james_oneill

I like it. Like the softness, like the pastel colours, like the backgound, like the way you've called it eyelashes when they're not the point of focus (the nose is).

 

It's horrible. It's also really compelling, and a job extraordinarily well done. I don't think I have ever felt the need to score a picture so highly which I like so little. 7 for Aesthetics because of the impact it has.

Good to see your style applied to another model.

I like it, but I'd present it a little differently.

 

The trouble with the cut off shoe is it looks like an accident, so if you're going to do that cut off more (or show the whole thing).

 

Everyone has one or types of pictures that gets them steamed up about all being the same. For me it's flowers. So it is totally out of character to say the following

 

I like. I Like it a lot. The soft colours and the way the flowers are seperated from the background. Gives it a painting effect (the subtle signature helps. - OTHERS TAKE NOTE SUBTLE IS GOOD ditto the frame.)

 

It doesn't matter, but I'm curious how much is light and depth of focus, and how much is software after the fact.

 

I looked at this and thought this is the kind of picture could sell the clothing, the coffe, the kitchen units. Very, very nicely done. Needs an 8 for Aesthetics

Title makes me think of the phrase of "The apple of your eye": what an eye!

 

Also there is a good combination of sexy and mother in this ... That's difficult to do AND be tasteful.

 

 

 

 

Makes me think of bits of "Pure" by the Lightning Seeds... e.g.

Perhaps someone you know

Could sparkle and shine

 

As daydreams slide

To color from shadow

Picture the moonglow

That dazzles my eyes ...

 

 

Merry Christmas.

 

 

Looking at Linda's comment, she's right the lines in the top left steer the eye back to him. In the colour version they a real distraction. I like the sepia toning too, although it is a bit more pronounced than I usually do it.

 

Was this a stage performance ?

This is so nearly there. But...

You've got strong backlight on the hair, and not enough light on the face. The pose is nice, but I would have either shown more breast or less. I work to "either show the whole breast, or hide the nipple and hint at it."

Bah Humbug.

 

If Mr Swenson wants to beleive everyone is wrong but him, I'll leave him to that view. I'm happy for anyone interested to look at his views and my pictures and see which they prefer.

 

I've ended up looking at this picture rather more than I expected, and it's growing on me. I have Christmas meals to prepare, and a two day old son to look after, so I'll make this my last posting on the matter. If Mr Swenson wants the last word, he's welcome to it.

 

Merry Christmas

 

David is good enough to say his dislike of the sidelighting is his taste. Well my taste is in the other direction. The long shadows from the woodshavings, are part of the pixture and the texture of the wood just wouldn't be the same. The subject matter is simple, almost banal, but it is the light which makes the picture.

By being this irrational you are just proving your shaky photographic foundation.

Irrational. Hmmm. OK the average score I have based on 1534 scores over 110 Pictures, averages 5.1. 5 is supposed to be "good" so I'll settle for that as a foundation. 67 different people think that two or more of my pictures are good enough to be on their top rated page. That's fine with me. What have you got to show ? Nothing but rotten words.

Meaningless photographs are just that; meaningless photographs! Try to justify them; hilarious!

Who tried to justify anything ? I said that you and Womack had posted nothing. Factually true.

Calling someone's approach "rubbish" (see Womack above) lacks manners ? or would you disagree ?

You defended him, and said you don't need to post pictures to be a good critic. A logical stance for someone who has no pictures posted and believes in his merit as a critic. Correct ?

But I've looked at the pictures you rate highly. I've read your critiques. You're not an exceptional critic nor is Womack. That's my view. Based on that you attack me.

Not pulling any punches, you come across as somewho likes to sit on the sidelines sniping at others - after all you've done that to me. That isn't being a critic. That's just being nasty to people who can do thigs you can't.

One might as well throw your comment back as "Poisonus comments are just that, poisonous comments. Try to Justify them: Hilarious". Of course you've no more tried to justify your words than I have my pictures. But I can point to a long list of people with good reputations who don't think my pictures are a waste of space. Who can you point to who thinks your comments have any validity?

Besides you do suspect you arent right :-))

Of course. Doubt is the natural by-product of intelligence. If I was certain of everything, I wouldn't post anything and I'd just rubbish other people.

I've got plenty of people saying otherwise.

 

OK, I'll admit there are probably more people out there who think you're a poisonous little tosser, who, being devoid of talent, snipes from the sidelines.

 

If you ever do anything that you think might be worth showing in public let us see it. Your camera skills can't be worse than your thinking, use of language or critiquing in general.

Mr Swenson. I've looked at your comments and the 3 photos you have in your top rated. I have to recommend others do the same and draw their own conclusions about you.

 

As for my stuff, well (a) Unlike you I'm relaxed enough about my modest talent to show people what I do. (b) I have 110 pictures on Photo.net with an average score of 5.1. 67 different people have 2 or more of my pictures on their top rated pictures pages. So why should I give a tinker's cuss what you think ? After reading your critiques, why should anyone ?

 

"Chris Womack" & "Geoffrey Swenson" have 0 pictures posted between them. These are perfect credentials to for one to attack someone's choice of style/subject as "Rubbish", and for the other to defend his right for doing so. We've all got preferences, some of us have some manners. Looking at the "top rated" page for each of them doesn't give the feeling that we are view seeing especially enlightened critics.

 

 

Nicely done - sexy, but leaves lots to the imagination. And I'm a sucker for a nice back with good lighting.

Everything seems to be right here, but somehow it just doesn't work for me - I think the long exposure to get the misty water might be too long so it's a bit featureless. Can't be sure what's wrong, because I should like it.

Can I make the word "simple" a compliment ? But that that's what makes this, simple sky with good colour to offset the tree, and just let the shape speak for itself.

Normally I don't like borders like this - they're too contrived. But somehow - I think becuase of the colour and texture of the moose - it works here. Although it does look like it is table mat!

 

If this is porn, then it is the kind the world needs more of. It's a pose I like and use in most of my shoots and I'm pretty sure I copied it instead of working it out for myself. So Better on the A score than the O score. I prefer the model to lift her hair a little higher to show the nape of the neck but that may just be me. I like the details in the right shoulder.

[Edited to fix some typing problems] Does it work ? Not sure, but from what I read I think you've done what you meant to: it is certainly interesting, and worthy of a place on gallery wall. With both heavy lines and very fine ones, there is a lot to see in it. (Think Rorschach inkblots) For example the vertical structure on the left looks like like it might be an x-ray of a knee, and if you look at the bottom half it is almost like the top of thigh bone, almost as if it is a scan into a pelvis, but then the "bone" on the right is almost like a bird with a long tail ...

 

If you look at it like this it reminds you of shapes from nature and I think that is what makes it a success.

 

I think I have seen the word "photogram" applied to this, rather than photograph.

Funny enough I tried doing a blue-black version before scrolling down to find Joe had done it. I prefer it that way too.

It's a good picture well presented, personally I might have been a little gentler with the sepia toning, but unlike John I think the frame suits it.

Well I must be one of them then. In theory there are a lot of things wrong with the picture, but the overall effect is really nice.