Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Photography Discussions > Portrait in Natural Light Especially!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th, 2010, 12:08 AM
James Yu James Yu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: cabalian, souther leyte, philippines
Posts: 63
Default my try again

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 20th, 2010, 12:16 AM
Rachel Foster Rachel Foster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,574
Default

Very provocative.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 20th, 2010, 12:36 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default



James,

I like this and I have no issue with it being provocative. It looks better centered and that puts it up a notch, so I did that!

The one obvious "fault" that one ca see is the overlapping arms when this could have been avoided. However, far from spoiling the picture, it actually might be adding a sense of reality, showing the competing presentation of the two women. The one on the left is more lithe and seemingly comfortable in this pose, increasing her territory in the pose at the expense of her slightly more timid colleague/partner. I like the tension caused by this as the two occupy one tiny crevice of real estate, competing it seems in showing themselves to us.

Apart from this competition, the girls are attractive and the picture is, as Rachel points out provocative. That's the intention and it works. I just realized this is posed in the section for nude figure studies and it just makes it as the physicality of the women, is as important the just the sensual aura attached. The low angle perspective from which the picture was made adds to the dominance of the legs and thighs over the rest of their bodies and makes them seem to have a stronger pose.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 20th, 2010, 12:40 AM
Rachel Foster Rachel Foster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,574
Default

Provocative was not a criticism. I realized belatedly it might be taken that way. If I have a criticism I'll lay it out in more detail.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 20th, 2010, 12:46 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Foster View Post
Provocative was not a criticism. I realized belatedly it might be taken that way. If I have a criticism I'll lay it out in more detail.
I didn't think criticism was bad! This is critique so stating something is provocative merely says it makes one respond. There's nothing bad in that.

We are using the words critique and criticism in an entirely scholarly way and there's no thought of anything derogatory, the same with the word provocative.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 20th, 2010, 01:47 AM
Rachel Foster Rachel Foster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,574
Default

I know that, but I wasn't certain James would know that. :)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 20th, 2010, 08:59 AM
Ken Tanaka Ken Tanaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,300
Default

James has not told us exactly what he's trying for...again.

Too many words by observers, too few by the picture-taker. I see nothing whatsoever notable about this photo.
__________________
- Ken Tanaka -
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 20th, 2010, 09:28 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
James has not told us exactly what he's trying for...again.

Too many words by observers, too few by the picture-taker. I see nothing whatsoever notable about this photo.
I think you must have missed the previous one, LOL!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 21st, 2010, 04:42 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Foster View Post
Very provocative.
Good God Rachel...I was imagining this photo in another context. I am sorry, James, this does not
move me..one way or another.

In another category of OPF, perhaps!

Regards.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 21st, 2010, 10:12 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
James has not told us exactly what he's trying for...again.

Too many words by observers, too few by the picture-taker. I see nothing whatsoever notable about this photo.
Hi Ken,

I thought it was a box recess where there were two women for men to ogle at. So the picture to me is all that social matter this represents whether or not the photographer thinks of it or has any insight. It's not crude to remove, but trash to bash!

As such, it's not too much!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 01:50 AM
James Yu James Yu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: cabalian, souther leyte, philippines
Posts: 63
Default

Thanks for the comments.. This just a funshoot with other hobbyist.. We just hire model.. I just feel the passion for it... or am i just missing something???
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 03:16 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Yu View Post
Thanks for the comments.. This just a funshoot with other hobbyist.. We just hire model.. I just feel the passion for it... or am i just missing something???
Hi James,

Thanks for clarifying. As you see, OPF is different from other forums. People tend to look for the artistic content as well, or seek to learn from what's being shared. In general we all attempt to grow our level of skill/creativity, so things offered are not taken at face value.

Thanks for sharing your images, even if they are just fun. But we hope to also see you improving over time, but then we hope everybody improves over time.

Cheers,
Bart
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 10:21 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default Context of a ~ "glamor" ~ snapshot of pretty long-legged women in a concrete space

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Hi James,

Thanks for clarifying. As you see, OPF is different from other forums. People tend to look for the artistic content as well, or seek to learn from what's being shared. In general we all attempt to grow our level of skill/creativity, so things offered are not taken at face value.



My wife though this picture was trashy and was surprised we'd have this! Worse to me is that Ken Tanaka found no value there to him. I felt troubled; two opinions from people I respect above most. However, it does have no meaning? It does, after all represent a constituency, the camera hobbyists and admirers who think this has worth and presumably beauty too. Let's reject that sort of value. Still, can we observe this photo from a different angle?

What's interesting to me is that had this been shot by Cedric Massoulier, I'd have thought this was an exercise in confrontational commentary. His street photography is not staged but has social value. I've never seen pictures by him that would even hint at sexuality, not yet, at least. But, for the moment imagine that he had added this one picture to a series of say 12 of his street pictures shown in OPF, this and repeated, (absent the girls), the concrete recess empty? What then?

What about culture, objectification, need for girls to present themselves in a particular way. Then one could look at this from the girls point of view? These two social studies students are getting the men's money and all they are showing is what could be seen any day at the beach for free.

For me, just the pose of the girl on the left dominating that of the girl on the right is already an interesting reflection of the way folk get themselves ranked by others.

And if garbage was just that, garbage, then a lot of exhibits would be for naught!

As it is, it represents a part of photography that fills magazines for people's fun and as such it works.

Does it belong here? Not really when it was posted, but now, it's changed.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 07:57 PM
James Yu James Yu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: cabalian, souther leyte, philippines
Posts: 63
Default

thanks for the time to comment guys... i realized that its important to put an artistic content than a merely snapshot... thanks again... :)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 08:41 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Yu View Post
thanks for the time to comment guys... i realized that its important to put an artistic content than a merely snapshot... thanks again... :)
James,

You can have this moved to glamor and then it will fit better. So worry not!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 09:45 PM
Charles L Webster Charles L Webster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Silicon Valley CA
Posts: 596
Default

So I've looked at this picture and read this thread several times and have come to the conclusion that what I see is an newbie attempt at a glamor shot.

There's more wrong with it than right, but I think James got some parts right;
I think the models are pretty, long legged young women suitable to the assignment
The concept of posing them in the doorway, back to back almost works
And the woman on the left's look over her shoulder is good

But, there are too many distractions;
The door grille/grate growing out of one woman's head
The wide framing to include so much blank wall - the women are the subject, why do they occupy only 1/3 of the frame width
Why did you shoot from a low angle? In a frame like this it doesn't work at all.
The fact that the whole thing is out of square doesn't help
The light is completely diffuse, no shadows means no drama.

Overall the picture has no drama, no shadows, nothing left unsaid, and too many distractions

I think James should continue working on this kind of stuff if it's what he likes. He'll get better at it. Everything takes practice and as long as you're willing to accept honest criticism and learn from it, this is a good place to learn.
__________________
<Chas>

Everything in the frame must contribute to the picture.
http://www.charlesLwebster.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 22nd, 2010, 11:39 PM
James Yu James Yu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: cabalian, souther leyte, philippines
Posts: 63
Default

thanks for the inputs. il keep on posting my shot so that i can improve it...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 23rd, 2010, 12:14 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles L Webster View Post
So I've looked at this picture and read this thread several times and have come to the conclusion that what I see is an newbie attempt at a glamor shot.

There's more wrong with it than right, but I think James got some parts right;
I think the models are pretty, long legged young women suitable to the assignment
The concept of posing them in the doorway, back to back almost works
And the woman on the left's look over her shoulder is good
Agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles L Webster View Post
But, there are too many distractions;
The door grille/grate growing out of one woman's head
The wide framing to include so much blank wall - the women are the subject, why do they occupy only 1/3 of the frame width
Why did you shoot from a low angle? In a frame like this it doesn't work at all.
The fact that the whole thing is out of square doesn't help
The light is completely diffuse, no shadows means no drama.
Most of this is valid I believe but the excess wall can be part of a composition and I liked that potential but then I'd show much more and have it very asymmetrical. The point you make about no shadow and hence no drama is valid. Still, even lighting is needed before one adds more to make the drama. So I see the lighting as not flawed but simply not completed. Getting even illumination in the recess is still pretty good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles L Webster View Post
Overall the picture has no drama, no shadows, nothing left unsaid, and too many distractions
Thanks for articulating this. Good job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles L Webster View Post
I think James should continue working on this kind of stuff if it's what he likes. He'll get better at it. Everything takes practice and as long as you're willing to accept honest criticism and learn from it, this is a good place to learn.
I appreciate you spending the effort to try to elucidate why this picture falls short. I feel better for it. I hope James that charles' critique is most helpful to you. There are not many places that will treat such a picture in such a solid helpful way. If you heed what has been written it will be a deed that has been worthwhile. I do hope this discussion is helpful.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
cebu, philippines

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!