faces in time 'Nina', 26

This is Nina, 26. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. (Please use

care with 'personal' comments about the subject, as my subjects often

read the commentaries -- thank you for that.) Thanks! Enjoy! John

Rating problems have developed from computer jerks who have programmed computers to rate robotically, without regard to the worth of a photo or its subject.

 

Photo.net removes such ratings generally, after a certain amount of time, as those robotic rating machines (and jerks) are uncovered. They are removed because they are not 'real' ratings from 'real' people -- just things that come from black-hearted individuals.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo as displayed here has some JPEG compression artifacts in skin tones that are not in the original.

 

This subject's face had perfect, splotch-free facial skin in the original, uploaded photo, and as I review it after upload, it is not. Just a note for raters and commenters.

 

John (Crosley)

Ii's a good shot, but I think would be better if the body of the model (and her view) " look " to center of the frame, like you apply a mirror efect in photoshop, because that way is more strongly to keep the attention of the viewer on her. Nevertheless I like this shot. Regards from Uruguay

The essence of this shot is to make use of the forced view into the 'vanishing point, which in this photo is to the left.

 

The way I chose was to have the model turn right, looking down the track.

 

Conceptually, your idea may be good, but it would have been impossible to implement.

 

Nina's blown hair is being blown from the oncoming (from the right), Metro (subway) train --- hair that's blown from air being forced down a tunnel from a train coming at 100 km/hour or so.

 

So, the only way to get the 'hair effect' was to have the model face away from the vanishing point. It also forces the viewer to move his/her eyes around the photo a little, which (if the photo is otherwise pleasing) can be the sign of a good photograph.

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to make a contribution/yours is being considered very carefully, and next time I go out, perhaps I'll give your way a try.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

John, you right...if the focus of atention was the tunnel at up left you make the shot very good. A common error is think the subject is allways people, but don?t. Also, the model is fine. Thanks for reply me, that way I learn and grow in this art. Thanks again. Regards from uruguay

Thanks for acknowledging my return comment.

 

What I failed to say was that this photo has two forces pulling on it.

 

The model faces to the right, down the tunnel from the right which blows her hair in the direction of the continuation of the tracks past her head to the left rear.

 

So the eye wants to follow her gaze or at least look at her face, which is on the right side of the photo, and contrariwise, the eye also is almost forced to look into the far background, something called 'forced perspective', I think (correct me if I'm wrong, someone).

 

So, with two countervailing elements to this portrait/photo, the eye is forced to move about the photo.

 

Assuming Nina the model is pretty enough to withstand the viewer's gaze for such a long time, the eye is forced to move around this photo -- one of the tests of what separates a true photograph from a 'snapshot', in most of which all the subjects are lined up in the center, or their face is in the middle.

 

Even placing the model's face right of center adds to interest, I think, don't you?

 

Anyone else?

 

John (Crosley)

This composition has a hopeful connotation. Yes, the two elements that compete for attention - her face and the track background makes this picture more intriguing. I try to find a link between these two points. How do they relate to each other? To me this feels like a woman who is ready to live her present and face her future with a renewed sense of self realization and optimism. The tunnel perspective is blurred and this might be a metaphor for the past that she leaves behind. She is looking straight at you intensely with what seems to be a developing smile. It's a promising expression. I agree with your above description differentiating a photographer from a snapshooter. A photographer is an artist that engages the viewer and provokes questions while at the same time relating his vision. A great communicator using images instead of words.

Thanks John, today I really learn. About link what Adam talk, may be the blowing hear of Nina ? Regards

He was the 'great communicator' -- at least according to Republican doctrine, and he did pretty well in Berlin standing at the wall and telling television, "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL.' (He was NO friend of mine, however, as he systematically broke laws against my client disability recipients to deprive them of benefits.)

 

Good theater at least.

 

Yes, that is a developing smile, and this is the only one of about eight photos that actually was in focus where Nina was not blurred in her eyes and from movement, but it worked well, and both she and I are happy about it.

 

Developing smile . . . good . . . I think she was happy when this was taken and comfortable with my photographing her. You can see that in models' eyes.

 

About leaving her past behind, that is a metaphor, but I don't think it's true for her life. She loves her husband and her two beautiful children, and seems pretty content, and I understand her husband loves her very much, and he's a pretty good earner from what I surmise. She is not desperate for money and models more for fun.

 

Good metaphor for the photo, though, whether or not true to life.

 

She helps me from time to time, and I am grateful for her help.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Adan talks about the face pointed one direction (and also at me the photographer) and also the track into the background behind her -- each pulling the viewer's eyes in two directions.

 

He doeesn't specifically mention the blowing hair, but of course, he means that too.

 

Best regards,

 

John (Crosley)

Great job, John! Very effective, and beautiful image!

Yes Mariano. You are right. The hair is beautiful being blown by the wind and it is part of the face, which I find so expressive and engaging. Glad you liked that interpretation John. Sometimes I get it and other times I don't, but that is part of learning and the exchange of views is enlightening. It comes with growth and coming from you it's priceless.

Thanks for the compliment; the real compliment should go to Nina, who is truly beautiful, although it can be difficult for me to capture her extreme beauty as well as I'd like as she is very serious looking, often with what appears to be a frown, which is just concentration (or facial muscles that are inherited.)

 

John (Crosley)

I was a newcomer three years ago and nobody knew who I was, and I posted a lot of not so wonderful photos, although there were some wonderful ones posted also.

 

It's just part of learning and my fellow Photo.netters helped me.

 

Thanks for holding me in such high regard, but the depth of your analyses seem destined to make you a superior member.

 

John (Crosley)

I'm flattered to receive that undeserving praise from you. You don't know how much it means to me because in my eyes you are one of the greatest photographers I have come across on this site. These are not sweet words that comes from the mouth but from the heart. I have a long road ahead as you can see from my portfolio. One can have the most gifted student in the world, but without the instrumental help of a teacher to bring that talent out, the student is nothing more than a treasure hidden inside a cave - and I am not talking about myself ;)

Don't sell yourself short.

 

You have a gift of taking 'details' and making from them, through each folder, a whole.

 

But I will single out one photo that I would have been proud to take, for its shows 'interaction' among beings (admittedly not two humans). That is the centermost of your photos of dogs (the dog passing the human -- look at their strides. That is street art, which one can only capture 'on the fly'.

 

As you must know from experience, it's easier to take photos of details than to catch people as they move, especially when you're pointing a camera at them, but you do move about, and people are people no matter where they are, and I can sense that you want to do more of what it is I do.

 

All the best wishes in doing so; yours will be an entirely different interpretation if you do -- you needn't copy me; but if you learn something about what it is I do, I also could learn from your portfolio on how to do what it is you have done best.

 

John (Crosley)

For starters, what an outstanding model! Huge beautiful eyes and what an intriguing expression. Her smile comes through her eyes even more than through her beautiful lips.

 

That everything is out-of-focus except for the closest part of her face (her right side of her face) totally gives the sense of motion/temperature throughout: her hair blowing, the diminishing tunnel behind her, and the position of her right hand indicating that it is windy, and perhaps chilly. The slight blurring of the left side of her face flows with the environment's flowing activity, and really brings my view directly into her right eye: nice. I am assuming that the reason the left side of her face is blurred may be due to your large aperture (to capture enough light within a sunless tunnel), but perhaps it was automatically set if you had your Mode set to specify a fixed "Tv," shutter speed . . . as the amount of motion is perfect; I love how just bits of her hair are almost in perfect focus.

 

From all the surroundings I cannot discern any wide-angle distortion at the edges(Barrel distortion); however, the difference in the sizes between the left and right edges of her face indicates to me that your focal length was too much wide angle for this shot this close-up. What was your focal length (zoom value if you were using a zoom lens), aperture, and shutter values? Personally, I don't enjoy this distortion, especially on such an outstanding face.

 

Larry Reibstein lreibstein@sbcglobal.net

 

I love this. There is truly a genuine beauty in her.

I agree 1000 per cent.

 

This is a photo that captures the essence of her soul, though it may not be readily evident.

 

Good to you for recognizing it, though you may not have understood what it was you were recognizing.

 

I do know.

 

And thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

John (Crosley)

I am a little perplexed by this part of your reply" ...though you may not have understood what it was you were recognizing." I don't want to read to much into it, just wondering that's all. Below is a link of my ratings of other peoples work, they are all not posted there yet for some reason but it should give you an idea of what I look for. Ok I'll just leave it at that for now, not too big of a deal just confused me. Shay

 

Link

That was purposefully vague.

 

It's something more 'inside' but you weren't supposed to get 'hung up' and be such a careful reader, so please 'let it slide', if you will.

 

I LOVE your choices for top rated photos -- thanks for the link -- it was truly helpful.

 

At one time a prominent member -- one chosen as a 'featured member' had me and and several others' top rated photos linked to his site, so when people clicked on his site, they were given a choice of being linked to my 'top rated photos' or those of several other members. Featured members has been discontinued -- it was left in place for a long time, but the Administration changed, and about that time, it went away; it suggested 'elitism' and some people resented it, I suppose (I didn't -- one featured member didn't even post photos, but he was a top critic, and he was resented by many, but certainly not by me -- I invited him to rate me continually, even if rates were low, because he was consistent and I knew who was rating me, even low (He left a complimentary note in my portfolio comments, but recently removed it - or the Administration removed it -- too bad). People congratulated on my inviting him (a noted and much-hated low-rater) to rate my photos because they were consistent and honest ratings.

 

And sorry, about keeping 'code' language in my response to you -- I just can't always say what a model is seeing or thinking which is what that refers to (I know but just cannot say . . . it would be indiscreet to the model, that's all).

 

OK?

 

Thanks for asking for an explanation and providing more information about your ratings behavior.

 

Best to you, Shay.

 

John (Crosley)

Like I said I was just a little perplexed by it, slide away it will. I have only been a member since June 2007 and an amateur, practicing, learning, and discovering to be professional photographer for a year. "Featured Members" huh? Sound like it would have been interesting to experience in. I would actually like that, if those members were actually helpful and excluded the sometimes insults that lace harsh critiques. I don't like the fact though if he was a top critic and didn't have photos of his own to back it up. Talking about it and doing are two different things. Well I won't bore you with any further discussion about that, I'm sure you have exausted the subject in the past and it's kind of taking over talking about this wonderful photo. Regards to you, Shay. P.S. We can delete this stuff up to where I asked you that if you like, since the talk is off subject of the photo.

Off the topic is standard for my commentary discussions -- if it relates to any subject that is tangential to anything tangential to my photo (or anything that interests you or me).

 

The photographer I am referring to probably was a marvelous photographer, but critiques and comments were not then anonymous (especially ratings) and he had heard (correctly I can assure you) that many members were waiting to revenge rate him should he upload any photos; so he understood that he must stick with his role as rater; perhaps he also is a poster here or elsewhere and has two accounts . . . one never knows. He did have the support of then-Administration/management. And my admiration as a photo critique.

 

Even if he rated very low.

 

But then again, he wrote me he liked my photography. 'He' is Bailey Seals known also as .'[.Z'.

 

He still has an account here, but his recent comments, though still linked to his account do not actually show, perhaps have been 'removed' or whatever.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

In any case, Mr. Seals was somewhat combative in the forums (fora), but he had some right to be as he was often attacked by other members -- just the mention of his name raised certain members' hackles.

 

Not me; my very best photo, uploaded at the start, ('Balloon Man'), got a 6/6 from him and landed in his rarely-added-to highest-rated folder, which contained stunning work after stunning work, even though my photo was in terrible scanned condition. You only get 300 highest-rated photos and older or lower rated photos drop off when you add new ones after that, and if a 6/6 photo makes a highest-rated list for a guy with 35,000 ratings, that should tell you something.

 

His average rate was 4.08 or something like that, which made many members very unhappy, because in those days you could give (and it would count) a 1/1, 2/2/, etc., on any photo, not just critique photos. one day I woke up and he had rated all photos in my portfolioo which rankled me, since few had had critique requested, but in looking back a few days later, I respected his ratings and they were internally consistent and I had looked at what he considered 'highest rated' -0- so he upheld my test of consistency.

 

You now can give a 1/1 or a 2/2 now, but it's not counted currently.

 

Now we have semi-anonymous ratings (your rating is not always anonymous; only in certain circumstances).

 

Best to you. (nothing need be removed; my comments are free-wheeling -- many members come here just to read them and write me about that -- they yearn for the good discussions we have fueled by these photos and extended by the high intelligence of many members. Even those who don't contribute often read these remarks, I understand.

 

John (Crosley)

Yes! [.Z, he did give me a 3/3 once. He was right. That photo sucked. I had such respect though because it was the only 3/3 I got by a non anonmys rater, even though he's still sort of anonyms. I just wish it followed with some constructive criticism. I'll reply more later, I just wanted to get that out there since it struck such a chord with me.