairly as possible. Do I deserve to be called brain dead for that? What a stupid opinion.

I don't know how much more I can say about this photo and still not have critiqued it. What is it about "terrible lighting", "unflattering pose" and "awful background" that requires further explanation? Then adding a border around it to top it off is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In general, having people or objects floating on backgrounds just screams out "bad Photoshop hack job", especially that unoriginal of a background.

You're right, though, it is original overall. You don't often see women floating on the Photoshop RGB color picker chart. However, I could take a far more original photo than this without even getting out of my chair. The problem is, it would suck. Originality merely for the sake of being different isn't a good thing.

Originality is great when you take a concept to another level that exhibits a clever new twist or explore an area that hasn't been fully explored, and you've done this extensively in your portfolio. You're about the one billionth guy to take photos of nude women, but you've almost always added clever new angles and twists that set your portfolio apart, and that's great. This photo, though, doesn't fit with those: it's nowhere near as clever or interesting, it has no unique angle, nothing. It's below you. And I don't feel like I should be called a brain dead idiot for actually being honest and saying that instead of being a yes-man like everyone else here and saying "Great photo, Dave!". Is that what you would've wanted?

"I fail to see how an intelligent woman (and trust me she is) can assume a pose that she finds unflattering."

This is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. Lots of super-intelligent people in the world don't know the first thing about photography. But that's great that she liked it, that's all that matters I guess.

"So you say..."

"This is simply another example of you attempting to dictate aesthetics by declaration"

"Again, this is just a reiteration of your other, as yet, unsupported comments""a substantive (though somewhat subjective) comment!"

"All you are doing, at best, is stating your personal preference"

So let me get this straight; you're saying my photo critique is an opinion?? Whoa, I'm sorry. Next time I'll use the pythagorean theorem to critique photos.

"4.) Try your hardest to imagine the worst model image you can, if it looks a lot like the image you are working on, your image probably isn't flattering or interesting enough for Derek or (again) any good photogrpher."

Well, yeah.

"Many of us found it interesting, that in itself ought to cause you enough pause to at least wonder how that could possibly be the case?"

Actually, according to the ratings, most people agree with me. Doesn't that in itself cause you enough pause to at least wonder how that could possibly be the case?

How did you light this, if you don't mind my asking? It doesn?t seem to be on camera flash. It might be bounce flash with some natural light to the side but I would not call it flat. In fact, if you look close there is quite a bit of defining shadows. As for the background, it does appear to be a canned background from a computer but that is better than cracked plaster and water pipes. The background is well done and I happen to like the pose.

I think I'll stick to trying to critique the photo, rather than getting involved in the verbal free-for-all.

 

So. About the photo. I like the model, and would like to see more of her in your more traditional (for lack of a better word) style. I'd like to see her in b&w of course (don't you get tired of me saying that?), and with some emphasis on the scorpion tattoo. She has a lovely figure.

 

Regarding the background, it's a nice trick, but it's still just a trick, and is sort of overwhelming. You're better than this, David, as evidenced by a whole lot of your other work. I understand the idea of doing this for fun, I just think it could be so much better.

 

I think what this photograph is missing is attitude. Or some sort of visual kick. The model is sort of just there and we're not really seeing much, if anything, of her true self...who she really is.

 

And last, a rare comment from me on wardrobe. The sort of industrial-strength looking plain bra just doesn't do anything for me.

Tom, I have emailed you. Thanks a lot.

 

Gary, The background is a creation but the model is lit by window light only. (mainly from the back and side) If you look closely you will see a ray of sunshine hitting her hair and face. You have also noticed that there are some shadows created by the light which is a fact that not everyone who left a comment has noticed. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I hope I have answered your question.

 

Jim, I never tire of you asking for things in black and white. That said, I think my efforts might pale into insignificance in comparison with..... well... I'll let you guess.

 

Your comment about the bra is noted. You also point out that the model has a lovely figure. More of that figure can be seen by perusing my portfolio.

 

To your comment about the background! Yes Jim, it is a trick. Judging from your tone, it is clear you don't like it. At least you had the manners to put it politely which I repsect a lot.

 

"You're better than this, David" I find this comment very flattering. My reply would be, "Am I?"Please don't take this the wrong way but this image was taken for the model and she likes it. Surely that is the real measure of how good the image is. If the truth be told, I am not jumping up and down about this image myself. That said I do not dislike it. I did post it here hoping for feedback. I am rarely a good judge of my own images. Feedback is what you have given me and I am genuinely appreciative of it. Thanks a lot.

"I'm saying they are unsupported assertions and thus really wouldn't even merit the classification of "mere opinion." Why can't you read?"

Why can't you comprehend english at a 3rd grade level? Because by the 4th grade, you should know that an "unsupported assertion" IS a "mere opinion".

"What ratings are you referring to? The ratings for the image we were discussing have you in the minority."

Well, no, in the image we were discussing (this one, no?) 9 out of 13 voters gave it a 4/4 or below, which means most thought it was average at best. I gave it a 3/3 (though I probably should revise that and make it a 2/5).

"Do you like being grouped with the mindless idiots posting ratings in less time than it takes to load the image?"

LOL! That's it, if somebody thinks your image isn't good, call them idiots! It's that sort of thin-skinned, juvenile reply that made me chime in here to begin with.

"At least you had the manners to put it politely which I repsect a lot."

Maybe he wouldn't have been as polite had you called him a brain-dead idiot too.

Tom, you continue to assert that I haven't supported my claims about this shot, while I say that "flat lighting", "unflattering pose" and "terrible background" should need no further explanation. There is no theorem to prove the background is terrible; it's an OPINION, and yours is no more valuable than mine. You just don't seem to be getting this. I could write a 10-page critique about this photo and you could still come back afterwards and inanely spout "but you didn't offer any proof to back up your claims", as though I'm supposed to cite some reference in a textbook somewhere that notes the awfulness of the RGB color chart as a background for human portraits.

3/3 is the second-highest ratings given to this shot and 9 of 13 raters are within 1 point of mine, so maybe you'd better apply some critical thinking to this. My guess is that two other people did not agree with the votes you gave.

"I taught at both these levels and more (k-12)" - well that explains a lot.

"Look again. I didn't call you an idiot." - You grouped me with them, did you not? Is that not the same thing?

And don't make the sophomoric internet chat claim that my lack of response to each and every sentence of your essay is proof that I can't rebut it. The rest of your book was simply unworthy of discussing at further depth. But if there's some particular point that you're eager to hear my POV on, let me know.

Thank you for the advice.

This has too colorful backround than the subject, as my eyes say and it seams that she is not standing on anything.

 

Al the best !