fashion - streets and catwalks No entry

I think Josefina has some strong, strange Grace Jones -type

of quality. What do you think?

Grace Jones, Josefina, no! She is Angelina Jolie. I can almost see the tattoes. You can't mess with this bitch. You've got to look out those boots. They'll hurt up in the groin. An outlaw feline with sharp nails. Wow! One of your best.

Hi Juha!

 

Yep, thanks for the input. Josefina is very versatile

model, she will be appearing soon a lot in major

Finnish campaigns if all goes well. We tried to add a bit

more edge to her style which she does wonderfully well.

 

From the photo.net point of view, I can only wonder about

the ratings... I guess the women should be portrayed fragile,

sensuous (and preferably with big tits) to get good ratings.

If the image does not fit into this realm, just forget it - your

ratings will be sub-five anyways... Big tits are good

for your photographic skills according to photo.net ratings,

one model's cup size increases photographic skills of the photograper

by 0.5 rating points, on average, according to my estimates :-)

 

 

You are right. Time after time I find that easy to swallow shots earn hi ratings and difficult and controversial shots get average. Time after time I end up wondering whether the photo is good or the female just so beautiful. Mind you, Josefina is something very very special. (Where do you find all these super beauties?)

Anyway, I'll give you an example: Fausto Roim recently submitted this photo. The photo is not bad, no, not at all, but neither is it that special as a PHOTO. The content though, a perfect female body, absolute perfection, piece of heaven, a reflection from paradise earns Fausto's photo top ratings. Now, is that really photographer's merit or was it the mother nature who gave the lady such a gift and Fausto just documented it properly. Mind you, I love Fausto's shot, after all, I am a man.

Look at this wholistically in relation to your "market segment". The ratings are overvalued. The most value is that you can refer to your portfolio. A person clicks a thumbnail and he/she sees the photo, the caption and the comments. You actually have to see the trouble of clicking the details to see the ratings. Occasional visitor is not likely to do that. If she/he does she still has to figure out the scale. I doubt she/he going to do that. No, she is interested in you photographing her. The impact of the photo is most important. A good caption comes next, then the comments and only after that, far further behind, the ratings. Cynical, yes, but after a hard self study I've found that probably the person, and probably the only person who is interested in my ratings is me.

Anyone who has tried this genre knows that this is well above an average photo. This photograph is something you can call excellent without any reservations. Consider the dynamics, you got black vs. shines, consider location contra the character and style, perfect, consider the pose and attitude, fantastic - and consider the trouble of previsualisation and actually finding the place, going there. It does'f come together that easy, it's not a snapshot, definitely not. There is a lot of effort behind this artwork of yours.

Consider this, with a photo like this, do the ratings tell more about the rater than the photo in question?

Yes, of course a neutral, objective and absolute scale

of a "goodness" of a photo is impossible, and yes, the

reviewer tells more about him/herself than of the photo.

 

I'm fine with it, I just fear that photo.net will be the

one suffering if soft porn is the safest way to win accolades

when shooting people, and any departure from this mainstream

is rewarded with lousy ratings - who wants to do this,

in the long run, anyways.