**NSWF** Is this photo too 'spring break-ish / girls gone wild' for pro use?

[SCraig]

Ummmm, photo no good. Photo go to trash bin. Girls go to gym.

That was kind of my thinking as well ......

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that disrespecting the subjects is off the track here.

My feeling about this picture and the others I've looked at by the OP is that he has one way of looking at things, everything is perspective distorted and heavily over=processed and many of the pictures involve boobs. They seem like attempts to be meaningful by making a 'comment' but, again imo, the comment isn't anything either new or insightful and this picture ends up being just technique-y and repetitive.

 

[limr]

Y'know what? The condition of the woman's body has nothing to do with her effectiveness in the picture. My comments wouldn't have changed one bit had the woman been 'in shape'. Isn't it bad enough that most people in this thread insisted on using the words 'tits' or 'boobs' instead of 'breasts'? Did we really have to start judging her for not looking the way Hollywood tells us we're supposed to look like? Weren't we here to judge the photo​ and its place in a body of work, not pass judgement on her looks? Who cares if she was overweight? Get over it.

(In response to the previous two posts, not Lew's.)

 

[Ilovemycam]

I think that disrespecting the subjects is off the track here.

My feeling about this picture and the others I've looked at by the OP is that he has one way of looking at things, everything is perspective distorted and heavily over=processed and many of the pictures involve boobs. They seem like attempts to be meaningful by making a 'comment' but, again imo, the comment isn't anything either new or insightful and this picture ends up being just technique-y and repetitive.

Sure Traveler we all have our pet likes. But you can't say my portfolio is all about boobs. Nor can you say it is all about transvestites, tramps and Nazi's. They are all just part of the portfolio picture. I shot what I was around at that time.

I have classic BW, I had classic color (all my color work from the 80's and 90's was lost in a flood in 2001.) And i have hyper real color HDR. So I can cover many areas with my skills.

As far as over processed? This is a matter of opinion. For me they are perfected, for you over processed. So be it.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Y'know what? The condition of the woman's body has nothing to do with her effectiveness in the picture. My comments wouldn't have changed one bit had the woman been 'in shape'. Isn't it bad enough that most people in this thread insisted on using the words 'tits' or 'boobs' instead of 'breasts'? Did we really have to start judging her for not looking the way Hollywood tells us we're supposed to look like? Weren't we here to judge the photo​ and its place in a body of work, not pass judgement on her looks? Who cares if she was overweight? Get over it.

(In response to the previous two posts, not Lew's.)

That is how it goes with public forums. Just got to sift through the replies to try and find some useful info. You should see what type of replies one would get with poorly moderated forums.

 

[Derrel]

I thought the comment about the woman needing to "go to the gym" was disgusting. Apparently, only super-slim, trim, taut, toned women are allowed to be considered attractive or sexy?

Anyway, I'm surprised there has been NO comment yet about the beads the young woman is wearing....the Mardi Gras style plastic beads that are traded for boob-flashes...isn't that an obvious aspect of the photo? I submit that the trading of "boob flashes" for a cheap strand of plastic beads, is worthy of a photo or two.

A few years back, I saw a documentary film, focusing on the Mardi Gras boobs-for-bead-strings phenomenon--and it was from the point of view of the low-paid Asian factory workers who made those bead strings. They had NO IDEA of what the products were used for in America. I'm not sure how long this beads-for-flashes thing has been going on...decades? Since the 1960's? I dunno...

 

[Ilovemycam]

So here's what I see...

I see a picture that sort of flips off society in a few ways. Heavy woman, breasts exposed, motorcycles, lots of (presumably) bikers in the background, stormy skies, RVs, etc. There's no subtlety to any of that, however. You don't HAVE to be subtle in your images, but in my experience the subtle ones are those that keep the viewer looking and thinking. As Amolitor said... this is pretty much all out there. Yup, we got it. Not a lot to ponder.

I see a picture that has some more extreme processing. In my experience extreme processing is used most often when the image doesn't have enough to stand on and needs something else to give it an edge. This picture falls into that category, IMO, so the extreme processing just seems to fit the profile.

I see a picture with a title that credits someone else's style "'Princess of Ross County...in the Style of Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954'". So right in the title you're saying that you're trying to copy someone else. I suppose it's fine to copy what someone else has done but it always strikes me as very thin artistically, and a lot of times people don't have nearly the success of implementation.

Finally, I see someone arguing with people's opinion on their work. You asked for an opinion. You got some. I don't think many were complimentary. If you're inclined to disagree with people, then I've found generally that good artists keep their disagreements to themselves. Artists on weak footings are the ones that argue.

Thanks for the detailed rundown. I really appreciate it.

I didn't shoot it to copy anyone. That was just how it came out. I would have preferred to get her feet in. But maybe it works better with the feet cut. I don't know until seeing it. So the HCB homage was just an afterthought and not preplanned. Just a nod to the old master...just 2012 style...and in my style.

But copying / borrowing from other artists has a long, long tradition. from the old days up to POP art and even 2013. So I am not concerned with that area even if I was copying. Many of the greats copied their admired predecessors work.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ptua5BEAt...-homage-to-munkacsi-guys-jumping-umbrella.jpg

http://partnouveau.com/wp-content/u...he-puddle-jumper-1934-lady-with-umbrella.jpeg

We all copy one another to some extent, but we hope to inject our own style to the picture. Look at all the 'star trails' and 'fog and mist' shots the heavy ND filter devotees put their pride in. Very few remarkable or iconic shots come out of it. But they still do it. They got to shoot something...so why not that.

As far as arguing? If you read my replies, I wont sell anyone on my work. If they don't like it fine. You know the saying about trying to please everyone and all the time...impossible. The name question was a big eye opener to me. I thought it would be obvious, but it was not. If someone has the wrong idea I will give them some more info to help them decide.

I don't copy anyone to any extent, at least not consciously. I couldn't name more than maybe one or two other photographers, let alone tell you what their work is like. It would be naïve to suggest I wasn't influenced by other people's work as just seeing something can have an influence, but my work is as much my own as it can be.

Anyway... I'll get off this ride now because it's going around in circles. Good luck to you.

Thanks for the well wishes!

You exposed to styles on the forum. We see style everyplace we look nowadays. As I said with this photo, the connection to HCB's wine boy was an after thought and not planned with my taking of the photo.

I have another photo called 'Homage to Diane Arbus' Same thing, an afterthought, not planned. A homage shot to Daido Moriyama was planned. I was reworking an old neg from 42 years ago and thought I'd give it a go after seeing one of his works. I luv it! But I think the Moriyama homage is it for planned shots in my portfolio.

 

[Ilovemycam]

BTW, I looked through some of your other stuff.

My overall reaction was "sideshow". Not saying that's bad, necessarily. Some of them are pretty interesting. I don't think this one is among your better ones. Not even close.

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I wish more would reply like this.

Did you see my other reply?

Yes I read it. I didn't really know what you meant as slideshow. If that was bad or not. Just how Artslant is.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Ummmm, photo no good. Photo go to trash bin. Girls go to gym.

Ni, don't want to be too hasty. I've trashed things before and regretted it. I will let it age a little.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

In my city, I don't think i'd see a picture like that in any Professional Photographer's Portfolio (assuming they're actually making money)..It's a lousy photograph that has no merit to it aside from a girl flashing her tits....which is obviously why you shot it. You'd never see anything like this in any seriously curated show (fisheye flash-grabs at events?), and the only limited edition books you'd see this in would be the few you'd be able to produce on your own.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

And its cringe-inducing that you'd put it in the same light as HCB's work.

 

[Ilovemycam]

What startles me, OP, is that you believe that museums would want your work.
Some libraries take virtually anything that it doesn't cost them too much to acquisition - but museums?

My work is as good as any work the museums contain.
I'm an not claiming my work is best, just that some of it is museum worthy.

As far as libraries, not so. The rare book library special collections are not that easy to get into. I've had a 80% to 85% failure rate with them. But it is much easier getting into a rare book library than a big museum.

It is the bolded statement above that gives me pause.

Beyond a book being 'rare', a rare book library wants to know that it is taking up its time, space and treatment with a book that is also worth preserving.

And actually, we can argue taste, Latin proverb notwithstanding.

I don't understand your reply. Maybe you can rephrase it.

My work is as good as any work the museums contain. = I have some work that is museum worthy. That is all I'm saying.

Rare book library was not my choice of words. That is what they call themselves sometimes. Special collections, archives, whatever. It is a special reference dept. Placing my work in rare book libraries is just part of my work with preservation. Museums is the other main direction. Later on I will work in some other areas of preservation.

My book is a limited edition, hand printed, hand bound book that would sell for $4800 for the reference library edition. I just donate it to the library that may want in in their special collections dept. I only donate it to very large institutions since it is a pain to print and is limited in production.

A while back you were offered a gallery showing of your work Traveler. You balked at doing the show saying you did not want to spend money for frame displays. Did you ever take up the galleries offer for showing your work? A lot of members here would be thrilled for the chance to show their work.

 

[Ilovemycam]

In my city, I don't think i'd see a picture like that in any Professional Photographer's Portfolio (assuming they're actually making money)..It's a lousy photograph that has no merit to it aside from a girl flashing her tits....which is obviously why you shot it. You'd never see anything like this in any seriously curated show (fisheye flash-grabs at events?), and the only limited edition books you'd see this in would be the few you'd be able to produce on your own.

OK, thanks for your feedback.

Edit: When I asked about a pro portfolio, I am referring to a more of a 'fine arts' type of book that is shown to institutions for art placement. I do not do photography for $. I just do it for the love of it. I don't consider myself a fine arts photographer either, but that is where I am grouped.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I don't see anything special about this image to be honest. I think it would tarnish a portfolio.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Ilovemycam]

There's a hint of Arbus here, if anything.

I have always liked Arbus' work. A lot of the areas Arbus shot were shootoffs from her teacher Lisette Model. Model, liked the unusual, Arbus built on her teachers work.