a thought on the cropping/distracting comments. At first I agreed. I tend to stay away from the same things. Then I looked again to understand the comments a bit more. That's when I saw it. John, the most unique thing that sets this picture off is perhaps the unusual aspect in the asymmetry of the one thigh high being visible which does bring out the red in the earrings which I hadn't noticed. Not a critique, but something positive to add. I like it more after the review.
This is a truly beautiful image in that I have been challenged to gaze at the whole image for some time. The girl is nude but not provocative, indeed her expression is neutral. Her hands are hidden which somehow highlights her genitals - perhaps because of the angles of her arms - perhaps also because the cliche would have been to hide her genitals with her hands. So she is inviting gaze but also challenges the viewer. The earring and the stocking startle with the intense red. The books attract the eye - I found myself reading the titles. The balance of white space is subtly disturbing as well. The pure sensuousness of light flowing around form is entrancing. This is altogether a deeply satisfying image.
A question about the cropping John. I find that cropping off part of the head or in this case the cap tends to draw my attention to it in a negative way. That said I've done it at times only when I had to due to a low seamless or something else I didn't want in the pic that was at that level. Hope that makes sense. I also feel that the red thigh high stocking on only one leg is distracting. Just my humble opinion. I would show a little bit of both or none of either. I guess it's part of my OCD.
umm, o..k.. didn't really care, just trying to add something more than "great picture" But I do see I had a typo, meant to type "love" instead of "lobe" anyway - so I will simply say "great picture" for now on, or say nothing ~tommy
My friend, you take two minutes to read my front page and you will see that what I am after the most is "criticism", as I point out the more severe the better. Indeed, I did not understand the "lobe", but it's still about photography and not who thought to add a hat .. : -). Best wishes ..
I think it's marginally important whose idea it was. If it was the model's idea, then there's no point in commending you on it if he likes the idea. Contrapositively, if it was your idea, then he can say that you were inspired in adding it. Every detail matters, and if you're looking for "severe" criticism, shutting down people who ask for more details about your artwork is not the way to obtain it.
It is about "photography" on the whole, but since "photography" is abstract we refer to the actual subject in the photo. His question was legitimate, and if you really want true criticism - your answer was a bit cheeky and flippant.
I very much appreciate the attention given to my work and your thoughtful comments under some of my photos, thank you. The flat lighting, a definite failing in some images is due to the fact that I work with flash and no other artificial light source. It is the price to pay for attempting sometimes to capture candid shots. Likewise as regards the backgrounds, they are rarely if ever "planned", thus they are neither "rushed or unprepared" as you say, I photograph what's there. As Helmut Newton wrote, "a woman does not live behind a white sheet of paper", which I guess in a way defines my approach. One either likes the result or not, and one is perfectly justified to critique it if not.
The curvature in the walls naturally is due to the cheap wide angle lens, I wish I could afford a better one. In my photos it is often asymmetrical moreover, which can be really disturbing. That said, the distortion per se is something that I see in major works exposed in galleries and exhibitions, and it appears not infrequently to be an accepted part of the image forming process, though I question the result sometimes.
Lastly, whether the symmetry in a model's pose or alignment is "accidental" or not, as you query under one of my photos, is irrelevant in my opinion. As with any work of art, one is judged on the result and not the intentions of the author. I don't believe in luck, other than in seizing luck, but in that case when does it cease to be luck?! That said, we have a totally different approach to photography, mine being far removed from the admirable precision and meticulousness of your work.
However, with the same candidness as you express, I will add finally that I totally disagree with you regarding any personal remarks that are addressed at a photographer on these pages. We are here to critique the works, not each other.
To spend two paragraphs that end in calling "cheeky and flippant" a photographer's response to someone else's comment under his own photo is somewhat presumptuous, and it borders on the arrogant and rude. I appreciate you expressing your thoughts, however criticism is a two way process and these are mine. Many thanks for passing by.
"To spend two paragraphs that end in calling "cheeky and flippant" a photographer's response to someone else's comment under his own photo is somewhat presumptuous, and it borders on the arrogant and rude. I appreciate you expressing your thoughts, however criticism is a two way process and these are mine. Many thanks for passing by."
Well, I'm not passing by, technically, I'm watching you now. I like your work.
I don't feel my comment was rude, and if you took it that way I'm sorry. Art is, by it's nature, subjective. You may think its "irrelevant" to try and see a little of the photographer in the image. I (and apparently the original commenter) don't see it that way. Yes, I value precision and a more meticulous approach to shooting. However, I do love that photography is one of the unique arts where a little of the artist can permeate the artwork. In was in that regard that I called your comment cheeky - telling a potential fan his question is "irrelevant" just struck me as bit of cheek. If that came across as rude, perhaps the sterile monotone of typed text is partially responsible.
Many, many works of art are judged by the intentions of the authour or artist in question. In fact, some of the most popular works of history are works that aren't necessarily technically dazzling but have a marvelous story or bit of history associated with them.
I don't mind a little criticism.
Distortion is certainly present in a lot of displayed works, but it's a noticeable flaw nonetheless. Now that I understand a little more about you as an artist though, I would overlook it - if your shooting style is to go for less technical detail and just shoot away, that's wonderful and spontaneous, probably something I couldn't do as well. I would also suggest using Lightroom, when I was starting out it helped immensely in making up for my kit lens and some of the fringing and distortion I was getting. The prevalence of digital has led to that kind of thing being accepted and even falling below people's radar, these days.
"Lastly, whether the symmetry in a model's pose or alignment is "accidental" or not, as you query under one of my photos, is irrelevant in my opinion."
Wherefore irrelevant? If that's one of the major elements that makes the photo striking, then how is that irrelevant to the image? Why can't planning and luck co-exist? Every photo is a story, unless you're just shooting fashion-mill or porn-mill shots like an assembly line. Why is that story or that moment "irrelevant"? Case in point - I thought your "behind the scenes" shot was one of the most striking and poignant images in your entire gallery. It seems like theres a story there.
Any two way process is just fine with me .. : -). Some people imagine that critique is a one way thing and get very offended if one replies!
Intentions .. I read an interview with Picasso once in which he scoffed in no polite terms at some of the interpretations made of his works. Certainly, one may look at artworks while bearing in mind the historical perspective, the state of mind and even health of the author, though unimaginable nonsense is sometimes attributed to what an artist meant to say, how on earth do they know anyway?
Miles of text has been written with regards to Warhol's first painting of a can of baked beans. If it was really that simple, would not three lines suffice? Who knows what really went through his mind, if anything at all.
Take another case like that of Modigliani for example. I have read art critics refer to his astigmatism as the reason for his elongated works. Who knows, maybe it's true, but Is that not rather demeaning to the outcome if all they suggest he was trying to do was to draw things in a normal perspective!
Your last comment regarding alignment. Yes, for me it is irrelevant. A photographer captures moments that his eye sees as correct for a multitude of reasons, inside and out, that is what personalizes the result. He chooses the angle and the moment, he does not necessarily have to lift a models hips to get what he wants (though it may help), nor does he have to do it consciously.