my try again

[James Yu]

 

[Rachel Foster]

Very provocative.

 

[Asher Kelman]

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

 

[Rachel Foster]

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.

 

[Asher Kelman]

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

 

[Rachel Foster]

I know that, but I wasn't certain James would know that.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

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.

 

[Asher Kelman]

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!

 

[fahim mohammed]

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.

 

[Asher Kelman]

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

 

[James Yu]

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???

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

 

[Asher Kelman]

Context of a ~ "glamor" ~ snapshot of pretty long-legged women in a concrete space

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

 

[James Yu]

thanks for the time to comment guys... i realized that its important to put an artistic content than a merely snapshot... thanks again...

 

[Asher Kelman]

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

 

[Charles L Webster]

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.

 

[James Yu]

thanks for the inputs. il keep on posting my shot so that i can improve it...

 

[Asher Kelman]

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!

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.

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

Thanks for articulating this. Good job.

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