jimknowles

Igor - love the composition. And the lighting seems to be completely in your control... you are the nude lighting master! And you seem to be quite adept at finding these wonderful models! Excellent work.

I'm looking at this image for the first time today over my morning coffee. I am astonished it has garnered so much attention; so far, 100 ratings & a ton of comments.

 

I won't bother to read other's comments before writing my own critique. I don't want to be caught up in the mailstorm of what must be some sort of tangent.

 

Jut my opinion, but this image is a nice shot of an old building. For having been taken in what appears to be mid-day/ early afternoon, it's well exposed, well composed (for what it is), and has good sharpness and depth-of-field.

 

Just my opinion, but that's about all it's got going for it.

 

Having not read all the comments above, my guess is that somewhere along the line things must have gotten personal.

 

Personally, I would never bother to rate such a photo as it is quite ordinary. I might call it a professional level snapshot. I don't mean to be inflammatory or anything - just giving my opinion. I'm not rating it, so I hope it's okay to give my opionion.

 

Mind you - absolutely NO disrespect intended! It's just a nice picture but nothing special.

What a great example of what makes still photography unique. Capturing a moment with color, texture, form, and style no other medium can match. A real grabber!

To my eye (such as it is) this photo suffers from too much depth of field.

In fact, it almost looks as if the photographer focused on the background (using autofocus) and used sharpening in an attempt to bring the walker up to par; or perhaps as a result of the slower shutter speed forced by such a small apeture, the walker was slightly blurred?

It is a nice photo, nonetheless.

Here, the dress is definiitely the subject. The environment is the perfect contrast to the softer dress & woman, as it is with so many of your images.

 

You've composed the image so as to use existing lines to divide the frame into golden thirds .. then you've placed your subject's body so as to dissect the right-hand "third" verticle line.

 

Her arm is bent in such a way as to extend the line of the stair rail. Facing upwards, she poses a natural flow as if she were about to ascend the ladder.

 

The model's skin tones match quite well with the background wall; she forms a symmetrical base of the heart shape there with the crook of her arm.

 

The light is so perfect that were you able to duplicate this in a studio, you'd have work booked for a decade. No doubt, you've found your own niche in Denmark using the out-of-doors.

 

Even in this small view, it's clear the model's face is beautiful; that her full beauty remains a mystery is particularly all right as the dress / gown is the real subject here. Yet the wide veiw is necessary to get the full impact of the dress and the photograher's story about it.

 

Truly a perfect fashion photograph. And an exquisite work of art!

 

Oh yes; and the red hair is the cherry on top!

What if you were there? (You had 20 seconds to shoot b&W, color, tight and wide.)

ROLLING STONE COVER.

Now this shows some detail in the sea! Knew there had to be some somewhere.

WONDERFUL IMAGINATION / COMPOSITION ROCKS / GREAT WORK! Very Sexy too!

Love the composistion/ striking colors and angles. Had there been a lovely girl sunbathing rather than some geek dude's legs, it would have been TOO perfect... EXCEPT ONE THING:

 

The deep dark blue sea in the background / perfect as it is / is too perfect. To my eye, it appears to have been PS'ed into monochomatic oblivion. Just my opinion. Ought'nt there be at least SOME detail in the water at this f stop?

 

After all, you did not set this up / it is a "FOUND" picture. Not supposed to be "PERFECT"... at least having SOME detail in the water would let the viewer know it's the ocean/ sea/ water body back there. And would give the image some depth (in terms of making it a more than single dynamic image).

 

Definitely would NOT crop it any differently no matter what however! Lovely image!

just thought some more people might like to see this... have fun with it

What a wonderful shot of what's it's like to be a boy!

It's fun. And what the hey, it is just a breast! I mean, let's face it - she is very pretty. The overall image however is a bit silly - but so what? Glad someone is just having fun with photography! Thanks for sharing.

i almost put my hand through my screen ... it's so perfectly real! a 2D image tha's 3D!

It may be a cliche but it's brilliantly done! Beautiful image!

what fun!

I want to know what brand they are and where you got 'em ... coolest glasses I've seen in long while! Thanks - JVK paparazzo@charter.net

 

Great lighting and composition too.

TOUCHE' to you both

 

Enjoyed the sparring / jousting, Birgit darling.

GRRRRRRRRRRRR baby, GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Help me out here, rude remarks judge, cliche photo expert, and now - subtext decipherer?

 

Wow - wonder woman! You have a lasso too?

 

Actually - I find the comments here much more entertaining than the picture.

 

As for your questions, I'll try to answer them best I can.

 

Q. #1. "Occasionally, people here at p.net get a bit pissy and huff themselves up a bit too much and immediately attack others because they don?t like something." (My own words). ...Isn't this exactly what you did when the first negative comment on your Photo appeared, sweetie?!

 

A. #1. Well, let's see. I guess I did sorta react to that whole "THIS IS AWFUL / CRAP" thing. Don't really mind the cliche accusation though. As I believe I tried to convey earlier, whether or not something is a cliche is in the eye of the beholder, eh what? Photo.net has thousands of photos that could easily be called cliches. Not to put too fine a point on it, but one woman's cliche is another man's naked chick! (Which of course is most often somewhat interesting to look at ... for many guys, that is.) Of course I'm being facetious here. Think about it. We are all entitled to our opinions as to what we like and do not. Not sure caring about what someone else likes or dislikes matters all that much here. I have learned, however, that regardless of what one likes / dislikes, it's rarely a cool move to just come right out with an insult when attempting to critique someone's work. Good or bad... the best comment I received here, the one which interpreted the spirit of this picture best (IMHO) was by Jim McNitt above. Really boosted my ego, ya know? Thank you JIM!!! So I stand by my quote above.

 

Q. #2. Why do you believe that anybody could be interested in what you think of the people writing here including me?

 

A. #2. Gee - I dunno. Because it is FUNNY???!!!!!!!!!!! After all, what else is there to discuss - you've pretty much explained to everyone there's nothing worthwhile to learn here about this image. According to you, it's just a dumb cliche that offends you and is technically incorrect as well. Next time I print it, I may adjust the smoke a bit so as to eliminate that offending obvious error you pointed out - and HEY B.B. BABY ... thanks for that technical tip! Much appreciated! I guess in all my excitement and drooling I forgot to do a bit of blending there on the smoke. Next time, promise! It'll be better, okay? Probably would have noticed it myself, but I was busy playing with my blow up doll. Gee, I do hope the client doesn?t read this!

 

Q. #3. I'd like to know what you think of your ideas (except for the fact that they are supergreat and megacreative and hothothot) and how you back them up. Intellectually. If you know what I mean. Baby.

 

A. #3. Now see, you're hitting below the belt! OWE! You?re asking me think about what I think AND be intellectual. Tall order, indeed! And you?re asking me to set aside my huge ego - egads, all my bragging and bluster for naught. I knew I should never have said all those wonderul things about my own photo! What was I thinking? Wait a minute - that wasn?t even me! Hey, where did you get that supergreat / megacreative stuff anyway? WHO SAID THAT STUFF? I want to meet her!

 

Oh, wait another minute! You asked what I think of MY ideas. Which ideas would those be, luv? What have I done / said that could possibly have caused you to be interested in my ideas? I'm totally willing to share my ideas - ideas about what though? Cliches? Blow-up dolls? Rude comments? Photography techniques? Man / Woman relationships? F-stops? Shooting with large format cameras? Flowers? What? Do be more specific, and I'll be happy to oblige.

 

But let's break it down, shall we? In the technical details box for this photo, I pretty much explained everything that needs explaining. If someone has actual questions, they can ask and I'll be more than happy to answer. And if one simply DOES NOT LIKE this picture that's okay too... that is as long as they don't mind a little playful banter in reply to outright insult? I suppose it IS more fun to attack the one who created the so called offending cliche itself rather than discussing technical stuff / aesthetic stuff semi -intelligently. After all, how can a cliche have any photographic merit, right? Doesn't really leave much to be explained by me, does it? I would just hate for anyone reading all this to get bored with boring cliched attacks and silly nonsense without some fun stuff in response, that's all.

 

I would like to convey one personal opinion: If one does not have any images uploaded on Photo.net, and chooses to critique other's photos, their opinions and comments will be as empty as their portfolio. Other's may disagree - this is just my opinion! However, no one with an empty portfolio will ever get any respect from me!!! PERIOD! And I'm not just speaking of critiques of my work, but of anyone's work on photo.net. I know lots of people on photo.net have all sorts of reasons why they don't upload pictures. Nevertheless, no uploads = not walking the walk in my book.

 

And Birgit baby, please note, though I've looked at your portfolio, and despite all the cliches contained therein, I've not found it necessary to attack your pictures or yourself / your beingness. Got it? Cool. Love ya, James.

Love that you shot it on actual film! Can only imagine the luminosity of a color print must be striking! Great composition and choice of (or ability to see) contrasting and complementary colors! Dig the way you've allowed some backlighting and shadows to breakup darkspace.

Erotic - in my opinion - ART. The lips are tantalizing, the odd placement of the bra, combined with the fact it appears to be an everyday type of bra, and the voluptuous curves and silken skin tones give this photo some real substance beyond everyday t&a!

 

That bit of left elbow beneath the right is a bit distracting to me, but it doesn't ruin the extraordinary realism of the image. Exposure combined with mystery - very much a part of what is a woman. Very well done!

Effervescence -A kind of natural ebullition; that commotion of a fluid which takes place when some part of the mass flies off in a gaseous form.

 

Wondfully playful, dramatically graphic, monoscape! The man's head "in the crosshairs" helps MAKE this picture MORE than perfect! I love pictures like this - no real photoshop phonyness! The decisive moment. Man and bird captured in the same square - a blink and either would be in another plane. The steps and wall are alive! Trully effervescing! And NO CLICHE! Exciting to look at! Excellent work!

Gee whiz, sweetie - if you really look, there are thousands of cliche photos on p.net. Many of them much more blatant examples of the type of objectification you seem to despise so vehemently. The cliche police could go nuts!!!!!

 

I've looked at the photos you've chosen for your portfolio here at p.net. Like I said, nice kitty pictures. Just my opinion, though.

 

See darlin', sometimes cliches are fine. Sometimes boring. Sometimes just nice or pretty and enjoyable to look at for a minute. I find no need to lambast a stranger with my own opinion that they have uploaded a cliche photo of a flower, kitty cat, child playing, abstract of shadows, pretty girls (be they clothed, nude, or rude), etc...

 

Sometimes I offer my humble opinion if I see a photo that shows the photographer has talent, or is on to something interesting or semi-unique. Sometimes I offer a lot of encouragement, even to photographers who are clearly already really really good, and sometimes to those who seem to need a bit of learning and growth. And if I find the need to point out what I feel is a glaring poopie-goof or anything truly bad, I take the time to try and say it in a way that instructs, encourages, and most importantly indicates its just one persons opinion. In other words, Im not rude about it.

 

Occasionally, people here at p.net get a bit pissy and huff themselves up a bit too much and immediately attack others because they dont like something. Usually it just hurts someones feelings a little. Sometimes it results in out&out war. And can you believe it? Some people will actually go and rate someones pictures with 1s and 2s just out of spite! Childish, eh what?

 

Mind you, now that youve enlightened me that you have your own design studio, Im much more impressed with your opinion! And, just my opinion, you look marvelous! Ever do any modeling?

 

Love and kisses, JVK