Desiree

DigitalDiva · Jun 8, 2007

mysteryscribe · Jun 8, 2007

I like the first one and the softness except I'm not sure why the body is sharper than the face. I also think it should be cropped closer to her body.

Is there some significance to the white bar over her head in number two.
Note this is just a peer opinion I'm no expert. Especially about women

DigitalDiva · Jun 8, 2007

I agree with you, mysteryscribe. That makes it more consistent.

No significance to the white bar. Do you know what it is? It is a prop.

mysteryscribe · Jun 8, 2007

Oh yes.... very nice shots remind me of the 1920 glamor nudes of weston before he got a bug up his butt lol.

elsaspet · Jun 8, 2007

I lovelovelove the first, but there is something strange around the mouth area. Too soft there. But I love the rest.
Your bw is spectacular!

JimmyJaceyMom · Jun 8, 2007

These are very interesting but the only thing fo rme is that I can't tell if her mouth is open and there are teeth showing or are her lips just shpaed that way and they are closed together?

mysteryscribe · Jun 8, 2007

I would guess it is an overbite kind of thing.

The_Traveler · Jun 9, 2007

No one has mentioned the second one (beyond the white 'prop' thing above her head) so I'll essay an opinion or three.

She is too low in the frame, it seems almost as if the lower edge is nibbling at her toes.

There seems to be a difference is 'softness' between her upper back and lower. Her butt and toes seem to be in more focus than the rest. In any case the lack of distinguishing detail around her shoulder blades make is seem soft.

The model is not ideally pleasantly shaped for this image. The pouchiness just at her waist, the flat, featureless back and her rather thin arms take away from the impact. This one seems a little 'off the mark' set by the first.

mysteryscribe · Jun 9, 2007

To be brutally honest: Once I saw the white line, and the poster chose to fix the first one and not the second, I didn't give it any more thought. The bar at the top is such a glaring problem, I assumed she wasn't really interested in the image afterall.

The model's imperfections don't bother me in the least. At first glance I didn't notice anything that would make me think this was anything but a nice portrait of the woman for her husband. It isn't museum quality but I didn't think that was the purpose of it.

As usual there is a story that goes with the model thing. I had a young woman call me to do some nudes not long ago. She said the photographer she met wih told her to lose 10 pounds and get body make up before the shoot. She told me she wanted them for her boyfriend not playboy. I no longer have a working studio so I told her I couldn't but I would have in a moment five years ago.

She chose to downplay the arm that was tattooed, I thought that most likely was the model's wishes. She could have done more with cropping of the image but that's obviously her informed choice of crops.

In other words I didn't find anything other than the white line at the top to prevent it from being an acceptable portrait. If it is going to be more than a portrait, I think she might have gone to the critique room and posted it as fine art,

The Weston remark was about the top photo not the nude at the bottom.
This is the opinion of a simple photographer.

The thing that did bother me in both and that keeps on nagging at me, is that she cropped the images so that she could fit her logo in In my opinion a portait is ALL about the subject. You logo can go one the image fine but it should no be part of your decission making process.

DigitalDiva · Jun 10, 2007

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

Traveler, no, no, no! This model is perfectly acceptable as a nude. This is what a real person looks like, pouchy stomach and all. I disagree 100% (can you tell?).

Not everybody needs to be perfectly proportioned for a portrait to be a success, imo anyway. I also have a personal ethic that I prefer to shoot real people and not model-type people for the most part because I want to get away from the thing that everybody does and help to produce images where real people can make beautiful subjects, too.

I cropped image #2 because with extra frame around the bottom of her it would appear too much as if she is floating. I didn't have a problem with it in #1. I still like the soft box line across the top and my professors had also liked it. Art is so subjective, isn't it?

My copyright was done at the end of my edit. I choose my crop and then add my copyright. It is never the other way around and I agree it should never be part of a decision making process of cropping an image.

mysteryscribe · Jun 10, 2007

I like that you defend you image..... If you saw the things tha we pointed out and they were not a problem for you, then you should never change them. I find that when someone else edits my photos usually it is things I either did not see or didn't realize how big a difference they would make. that's why I have ote on my signature.

But all that said no matter how they chop up an image the final decission belongs to the author/artist. As for we all see it differently, yes we do only two people have to be pleased in the "REAL" world. The photographer and the person who pays the freight, if there is one.

Now let me defend my opinion. I have no idea what your professor was thinking, but I don't see the line doing anything but distracting from you image. You certainly didn't have it in mind when you shot the image, so what part of you "vision" does it play? Personally I don't have a vision, I shoot pictures. I have the studio not the artist mind set so forgive me for disagreeing with an academic.

Also note that in the real world of working photographers customers come in all shapes and sizes and yes you have to work with them all. I think you did a very nice job with a model or customer who has defects most real world people do.

DigitalDiva · Jun 10, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
Now let me defend my opinion. I have no idea what your professor was thinking, but I don't see the line doing anything but distracting from you image. You certainly didn't have it in mind when you shot the image, so what part of you "vision" does it play? Personally I don't have a vision, I shoot pictures. I have the studio not the artist mind set so forgive me for disagreeing with an academic.

I will be honest and say that the soft box line in image #2 was an after thought. You're right. What part of my vision does it play? I could justify it with so many reasons but I will just say that for me, I like it. I've tried the image with and without it and I prefer it with. Now, I use neither of these images in my professional portfolio as they are not incredibly strong.

Oh and 'defects'. That is a funny word to describe the natural body. :lol: