The Whole Series

[ilyfel]

Let me fix what I said. I meant 2,3, kinda 4 not 1.

imho I think they would be better darker.

Also the model in the link and the model in your pics poses are NOTHING alike. It looks like she is stretching her shoulders back.. now if she would have done the pose in the link (less dramatic maybe) I would probably like it better..

 

[Alpha]

Let me fix what I said. I meant 2,3,4 not 1.

And I think the aperture is too high. imho I think they would be better darker.

Also the model in the link and the model in your pics poses are NOTHING alike. It looks like she is stretching her shoulders back.. now if she would have done the pose in the link (less dramatic maybe) I would probably like it better..

Well, I don't intend to start an argument here, but aperture has nothing to do with darkness or lightness. As for #2, shooting IR in bright daylight will always result in very white highlights. In fact, it is often used purposefully in order to make skin look like porcelain. In #3, I suppose I just disagree with you that it ought to be darker. I know what it looks like darker, and it puts her face in shadow. And as for #4, are you saying that the background ought to be darker?

Pertaining to the link I posted, I was referring to a style that I characterized as "awkward stoicism." I didn't intend to copy that photograph I linked to in any functional way, whether it be pose or lighting or what have you. And if I had copied that pose, I would hope you'd like it less...since I would have been outright copying it.

 

[ilyfel]

hence why I edited it out. I typed that and was like wait thats not right. It's too damn late for me to be talking about photog after the night I had.

1- I absolutely love. I love how her hair is flying, how her arm is posed, how the shadow falls perfectly across her breasts. its over all an amazing shot.

2- I love the shot. I love how shes sitting how the dress lays, everything. I also love how her body/dress is white as snow. BUT I think the background should be darker to help pop that out. When I look at this pic it reminds me of looking into the sun for a minute and then trying to look at a photo.

3- you already know. the awkward stance, how her head is tilted towards the sun. If she would have been doing semi the same pose but her whole body facing the sun but having her head tilted in a way to not cause her face to looked washed out I think it would of been perfect.

4- love her posing and everything. but I think, like you said, the background needs to be darker. like isaid in 2 so she pops out of the photo.

5-7-perfect wouldn't have it any other way..

And sorry I'm not trying to be rude.. I'm just stating what I like and dislike about the photo. Like you are welcome to do to mine..

 

[Alpha]

I only like the 3rd to last one. The other ones dont do much for me and the images dont pop they seem a bit dull maybe more contrast or that could just be my style. I just dont like the lighting and the positioning of the model in the other photos.

Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps you can find solace in the fact that your glass is bigger.

 

[nossie]

Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps you can find solace in the fact that your glass is bigger.

Max I like your brutal criticism so I hope you don't mind mine coz it looks like you don't like his.

Oh, and the dresses came from a vintage thrift shop that mostly specializes in formal and semi-formal clothing from about 1910-1950 or so.

First thing I though was 1920's. That's one for me (maybe I'm hanging around with too many women so that's one away (fek))

#1 is like one of those internet gags where you stare at it for ages and then she flys at you freaking you out on the way. It's a bit of Banshee look with that expression. But the Banshee look can work I suppose like the black eyed Addict look that was going around for a while.

#2 I like. It's like she's in a peaceful state yet inviting pleasent company.

#3 Sucks. It's like so many shots I take, technically correct but lacks anything worth looking at. Her hips are about 4 foot wide, no expression on her face. No information in the picture and as you said yourself the colours aren't working out well.

#4 "So will I just stand here?" I don't like it. It's like you were just getting your measurments ready.

#5 Luv it. Mr Conery is outside waiting in the DB5.

#6 Don't you know how important the heel of a woman's shoe is? (fek fek fek I really am hanging around to many women lately). A bit more light on dark side of her face?

#7 "So who do we kill next master?" It's ok. I don't like the pose entirely and I can't quite put my finger on it. Compared to the shot above is she slouchy or at ease. If you were a foot taller then maybe she'd have looked that extra ounce more submissive; big eyed little girl? The tiny bit of dress cropped at the bottom bugs me also as it is but I can't put my finger on it.


So that's the nitty-picky. All in all though a nice selection.

:thumbup:

 

[wildmaven]

Very nice series. The only things that stand out negatively to me is I'd like to see the feet of #6, and #3 and 4 has her standing in a rather unfeminine way. The colors of your location look amazing. I would love to see some of the others in color with some increased saturation on the structural elements.

Marian

 

[jols]

i really like the pic but i think the model looks very uncomfortable in some of the pics like shes is not happy [3 4 5 6]

 

[Alpha]

#3 Sucks. It's like so many shots I take, technically correct but lacks anything worth looking at. Her hips are about 4 foot wide, no expression on her face. No information in the picture and as you said yourself the colours aren't working out well.

Sorry but I'd rather you not put words in my mouth. I never said that the colors aren't working out well. Quite the contrary...they are the result of my post-processing. I beg to differ that there most certainly is something to look at. The contrast of the water's reflection with the grittiness of the backdrop I find visually interesting. As for her pose, I did not feel that this environment afforded a context for your typical "action model" shot. You're also forgetting about printing. The print is an Ilfochrome. The colors jump like hell.

I'm bothered (though not entirely surprised) that you would rule out any intentionality on my part pertaining to the critical aspects of the photos...perhaps un-"like so many shots [you] take." I don't really care about the juxtaposition of a woman in a gown standing in a falling-apart building. The world has enough photos to fill that niche. I wanted her to come across as limp and expressionless, as if she were another one of those orange beams. This shot-- rather-- most of this series, is not about contrast. It is an experiment in trying to shoot the model receding into the environment. It's why most of the shots are on or in water, half of the poses appear limp, some of the facial expressions appear stagnant, and the ghostly (IR) shots are the ones in which she is in closest physical contact with the deteriorating structure.

Nor is this about the fact that you underestimate me. Rather, I do not believe that my expounding here upon these photos is necessary. I worked hard for this to come across in the shots. If you look at these photos, and at first glance think "Here is a set of photos that are imitating the 'fashion' style, but don't quite pull it off," and stop there, then you aren't paying enough attention.

I'm well aware of what minor technical errors there are, such as the clipped heel and some minor overexposure.

 

[wildmaven]

Max, it might've been helpful if you had mentioned what kinds of comments you were looking for. When you said "any comments are welcome", that could mean critiques, good or bad comments, the latest stock tips, whatever. We didn't know what your intentions were with these photos, if you were looking for technical comments or just overall impressions. Here in the Professional Gallery, as you know, most people expect technical critiques.

Marian

 

[lasershot]

VERY nice! Amazing model!

A+

 

[Alpha]

Max, it might've been helpful if you had mentioned what kinds of comments you were looking for. When you said "any comments are welcome", that could mean critiques, good or bad comments, the latest stock tips, whatever. We didn't know what your intentions were with these photos, if you were looking for technical comments or just overall impressions. Here in the Professional Gallery, as you know, most people expect technical critiques.

Marian

Well I wasn't looking for any particular kind of comment. The points people have made about things like parts of her dress blowing out and the clipped heel and the like, are well taken. Those are obviously screw-ups. But a lot of responses were to the effect of the model looking bored or posed awkwardly. While that could be the result of poor directing or a bad model, it certainly doesn't have to be. I was just a little surprised that so many people failed to consider that perhaps I intentionally posed her that way. Because if that's the case, then it makes a lot more sense. It doesn't necessarily need to qualify as a technical screw-up.

All I'm saying is that whenever I'm critiquing anyone's work (and this even goes for when I'm critiquing a beginner), if I see something that looks like it might be an error, I always ask, "did they do that on purpose?" And if in doubt, I ask them when possible. For example, if you looked at a shot from some Tri-X pushed 3 stops to 3200, and you say "The tone range is poor, and the shadows and highlights are pretty blocked up," well yeah, that's true. But that's how it's supposed to look when you push it three stops.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

Well I wasn't looking for any particular kind of comment. The points people have made about things like parts of her dress blowing out and the clipped heel and the like, are well taken. Those are obviously screw-ups. But a lot of responses were to the effect of the model looking bored or posed awkwardly. While that could be the result of poor directing or a bad model, it certainly doesn't have to be. I was just a little surprised that so many people failed to consider that perhaps I intentionally posed her that way. Because if that's the case, then it makes a lot more sense. It doesn't necessarily need to qualify as a technical screw-up.

.

But what I notice is that when that is done on purpose you don't have to ask... if it was done well.

 

[Alpha]

Bull****. The disconnect between conveyance and interpretation is integral to modern art itself. There is no such thing as "done well." Nobody's ever gotten anywhere by rolling their artwork into neat little easily decipherable packages. The world would be a very boring place were there no room for artistic subtlety; what you're arguing is that one ought to err on the side of caution, to deviate enough from the norm that there's no mistaking it.

I say if you don't have to ask, then it's isn't "done well."

 

[The Phototron]

Max's frustration isn't unfounded, most of the critiques are opinions about the style he's going for, not how successfully he achieved the look he intended.

 

[jols]

if you told the model to look awkward bored and unproffessional then you did an excellent job well done.

if this was nt your intention then maybe your model was the wrong choice or you you didnt direct her properly.