short1

This is simply stunning, epitomizing the best in "galmour" or fashion. But it is so highly original, with disparate elements brought together so seamlessly, it transcends those mundane catagories.

 

I'm an amateur photgraphy, who has come to appreciate the potential of digital photography as a form of fine art...in which I was formally trained. I may not know great photgraphy, but I know great art. This is great art, pure and simple, and if could be a magazine cover, it could as easily be in an exhibit of post-modern art.

 

Fabulous. I wish I could rate it, but I'm content to learn from it.

 

So all I can offer is : Thank you.

 

Craig

This is "critique only"?...well, it deserved dual 7's.

Craig

Kathy, aside from your manifest technical skill, what I most admire about your body of work is the variation in the compositional elements you use, experimenting, but always appropriate to the image. Here, you'll stretch the boundaries of color and hue...in another, you'll create unique formulations, the composition well done, but the theme ( or narrative ) taking precedence. Thematically, all your portraits ( the gallery I looked at ) are potent, and thematically powerful - but all so different and unique.

 

There is utterly nothing with which to find fault in the above image. It's haunting, yet sensual as well. I'm a great fan of high key B&W...and here it works particularly well. It may not have been your intent, but you laid the model into a pool of "something"...it could be water, it could be blood...or simply a reflecting surface. The DoF was gotten precisely right, including the critical elements, eradicating the peripheral features. Ordinarily, a portrait such as this would mandate that whatever showed of the model conform to the tonality of her face. Yet the neck is in shadow. Mystery upon mystery, created by stretching the rules. Whatever your intended context, it's a gorgeous and unique work, and demands a 7/7.

 

( By the way, you're on my "favorites" list - with other artists whom I consider the best on the site, particularly in portraiture - that's how I hunt down my "daily four")

 

Warmest Regards,

Craig

As you are likely a Blue Suiter...I retired as a Col. some time ago...you've likely been following the F/A 22, F-35 debacle which unseated Mosley and Wynne. This is an absolutely astounding aircraft, three generations beyond anything I flew. But I'm embarassed to say..I didn't know the F/A 22 HAD afterburners...I thought it was strictly the new "super-cruise" beast, and for stealth, didn't ignite, so as to maintain a small signiture. But that's a 22, and it's sure lit up..I shall, in shame, toss you a 7/7 for an absolutely gorgeous shot of a magnificent aircraft...and to keep quiet about my ignorance.

Craig

...but, Kathy - the title! Sounds like a cosmetic ad slogan. C'mon, don't stick a title like that on such a gorgeous work. Your positioning of the model at power points, the ambiguous contrasts, and the texturing render this an`outstanding photo. You must have had some difficulty deciding on tone and hue...but you sure got it right. ( NB: Since I think this is the first of your photos I've come across, I'd mention that I only rate four photos daily - if I have the time - and all receive 7's - I got so damn sick of the ratings debate that I've taken to picking out photos that strike me as truly excellent, rate them at the highest level, and leave a laudatory comment...with possibly some criticism representing idiosyncratic aesthetics on my part). Sorry, no criticism...a really magnificent and unique photo - which, paradoxically ( given the right-sided texturing) not only suggests that beauty is timeless in one sense, but also fleeting - youthful beauty being a social obsession. 7/7, and I'm glad I discovered your work. You've got the vision.

 

C. Unger, M.D.

Hi again Jeri:

 

As`I think I stated in my last comment on one of your photos, I'm really taken by the 'forties film noir motif. While ths isn't exactly "noir", it's exactly, stylistically, 'forties. The pose is perfectly contrived, the B&W format - almost silvered, appropriately enough - is the only way to go with this image, and the tonality blends beautifully, contrast and key on target. The make-up is even overdone - as it should be - the eye-liner and lipstick just about caked-on. Again, a trivial ( and not image degrading) criticism: the eye make-up is so thick, that perhaps some underlighting or flash compensation would have made her eyes more apparent and alluring. Overall, a beautiful period study...7/7.

 

Warmest,

Craig

 

 

Jim:

 

Been away for a while, and likey missed some of your magnificent work. This composition is, as usual, perfectly constructed, superbly lighted, with excellent control of hue and DoF. What can I say but...7/7.

 

Best Regards,

Craig

 

( I have to add...and this is as trivial as it gets - that pronated foot disturbs the linearity of the study...for me. But it certainly doesn't compromise the work as a totality,)

 

( Also...checked out your gallery...saw a heading the "wall"...and knew immediately what it meant. Witu some reluctance, I quickly glanced at the photos-powerful, unsettling...but couldn't look too long. After all this time, I'm having transient memories of VN, after more than two decades of doing invasive cardiology, And I'm seeing a shrink about it. Why now? Who knows....where you there? I look a bit older than you, and I was in the last lottery - and the last year of the war. Got my assed waxed on my 51st mission...and that wall contains the names of most of the boys in my squadron. Drop me a line. Attached to an SOW, from 17th AF; left as a brevet light colonel,( permanent rank captain), allowed to not only keep the brevet, but a decade later, retired with a promotion to full bird.

Stationed Bac Lo...Vientiene...Prince Sianouk...poshed back to Bien Hoa with NVA advance. Forgive the typos..I'm typing this without my glasses, and my next major stop is 60 years. I did view your work, however, with my specs on.

Craig ( Col. Tac Air, USAF, Ret.)

Birte:

 

First, sorry I haven't been in touch...life just gets

more srewed up every day...here in the good ole USA. Get me bunk ready down under, Cobber.

 

And no, never worked for the bloody CIA, though the bastards almost got me killed in VN.

 

This is likely the most well composed, most interesting and powerful animal study I've encountered on PN. The subject, the hues, the control of DoF are unsurpassed in my experience as a member. Simply incredible. 7/7.

 

My best regards,

Craig

Hi Jeri...

 

I can't find fault with this portrait, in which everything blends perfectly, and there is a potent suggestion of sexuality being projected. Everyone has their preferences, but I think that, if, as Stephen suggested, you cropped above the origin of the chest, the portrait would have been a lovely composition ( and I admire the DoF -it looks like millimeters! ), but the sensuality would have been compromised - and as I "read" this study, that's an important aspect of your take on this model.

 

In any event, a wonderful work. 7/7

 

Best,

Craig

Albert:

 

Haven't seen many of your postings lately, but you've compensated for quantity with the quality of this study.

 

Having done several period pieces myself, I realize how difficult it is to obtain the proper ambiance. Popular Photography just ran an article on producing modern "antique" photos, and I'd refer you to that review for particulars. But, to summarize, you are on target with this image. You got everything precisely right.

 

Superb! 7/7.

 

Regards,

Craig

Doug:

 

You're really getting there with Brit...earlier portraits, while excellent and alluring, didn't reach their full potential ( as if I could have done better ). Here, you've produced a series of fashion photos which a magazine or catalog director would have trouble choosing among.

 

I like less contrived poses...while 3126 could easily appear in Victoria's Secret, as a pure portrait, I prefer 3176 or 3112. The DoF is extremely well managed, and while full length portraits tend to have less dramatic impact unless all the elements are gotten precisely right...well, you got them all right. The powers that be even gave you a beautiful sky, both contrasting with and complimenting smoothly and with subliminal effect the model's coloration, and her costume.

 

Extraordinarily well done. 7/7

 

Does she still need a ride...and is she over 18?

 

Regards, Craig

You dog...go ahead, tease us. 7/7.

By the way, the lower key suits her...this is a richer portrait of Brit than we've seen previously.

Best, Craig

Jeff:

 

You know, I just visited your "community page" for the first time. For a guy

looking for a word-monger, you're pretty loquacious.

 

By the way, bird-brain, the kid in the equestrian outfit was my daughter, not a male in drag ( no offense intended to men who have a proclivity to dress as women and wear gobs of make-up. which serves to emphasize that they are men in women's garb .So, just follow your instncts Jeff. It's okay...you worked with radioisotopes...I understand.)

 

Anyway, you cross-dressing enemy of all that is good and righteous, I'll send you an e-mail after completing my PN duty of rating photographs of idiotic subjects

( turtles, bugs birds, and Amway products ).

 

Yeah... the photo's technicaly perfect and engaging ( if one likes friggin' Egrets...which, henceforth, I shall kill on sight ). It's funny, though...when I biought it up, I saw the image only down to the white area at the origin of the birds legs- and thought it was a cloud. My original impression was of a bird tooling through the clouds without the aerodynamic support of his wings...I developed a momemtary respect for these amazing creatures until I scanned lower and saw the "cloud" was part a backgroud structure. Crop it higher just for laughs...and throw a cape on it...like the ones you wear with your cockail dresses ( no offense...I understand the pressure of working with radioactives...I did nuclear imaging myself. Of course, I had some moron handle the hot stuff).

 

 

Okay , enough, amazing images of the heretofore unseen on PN, the Egret "'Snow Drift",, winner of the Triple Crown on the Egret racing and muscle building circuit....just look at those calf muscles folks, thicker than mud!

 

 

You know, your other subjects were very well captured. Can't you giive us a nude (human) or a landscape ( without any water in sight )?

 

Bitte, Jeff, mein.gut Freund, tut mir Leid... aber Ich mag kein " friggin' birds" ...Ich bin Krank oder ."friggin birds"...Ich bin mude oder 'firggin birds". Warum, Jeff, warum der ":friggin birds"? Halten Sie, bitte....bitte. Verstahen Sie? Vie langs?

HALTEN SIE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bis Spater,

 

Craig

A very clever shot:

 

John, to eliminate the rating factor, I only give 7.s and when those run out, 6's. Since I only rate photos I regard as excellent, there's no undermining of the system.

 

Offering my opinion of the technical proficiency displayed here, given my amateur status ( v. your professional status, and publication of instructional manuals ) would be presumptuous. The tonality alone would render this a very sensual and technically supurb shot. Going beyond this, you've done something I've not encountered before...I follow your work as an educational exercise, and if you've combined mixed` ( non-contrasting ) spectral imaging previously, I simply missed it. It's an exceptionally dynamic technique, and the spetral shift is suggestive of a shift in color density..while remaining in greyscale. .

 

Exceptional technique, alluring and engaging image ( of course). 7/7.

 

Respectfully,

Craig Unger, M.D..

Herr Reinsch:

 

I greatly admire your portraiture. As with the torso shot of Ramona ( which I ranked 7/7 for the reasons I explained in that critique), this is simply gorgeuos, natural ans sensual. This may be better than the other one. A solid 7/7.

 

Sorry to slam your aviation shots - but they really grate on an ex-combat pilot. So, the honest portraits are garnering 7's from me, the sham aviation series low ratings. This is by no means revenge rating in the latter case, as I hope my other ratings prove. I admire you as an outstanding portrait artist, when your work is honest and not ( poorly) contirved.

 

Bis spater,

C. Unger

Having seen your series of this Phantom/ Tornado/ whatever pilot, straffing D-day beaches in a modern jet, his gear bizarre, the combat in which engaged placing him at a distinct disadvantage ( the phantom is not a front line air superiority fighter - it's been withdrawn from service. Maybe this guy just tools around the runway in a Vietnam left-over ) against modern jets ( an F-16C could wax an F-4 with the '16 pilot sound asleep; so could the older F-15...the F-4 is generations behind modern jets ), makes me dizzy with what you're trying to convey. If you just titled the photo pilot ( and I personally have seen too many images of this particular pilot...he has more flying hours than I do, and I have over 1000 ), and lost the outerwear, it would be credible, and congenial. But the phot, while well executed, is a thematic lie. And the pilots aging before my eyes. He's probably completed his rotation by now. In context, you getting too much milage out of the same image, and the image is not a reflection of reality. This alone - the lack of cradibility, the absence of any research into the subject of a  studio shot, and the repetative use of the same image to garner ratings, degrades the fundamentals of creative photography. I'm thus down-grading this rating to a 4/4.Why, when you do such beautiful portraiture, must you destroy it with poor costuming and a bogus theme?C.U.

I'm at a loss as to how to rate this. It's a professional photo, with good composition, lighting, contrast and key.It's also bogus. The flight suit is wrong, The ET/EL should be pocketed, the Jacket is non-spec.I can't figure out who this guy flies for, but it must be a pretty unsophisticated`service...the phantom is an antique. All things considered, this is a high quality photo , but presented as a realistic portrait of a pilot geared-up wrong, and assigned to an antiquated aircraft withdrawn from service by NATO nations. So, its good aesthetically, but a thematic disaster.4/5 - Do the research for period/technical set pieces.Craig

I guess he ejected - why all the dirt?

 

Then again, why would he eject from an aircraft no longer in front line service, and certainly not sent into high-threat environments.

 

Same guy, same hodge-podge , inaccurate costuming, and ( is one leg shorter than the other?) still leaning to his left.

 

Sham photo, poorly costumed, referring to an aircraft or circumstance which doesn't exist. And the same left leaning guy we've encountered 2 or 3 times before, in the same pose. He's ready for retirement.

3/3

 

Sorry, but I advised you regarding authenticity, and you simply ignored it, passing off nonsense as if you are photographing an actual warrior. He's not ( at least, he doesn't own the proper gear ), and he doesn't fly F-4's. If you're going to present even a set piece and pass it off as real, do the research.

 

By the way, I don't rate below 6 anymore, and generally choose my favorite 4 photos for 7/7. If I rate it, I critique it; I don't want the rating to become the be all and end all of PN. So, I rate high, and express my feelings about the photo in text. That way, nobody has to worry about my ratings - in fact, if I rate someone, they'll usually be receiving 7's. But I can't tolerate even harmless duplicity, nor inaccuracy. When I did period pieces, it took forever to research costuming and hairstyles, I think that's proper, and honest in the effort to project reality. My ratings of your photos are not in bad faith...it's just that you refuse to provide an accurate picture of combat aviation...and I was a combat pilot.

 

Bis spater,

Craig

 

Herr Reinsch:

 

They didn't wear composite flight suits in 1944. They wore leather gloves, helmets, goggles, a shirt ( and possibly a tie ), and standard issue slacks ; The Brits and Germans wore fine leather flight boots, as did high altitude American bomber crews, who also wore cumbersome Flak vests, and heavy under and over wear-leather - including electrically heated suits, as the turbocharged bombers were not pressurized until the B-29.

 

What they did not wear - since they didn't exist - were fire-retardant composite Nomex full length flight suits, asbestos'/Kevlar gloves, and whatever style flight jacket that is. The 'Mae Wests" worn for over-water flights were usually yellow, and made of standard fabrics; equipment included flares- in life rafts or Mae Wests for the Americans, or carried at the ankles by the Germans and British - rather than emergency transmitters. And they certainly didn't have nylon closures anywhere on their jackets or holsters ( Velcro) - this had yet to be invented. In the upper left of the collage is a German flight suit. As you can see, none of these items quite matches the outfit you've put togther, and the outfit is certainly not WWII style

 

This is not, in any event, a recognizable allied flight suit ( modern or otherwise), unless it's a very new or very old style Volkswaffe ( or East German) outfit. Moreover, modern fighter/attack pilots always carry their helmets before and after a mission - under-arm or in a bag. The modern fighter-jock's helmet is a very personal item, his "brain-pan" custom fitted and often decorated, carefully stored with his other personal gear in a pre-flight /prep area.

 

What appears to be a holster for a semi-auto pistol in your image is outlandish - the bulk already carried and poorly distributed in those days mandated a shoulder holster with a .38 cal. pistol.A modern flight suit is shown for your examination,

 

There was no German Air Force ( Luftwaffe) over Omaha Beach - they'd been totally shut down by D-Day, without fuel, replacement parts, new aircraft, or trained pilots. What they had left was being conserved for the Ardennes Offensive and the Defense of the Reich, As far as I know, the only German aerial presence consisted of a total of two FW 190's, which made one low pass over the LZ, the flight leader caustically commenting, " It's a great day for the Luftwaffe!".

 

Finally, the Tornado WAS NOT YET INVENTED- the only combat jets in service at that time were owned by the other side - the Me262 and an Arado Bomber. They did have rocket planes, which usually exploded on take off or landing, and so weren't of any particular import in the defense of the Reich.

 

The jet didn't become a major factor in aerial warfare until Korea, and these were relatively primitive on the allied side, until the great F-86, which waxed Mig 15's on a regular basis ( 10 to 1 kill to loss ratio).

 

The Tornado, whether the U.S. or European version,with vectorable thrust, was a product of the '70's and '80's, and at least third to fourth generation jet technology, following the early jets ( ( F-80, F-86 ), then what was called the "century series", the F-100, F-105 and so fourth, which was still in the fleet during VN, the Crusader with the follow-on F-4 ( your Phantom), and the concurrent Tornado, with the truly modern jets emerging from pre-production: the F-15A/B Eagle ( now in Gaurd service ), the C/D ( in service until 2025 ), the upgraded deep penetration F-15E Strike Eagle, still front line; the workhouse ( about 50% of our air superiority/ground attack strength ), F-16C; now the follow-on F/A 22 Raptor, capable of super-cruise, is reaching squadrons; and the to be deployed JSF F-35 Lightening II ( to reach squadrons in 2009, but still undergoing evaluation ); the F-117 has been phased out; the "warthog" , A-10/OA- 10C Thunderbolt II is also being phased out; the as yet operational Airborne Laser (YAL) is anticipated shortly; and still in service is the AC-130 H and U series, worth their weight in gold. The Osprey is not a combat aircraft, but a VTOL transport; the F-35 will also have a VTOL variant; the UAV are unmanned, though now used in deep penetration and attack roles. This is to orient you in case you wish to continue with your, to this point unrealistic, pilot series.

 

BUT THE POINT IS: THE TORNADO DID NOT EXIST IN 1944, and your poster is simply foolish: Why not stick an F-117 Nighthawk, or a B-52, or a B-1 or B-2 over Omaha, and really eventuate the allies clearing of the penninsula ( while disregarding fact entirely. such that the images should be posted in Digital Alterations ). And throw in an F/A-16C, or F15 E, or even an F-35, not yet in service. Why not ?- none of your other aviation images have made sense.

 

Your poster is absurd,. and mislreading - The drama you are attempting to portray is entirely bogus as a period piece.

 

Please do some research before producing these hodge-podge mock-ups. I gave you my address, there are plenty of other Blue Suiters on-line, and while the average person may not realize how bogus this stuff is, it grates on combat pilots and aviation people. It's just false, throwing together elements in a dissembling manner.

 

You can also access military.com or the afa.com, or the Air Force directly if you want to see what's current, so as to costume your models ( and please get a new guy, the present one is getting old) and create your posters with some semblance of realism. And by the way, aren't all the credits below your image copy-written?

 

I previously gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now I realize you don't care about reality, nor other's intellectual property, as long as you get nifty ratings. 3/3.

 

And how many times are you going to post the same image of that "pilot" - I think you've gotten enough milage out of a single image.

 

And what I simply don't understand is that you demonstrate such sublime expertise with portraiture, but have drifted into this sham aviation venue.

 

Craig Unger, M.D.; Colonel, Tactical Air Command, USAF ( Ret.)

 

Why is your " Phantom Pilot" now fighting WWII? His gear is fully modern, albeit non-allied. He's presumably Luftwaffe, and the Luftewaffe sort of failed to make much of an appearance over the D-Day beaches - the allies had complete air superiority, Unfortunately, it's not a Luftwaffe flight suit either...so your man is flying an antiquated F-4 about thirty+ years before they were built, in the wrong war.

 

As I indicated in another posting, when you get the costuming wrong, and then slap the image onto a poster anachronistically, I can't even focus on the photo, the credidibility is so diminished. I'll pass on rating this, not in a bad-faith way, but because the elements are too jarring. I love your Ramona series, on the other hand...Seriously, if you want advice regarding modern aircraft ( we're about 5 generations beyond the F-4), tactics, or air battles - or even flight gear - there are a bunch of Blue Suiters ( current or ex-USAF) who probably look closely at any image concerning aircraft or pilots, and would be glad to advise you, I'd be happy to review or advise you regarding these matters: I was a ground attack pilot in Vietnam, and am a retired Colonel. Just write me or send an image to clkunger@hotmail.com.

 

Aw, hell, I made you read all that stuff above. It's a nice image, better than I could do. For that, you deserve at least a pair of 6's.

 

Bis Spater,

Craig

( Very Beautiful)

 

Doug , please see my remarks on another posting of Brit - today or yesterday.

Same applies. If you didn't place a light back there, or scooch it in digitally - well, if there's actually a train approaching, for God's sake, tie her to the tracks.

 

Also, Doug, left a message on your portfolio page - I think it's number 15,124 - actually, it's the last one.

 

Like your response to the question of "theme". Reminds me of "why do you rob banks?"- " 'cause that's where the money is."

 

Why do we photograph pretty girls/women? Ummmmmm......

 

Actually, thematically, as I said in the other posting, I think Brit has turned to walk off into her future...and there's always a train coming, isn't there?

 

7/7 - You're very good at this stuff- damn it!

Doug:

 

You know how much I admire your work ( and models - I won't say a word about love at first sight in this case - as I did when I humiliated myself with Nora -with my luck, this one's probably 13 ), but the model's pallor calls for some compensation - to my amateur eye, more contrast is needed on her face. Otherwise, I think the composition is well done. My perspective differs a bit from that of Devon: Brit is immediate, with the tracks converging to infinitety; she looks as though she's about to turn, and walk away into the rest of her life. The muted backround colors are beautifully managed, and the intermediate DoF ( telephoto, stopped down a bit? If I don't ask , I wont learn) leaves the model the central focus, but surrounds her with discernable and significant landscape. In all, a difficult capture, very well executed ( of course). Actually, I just noticed that all the elements converge symmetrically towards infinity, and Brit has been positioned at a "power pont", yet still seems central. Sweet.

 

This is very presumptive for an amateur ( and you're probably sick of folks playing with your captures ), but I'm submitting an alteration, just demonstratively. I haven't a sophisticated digital alteration program, and I didn't want to do the "selective B&W" thing. That the alteration I did is B&W is not to suggest that this shouldn't be in color - it was just easier to convert this to greyscale as a layer, and place some burn in it, to illustrate my point about the contrast. Just a personal preference...your photo is a solid 7/7.

 

Best,

Craig

Herr Reinsch:

 

I am.

 

I've commented on, and rated highly, several of your other photos. Your technique is superb, both in terms of tonality/contrast, and composition. But, as an ex-USAF combat pilot, inaccuracies in presenting combat aircraft disturb me. I think it would be the same with any anachronism represented as current - attempting to endow the image with bogus potency. Getting it wrong robs the photo of relevance and credibility.

 

I'm not sure when you took this photo ( the " movie poster" is , I presume , a mock-up: An X-rated "Juergen Reinsch production" starring Harrison Ford, with "NAVY" mis-spelled - and the F-14, a Naval Aircraft, I believe now or soon to be out of service ( about a gereration or two behind current technology) - hardly "high tech", unless the Navy is flying an improved model. The plane the female pilot ( a number of whom are trained for combat, but no longer sent into high threat environments) is, I believe, an A-6 Intruder, definitely retired. The Phantom ( F-4 ) is not in service with the USAF, though other nations may deploy it for recon and "iron hand" ( destroying enemy missle sites ). Yet your young male pilot - I found three or four photos of him, basically the same photo with minor variations - is an" F-4 pilot", who is shown "after combat". He's a bit young to have flown the F-4 when it was a front line air superiority fighter - in Vietnam. In addition, unless he ejected, the current photo is not very realistic...I never saw anyone get out of an F-4 covered in mud ( maybe he was flying a bit too low ).

 

Anyway, the photo is very intriguing and engaging, if kind of off- kilter thematically: Women no longer endure cat shots into combat, a la Tom Cruise; the dramatic "high tech warrior" ( the reference is unclear - the antiquated F-14 or the pilot? ) mock movie poster is bothersome; and the wrong aircraft sitting behind her just degrades the theme yet more. In addition, it has the sort of feel and posturing of ads for Demi Moore's Spec-Ops movie ( I forget the name ), or the fanatsy/ martial arts/ or "Kill Bill" beautiful killing machine genre. But it's pretty, so I'd give it a 4/5. Do something genuine, or at least credible, with pilots or aircraft, and you'll always squeeze a 7/7 out of me. Best, Craig.

There is no way to rate the photo- the rating tab is absent, Will return and try again.

 

Craig

 

I was a combat pilot with the USAF... and our gear is quite different from that pictured. I didn't know if this was an error, or if the pilot was NATO - likely Volkswaffe. I've commented about this photo under "Ramona", ranking both 7/7.

 

Excellent capture and thematically compelling in both cases,

 

Bis Spater,

 

Craig Unger