Just messing around (NSFW!)

[eravedesigns]

i'm going to have to agree with natalie on this one phil... Its not about the model, its about the photography here.

The model is the subject of the photo and there fore the photograph is the model and the model is the photograph. Its about the model too.

 

[eravedesigns]

Sorry, I guess I'm a little dense...could you explain how that's in anyway related to photography?

To me it was mainly an insulting, bs post. I like how you spell checked your rebuttal though...

What i was getting at is that well i let me try to explain this.

The posts that I was reading came off as if the writer of the post was saying "oh hey its a pretty girl in the shower lets post how she has a nice body and ignore the fact that parts of the photograph may be off and that the subject could have been improved.

Sorry about the spell check I went on a rant for a bit

My comment wasn’t directly related to photography but more to this thread and how it didn’t come off as truthful to me as it could be.

The first post didn’t say anything about it being his gf either so I am sorry if I offended him but I was more talking about the fact that if you compared her to a professional model she wouldn’t cut it but if you compared her to just people in general she is pretty.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

She's obviously attractive, otherwise she wouldn't be getting all this attention.

Seriously, she's a great subject. The lighting and angles could use work, but with that kind of muse, I'm sure WDodd will practice until perfect.

 

[nabero]

The model isn't the photograph. That's like saying the only good pictures are of beautiful subjects...and that there is no room for the photographer to add anything to the image. Like you mentioned before...the lighting needs work. Would it not need work if his model was a "grade-a hottie" in your book?

Sorry I missed that you were attempting to bring the thread back to photography...that flew right by me.

peace man

 

[shorty6049]

i didnt really like some of the models you showed me though phil. I think its ALWAYS a matter of opinion as to whether or not someone is considered attractive. I agree that the shower photo does seem a little "porny" as some of you put it. but i'm not sure what you could do to change that...

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

The posts that I was reading came off as if the writer of the post was saying "oh hey its a pretty girl in the shower lets post how she has a nice body and ignore the fact that parts of the photograph may be off and that the subject could have been improved.

People have commented on the lighting and the poses, and offered advice for these. I think the overall giddiness in this thread is from the fact that we're all looking at an attractive woman with little to no clothing on. I mean, we're adults, but... well.. not necessarily at heart.

 

[eravedesigns]

The model isn't the photograph. That's like saying the only good pictures are of beautiful subjects...and that there is no room for the photographer to add anything to the image. Like you mentioned before...the lighting needs work. Would it not need work if his model was a "grade-a hottie" in your book?

Your taking what I am saying as me judging this girl as someone I would like to date or not. That has nothing to do with it. (BTW I changed by post because I agree with you that my post was not appropriate sorry).

If there was a good looking subject it would not make the photo of course there is a lot more that goes into a photo than that. You can get amazing and I mean absolutely amazing pictures of subjects that might come off to the average Joe as ugly, old, abnormal because that person tells a story through the photograph. With this more glamour/fashion photograph it would have more impact if the model was more model type. This doesn’t mean that the model is necessarily attractive but this means that the model has features that are unique to a certain extent.

The model isn’t the whole photograph but in some photos the model can play a very large role.

 

[eravedesigns]

People have commented on the lighting and the poses, and offered advice for these. I think the overall giddiness in this thread is from the fact that we're all looking at an attractive woman with little to no clothing on. I mean, we're adults, but... well.. not necessarily at heart.

ya that was kinda what I was getting at

 

[Alpha]

Is she headed for supermodel stardom? Probably not. But that's entirely beside the point no matter how you look at it. Erave...anyone who's ever actually worked with a real model knows that a model's ability to make or break a photo is much more about their attitude, posing skill, and ability to connect with the camera than looks alone.

Were she actually trying to break into the modeling business, I might actually agree with you, simply because it's so cut-throat, and the criteria for success are unbelievably demanding and specific in terms of physical looks.

I find it very uncouth to critique a human subject itself other than to say that a person isn't opening up enough in their connection with the camera/photographer.

In all fairness, I will admit that there are times when you can't make a good photo out of an ugly person. God knows plenty of people have ugly kids. But this is a woman who, at the very least, has a very nice body. What you said in your posts was tantamount to calling her a butter face. And on that note, was quite mean.

 

[eravedesigns]

Is she headed for supermodel stardom? Probably not. But that's entirely beside the point no matter how you look at it. Erave...anyone who's ever actually worked with a real model knows that a model's ability to make or break a photo is much more about their attitude, posing skill, and ability to connect with the camera than looks alone.

Were she actually trying to break into the modeling business, I might actually agree with you, simply because it's so cut-throat, and the criteria for success are unbelievably demanding and specific in terms of physical looks.

I find it very uncouth to critique a human subject itself other than to say that a person isn't opening up enough in their connection with the camera/photographer.

In all fairness, I will admit that there are times when you can't make a good photo out of an ugly person. God knows plenty of people have ugly kids. But this is a woman who, at the very least, has a very nice body. What you said in your posts was tantamount to calling her a butter face. And on that note, was quite mean.

I suppose my post was more directed in the direction of her trying to make it as a professional and not just for fun.

I wasn’t saying she is horribly ugly and i changed by post because it wasn’t appropriate or 100% truthful.

 

[zioneffect564]

The model isn't the photograph. That's like saying the only good pictures are of beautiful subjects...and that there is no room for the photographer to add anything to the image. Like you mentioned before...the lighting needs work. Would it not need work if his model was a "grade-a hottie" in your book?

Sorry I missed that you were attempting to bring the thread back to photography...that flew right by me.

peace man

haha natalie you cant get so mad about this stuff but indeed it is funny.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

ya that was kinda what I was getting at

Spoil sport.

 

[shorty6049]

hey zion.... you tryin to steal my avatar??? ;-)

 

[Alpha]

And how did you not know it was his girlfriend? You thought he was "just messing around" with a half-showered naked woman with a deer-in-headlights look? Come on, now. It's not like there was a strobe in the shower.

 

[eravedesigns]

Lol. if you have friends that are girls and you get comfortable with them they might do something like that but idk I just thought he had some skills with getting his models to be comfortable with him.