Published: Sunday 31st of March 2002 07:36:00 PM
Hy Michael, no it's a totally different model. She had never posed before either.
lovely eyes this lady has! could it possibly be the same model as in the other commented photo where i talked about her tilt of head?.... don't get me wrong, i love the figure and form of a woman's body, but i liked the way you focused mainly on her face in this shot...
One of your best! Though I have not seen them all, I like this one because of its simplicity. You have the woman, her face, her body, no gimmicks. As for your creations with the warholesque repeat images behind the nude: ask yourself this serious question, is it helping the image or is it exploiting the technology to make it eye-catching. You can probably guess what I think. A photography teacher told me once when I used a sepia tone that I used it because I thought it was cool, not because the image needed it. He was right. The feminine form is well imaged here. I suggest that you try for more of these natural images, put your heart and effort into creating something dazzling in simplicity. -Mark
John - I've also experienced those "persons that take the trouble to look at a photo and then rate it angrily with a 1/1 or a 2/2" as you noted above.
Recently some folks did that to a couple of perfectly innocent, not that unattractive photos I'd posted. My initial reaction was to look at their folders and denounce their efforts with absurd ratings. So I did. But then I got to thinking that wasn't such a great approach, so I've sworn it off and will only rate with kindness in the future!
Besides, in the uncalled for low ratings incidents I refer to, I noticed that the people involved all had names I would associate with people living in non-English speaking countries.
Maybe - just maybe - a language barrier allowed these folks to think that "1" was the top rating and in fact they just loved what they saw. After all - being Number 1 is usually a good distinction to own!
I've found myself returning to this photograph again and again. It's a real charmer! I started wondering just what makes it so appealing. I considered settling for the explanation that the subject is simply beautiful. But then it dawned on me that beautiful subjects don't always make beautiful photographs. Yet somehow in this photo and throughout your portfolio you consistently present what seem to be the most beautiful women on the planet. And therefore, John, I can only conclude that you possess great skill at capturing and presenting appealing subject matter at its best. I hope you don't run short of inspiration anytime soon! I've once again dodged the whole issue of what it is specifically I like about this photo. But I don't ask for the recipe every time I enjoy a great meal. I just enjoy it. Likewise, I often find it nicer to just enjoy art by consuming its details without worrying about what it's made of. One more thing... A previous comment suggested you should focus on this kind of photo over the wild, color filled dazzlers you've also shown. I wouldn't want to have to choose. I think you should keep wandering around the spectrum.
Very natural impression, great shot!
Love it I feel like Im right there...
First of all, Daniel thanks. It's nice to get some encouragement. Of course, not everyone likes the pictures nor my approach, but then we need this diversity, or life would be very boring. What admittedly does suprise me sometimes is the persons that take the trouble to look at a photo and then rate it angrily with a 1/1 or a 2/2 (or an awful mail to me!). I sometimes look up their file to see just what it is that they like themselves and, more often than not, it is people that have not posted any pictures at all. Their average ratings overall are also very low too, which makes me wonder, once again, why they go to all this trouble? anyway, I haven't really figured this one out yet! I guess the models are pretty yes. I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but you can't make a good tomato sauce without starting out with good tomatoes! After all, I have chosen to do "glamour photography", and there can be no hypocrisy about that. Where do they come from? Well, they are all friends or girls that I meet (that certainly become friends too after the sessions). We all meet attractive people, the challenge is to get them to agree to pose. Anyway, I'm very grateful to these wonderful young ladies that put their trust in us and allow us to share in their beauty. Now as to Oliver's remark regarding the creation of "eye catching images", but yes, that is precisely what I am trying to do! I have no other pretensions on the subject than that. Can that not be an objective in itself? Obviously there are two different approaches in my portofolios, first of all the photographs, which must be judged on their own merit, and then the fun that has been had in trying out different compositions with the computer. I am not trying to substitute one from the other, I am just trying to see what more or less (hopefully) attractive images one can end up with through manipulation. That's all. I cannot draw or paint, but I do enjoy pushing shapes and colours around. The Warlow-esk type pictures are just a fun thing also. It is just an attempt to try something a little different. Some people like them others don't! Again, of course I understand that. Admittedly, you do sometimes end up with a picture however which gets much more, and a longer-lasting attention, than the original photo would have done on its own. Is that an accomplishment or not? I don't know. I think it depends on the person looking at the result. Actually, some of these manipulated photos do make attractive pictures when framed on the wall where they can be very decorative. This is particualrly so in those compositions where the models are no longer recognisable. Many of them have put them up in their homes and it has become a kind of on-going joke. Hey it looks like you .... Oh really, come on now! Lastly, I should say that I have the greatest respect for the purists. I wish I could emulate them more, but frankly I'm not very good on the technical side. I just do things according to my own means, with a camera and a flash .... and then of course the computer. And most of all, of course, I try to have some fun.
This is a lovely picture. The focus on her face makes it seem that her nudity is coincidental to the portrait. Very nice.
I must concur with the above comment - the focus on the face and eyes is great in this shot. I also like the slightly cool tone you've applied to this image. Kudos.
Trust John, this is a favorite image for me, too. The eyes look tentative yet trusting. I have noticed in quickly scanning your work that the models all seem relaxed and trusting. This is no small feat: you must have an honorable and disarming nature.
Thanks Peter, I truly appreciate this remark. A trusting relationship is everything in this kind of photography. I have to add something though. We also have great fun taking them. That's why so many of the models (friends) are laughing in my pictures!
Scott, my lighting is never very good. I only work with a flash. As I have explained lengthily above, I am usually more concerned with catching a pose than with trying to get a perfect picture.
Good job! I think this is one of you better shots. It has a nice cool tone and seems better lit then most of your photos.
Hy Joe. Thank you for your comment and for your assessment of my photo which I find both well balanced and very useful. I'm not at all against people commenting on photos that have not posted any themselves, and I have never said this. What I do feel strongly about however is people using their anonymity to express their spite and envy (if only they realized themselves how closely the two are interrelated). I am also against this kind of discussion dominating the pages on Photo Net. You have been around on these sites long enough to know that those that do this rarely have at heart the qualities of a photo. They are venting their frustrations at their own inadequacies and they hide behind their false identities in order to do it. Look at the brilliant and exceptional work that Anna Pagnaco shows us, and the disgusting comments that it sometimes arouses. I guess that in any cross section of the society, you will have to deal with some morons too. I'm simply passed the stage where I don't tell them what I think they are, only I don't do it anonymously.
First this - You said "I sometimes look up their file to see just what it is that they like themselves and, more often than not, it is people that have not posted any pictures at all." etc.
This is, IMHO, not a legitimate complaint. I've seen this response routinely at photo.net and photosig.com and I've seen it in a couple of your posts. It's perfectly valid for someone to critique a photo without having posted anything. Perhaps they don't own a scanner, maybe they're just not interested in having their work reviewed, or maybe they're just new and haven't bothered yet. Either way, that doesn't invalidate the opinon. You've posted the photo for review, so accept what's offered. As for overall ratings, they should average out to about average (around four). If I didn't skip all the snapshots people post of the their cats and dogs, my average rating would probably be less than two in both categories.
Next, back to the photo at hand...
It's very nice. She's very attractive and that certainly helps. The combination of the rather submissive pose, the lighting, and expression give her a very innocent appeal. My only complaints are that the far arm looks like it's missing and, whether intentional or not, the lack of sharpness on her breast looks like a mistake to me. The crop revealing one breast but not the other creates a definite visual tension for me, but I honestly can't say whether that tension adds or detracts from the image.
If you set aside my comparatively unimportant technical complaints, you're left with an image that appears to have drawn out a great deal of the model's personality and certainly evokes a lot of emotion in the viewer. There's also a definite duality to the expression. She looks youthful and innocent, but there's an undertone of desire there, and the strong eye contact really draws you into the image. It's very compelling and it gets better the longer you look at it.
...those that do this rarely have at heart the qualities of a photo...
That is quite correct. There's no doubt that many of the low raters are either revenge rating or just seem to get a kick out of handing out 1s. You're also going to suffer from the ratings of those that give out automatic low scores for anything with nudity.
Well Joe, that is a candid respose. Thank you! However, why don't people just learn to live and let live. There is so much misery in this world already. Why spend ones' time negating others? There is nothing wrong with nudity. It is vulgarity that is demeaning to the human spirit and not the beautiful forms of a young lady. Anyway, are we here to give our opinion on a photo or to promulgate our own sense of morals? The model represented here is beautiful and she posed for this photo with sensitivity and grace. She likes the photo and so does her fiançée. Anyone who finds this offensive has a problem, but I think that the problem lies with himself and not with my portrayal of this image.
No, it's not a scanning problem. That was the final print.
....beautiful pose, beautiful model, graet photo!!! i like this slight overexposure...did u do it on purpose or is it a scanning problem(which in this case is no problem ;-) )
ahhh....doesn't matter anyway, because its simply beautiful!!!! i just have a very bad scanner and maybe thats why i always think that other people have the sme problems....
sw yet another wonderful photo. i'm guess i'm just jealous. i have posted a few photos, and been the "victim" of some lower rating(some deservedly so. that partially due to putting up a lot of so-so work, since i don't have a body of great photos to my name. I find that I generally only rate photos that I like, and perhaps that runs my "averge" up. I rarely rate, or comment on, photos that donot positively catch my eye. This one certainly has.