Hot Stomach

 

Dedicated to John Peri because he appreciates a pretty girl even whenthe photograph is less than perfect.

 

Yes! I did cut her nipple off and there are also other things about this photograph I don't like.

 

Feedback appreciated.

seems a little out of focus David or you have focussed on her wrist. I like the soft feel but would have cropped to the right of her belly jewellry

Many thanks David. However, I have never said or implied that it is enough to post a pretty girl for a picture to be of interest, nor have I ever claimed that. The very idea is absurd.

 

Since you misquote me, I will repeat the phrase I posted previously on your other page (your link above):

 

"glamour photography essentially needs glamorous components and does not necessairly have to comply with the same strict criteria that many other works are judged by in order to be appreciated. This does not mean that only the person in the picture is of interest, it is the way in which she is portrayed that matters ... "

 

I repeat, it is "the way in which she is protrayed that matters". A pretty girl does not make a good picture any more than a beautiful sunset will necessarily do so. That applies to any subject and the nature of it's content. There are no rules however and what constitutes a good or bad photo is subjective. Photography has no driver's manual.

 

My premise, which appears to be shared by many people on this site which respond favourably to such works, is that "glamour" photograph can be appreciated for bringing out the charm, the grace, the elegance of a model, without necessarily responding to the same criteria by which we judge some other works, whether contrast, lighting, straight horizons or missing limbs. I have repeatedly given as examples the litterature in the fashion world in which such considerations are given only peripheral thought, without in any way infringing on the success of the photos, the photographers and the magazines in which they are published. I do not extend this argument to the glossy magazines which in my view relate to yet another category about which I know very little.

 

Again thank you for the gesture. However, I would possibly have been more flaterred had you posted a picture you were more proud of .. :-)

 

Indeed the model is very pretty. Unfortunately, with no offense to the lovely lady, that does not make it a good photo nor is that sufficient for it to merit much attention on it's own, though I fully respect that some others may disagree here on PN regarding this particular work. I do enjoy the expression in her seeming state of slumber.

BP, The focus was on her stomach if I remember correctly. This was a snapshot taken after a main photoshoot. By positing it hear I was trying to illustrate that sometimes a bad photograph can appear better than it is by having a good subject. Thanks for stopping by.

 

John, Sorry for misquoting you. I didn't think anything I said here was meant to be taken as a quote.

 

addendum:-

 

John, I have given you a mention here. I do like that image.

It was more than a quote David, since it was written in order to illustrate a point regarding my perception of glamour photography, which I repeat is wrong. Anyway, I think that our respective points of view are clear now and the fact that they may differ is a perfectly good thing, inasmuch as one respects the other's way of seeing things.

 

FInally, though I would never expect you to hug me, I still maintain that I am much cuter than that piece of stuffed rug that you keep flaunting everywhere .... why else would you expect all these girls to pose for such a bad photographer as me.

Actually I've seen my fair share of portraits of so-so looking or somewhat less attractive women (or men) (but very good portrait nonetheless) got low ratings and beautiful girls (especially nudes) with so so composition/overall aesthetics got much higher ratings here.

 

Obviously many of us here unfortunately rate with their wieners not their head, but that's life.