by Peri John

untitled portrait fashion glamour nude artistic johnperi se peri john

Gallery: Artistic Nudes in black and white 2

Tags: portrait fashion glamour nude artistic johnperi seeking critique

Category: Nude and Erotic

Published: Thursday 29th of November 2007 02:40:19 PM


James Baeza
John, I think you misunderstood. I meant HER right arm. The triangle of background is a little blurry and diffusing the edge of her lower torso. I think her left arm looks a little wierd but is OK, body mechanics happen. I really like the highlights on her shoulder and collar bone there. Maybe a little dark under her breast. Sorry. Picking again. You did ask that the rod not be spared. Best regards, Jim

John Peri
Jim, it would seem that the arm is way back looking for support and is putting a strain on the muscle which appears to be taught, pulling the chest forwards with it .. does look a little weird ..

David de Orueta
Thank you John. I agree on the charm and innocence issue. Ask what makes a charm or a pin-up style? And what has changed since then. I had a bit Alberto Vargas in mind and colors from the 60ies while writing. (imo) the image is more a back stage "Hollywood" or "Beverly hills" star kind of thing without a pool. Regarding that "she doesn't really" I understand her, for what ever reason she has; she knows better then anyone, the magic both of you can do. Maybe you'll just have to ask yourself what you like about it, without regarding others opinion (and then tell us :-) I still would like to see some more from the same "seance" maybe in color. Regards.

Dennis Aubrey
Truncated ... ... by cutting off the legs, you truncate the line from the one leg to the other and it leaves an undetermined structure (clearly the thigh, but that is logic, not a visual sense) at the bottom of frame. We should be looking at the lines of the body as well-outlined by the background, but the eye goes to that amorphous thigh. Have seen and commented on your portfolio and think that you do some of the best work on PN. I think the model is right, this one doesn't make it.

Jean-Baptiste Avril
Good pic, but... ... I believe it misses the "delicate" John peri's touch. I'm used to something more aesthetic and in door graphic. Are you changing your style :)

John Peri
Thanks so much, I agree with all of you say of course regarding the photo (model included!), but I would so much have liked to get this right. It reminds of those 1950 pictures of a young woman chewing on a straw ... but this has not even remotely the appeal of one of those .... and that foot bothers me, it should be in or out of the picture .. Sure do agree about the truncated lines too. Oh well, I'll just have to get her back there again next summer and start over ... hope those clouds come back too ... :-) Many thanks again ...

Alex Marlot
Hi This is bold, fresh, a bit awkward, which makes it appear highly candid. You've captured an attitude here, and perhaps that's what is of concern for the model. Strangely beautiful and yet irreverent.

James Baeza
Hi John, Aside from the focus issues that have already been addressed I do not care for the shadow from the shorts on her right leg. If the shorts were not so high there it would have reduced it. I also would like to see more of that leg. It would give my eye something to follow toward her torso and then face. I do like this concept. I was not around in the fifties but think this has a nice edgy look to it. Oh, I just noticed, why is the triagle between her torso and right elbow so burry? It is taking away from the edge of her body there. Sorry I picked at this maybe a little too much. Regards, Jim

Curtis Richter
Actually I like it...the sunlight gives her a decadent look (as well as the pose)which I like - I think all it needed was for the shot to be framed a bit more camera left. Would have accentuated her lines, IMHO.

John Peri
Thanks Curtis, I was after a kind of fifties look actually ... Thank you for the suggestions also. I see several more things wrong with it, but I better leave the critiques deal with that first ..

John Peri
David thanks. Well, it's precisely these types of thought that interest me, not regarding my style, but that of the picture. I'm attracted to this and would like to pursue it further. Sure the physique was different, but there was a charm and innocence prevalent in the photos then that does not exist today. Definitely worth exploring I believe. As for the focus, I do not understand it either. What is close and far away appears to be sharper than the remainder .. was there body movement in between? I've zoomed up close and the grain is similar .. strange .. Well, I posted this I think to see if it was of any interest. There is something I like about it despite all the faults, but she doesn't really ! Maybe I hoped for something positive to say .. ha ha. Thanks for passing by ..

Rob Scott
Concur with the above Misses your style. Yes, maybe edgy or "50s," but you have a unique style and this is not it. If I sanned a hundred images, I can usually pick yours out because it is: a) compelling and beautiful, b) unique to your photographic style. This is not. It's lost in the clutter. The model deserves more, as well. Rob

Costas Ellos
Indifference and provocation, acceptance et a la fois elle est contente, satisfaite, elle declare qu' elle peut "absorber" n'importe qui ou n' importe quoi. Elle regarde directement le soleil. J' aime bien le resultat !

David de Orueta
John, you really have me puzzled with this one. I'm trying to figure out what kind of comment you are looking for. Anyway, I'll try: (IMO): My first instant split second reaction is what is already said; not your style (except for the face), and legs aperture seems to wide. It puzzled me that the breasts seem out of focus while face and leg are in focus. The model is very fit and my idea of the 50ies is a bit more "fleshy". "A young woman chewing on a straw" has me associate to something looking soft, and (imo) these sunglasses give a more modern style and a harder than that look. Aren't the 50ies often in soft color and bit over saturated? I also believe that in the classic 50ies they didn't "dare" to take the photo from down and upwards or "dare" not to show the ground (or towel, car or whatever the model would sit a lie on). Just some of my thoughts. Regards.

John Peri
Thanks Jim, I guess her left arm shocks me even more! But as you rightly point out, these are largely technicalities, and if one is to take this seriously as a mission, I guess one can attempt to correct these faults. What intrigued me about this photo, as mediocre as it be, is a style that I am not familiar with but would truly like to know better. Thank you very much for giving me so much of your time. Did you see Leni Riefenstahl's pictures of the Olympic Games in the thirties. She dug holes in the ground and photographed the athletes from this perspective .... fascinating work.

Bill Symmons
John, this image does have obvious, and strange, focus issues, I can't even attempt to analyse those. But I think the pose is stained, the legs look forced and the arms very tight. The overall effect to me is a wanton, "in your face" effect that somehow gives an overall not quite ready for the shutter release feeling. That said, the pose is daring and the difference from your normal work is a stretch so I would say do some more, it's always good to venture outside what may be a routine and comfortable set up. Bill

Jim Phelps
John, The only area that is in sharp focus is around her cutoff jeans. Everything else appears to be defocused or somewhat devoid of features. This makes the cutoff jeans the primary focal point/subject of the foto, which for a beautiful woman is almost sinful. The position of the left leg contributes to this also. The leg leads the eye to the jeans, reinforcing the jeans as the subject. The sunglasses also detract from the foto. In order to identify with the model, the viewer needs to at least see her eyes, and preferably she should be looking at the camera. The sunglasses basically kill the innocence you said you were looking for. I agree with you and the model, I do not like it either. Jim Phelps

John Peri
Well said Bill, thank you. Strain there definitely is (though nothing wrong with photographing that), and I think it's due to her lifting her lower torso off the tractor roof ... maybe it contributed also to the movement and bizarre focus. Had the photo been more rational, it would probably have incited less interest and that is why I posted it. Thanks again.

Stamoulis Theodorikas
Very good work.

Alberto Quintal
Excellent! What skin tones, beautiful angle and super model, John, 7/7. Alberto

Michael Meneklis
Perfect light and pose John. Reminds me the strong light of Greece that only very elegant photographers, like you, can use it constructively.

John Peri
Thanks Jim, there is so much wrong with this photo, I agree. The focus is only one of them, it's mysterious in that certain areas are in focus whereas others not. There was probably movement somewhere in between. The sunglasses may or not be considered to give a genre and don't bother me in this case, but sure, I sympathize that you may not like them. As I said, it's what it could have been that was of interest to me rather than what it is. Some people appear to find something interesting in the approach nevertheless. Thanks for popping by ..

James Baeza
Interesting John. I will have to do a search for her work. Sounds very inovative for the time. Ah... yes. I do recall now.

Alon Eshel
Sunbathing Beautiful , sexy . Love the angle

John Peri
Not quite right .. I am interested in this photo more because of what it could have been than what it is and, admittedly, the model doesn't like it, so I will probably remove it quite shortly. In the meantime, I would appreciate your severe critiques on what you think and please don't spare your thoughts however negative .. thank you ...

Next Image >>