Any critiques??

[The_Traveler]

Besides the fact that the picture is composed well, whether the picture is flawed or not, telling someone not to edit due to the flaws is telling someone to waste a massive amount of time.
Why not learn how to edit and take quality pictures at the same time? A picture shouldn't have to be worthy of an edit, in order to learn how to edit. That's silly.

You older members need to get with the times. This whole anti-horizontal portrait and anti-head cropping ship has set sail and isn't coming back. As I've already shown 4 examples, this style of photography
is extremely popular among high end portrait photographers.

I assume you mean that your opinion is that it is composed well.
On the other hand I think the there is so much space on the L&R and her neck and head are so truncated that it looks a bit like she is being squeezed into that frame.

I don't need the weight of popular opinion to tell me whether I like something or that its good or not.
The fact that something is popular in general doesn't make a specific instance good.

Trying to make your argument more sensible by making me be less believable because I am older seems a like an attempt to shore up a weak position bu attacking the opponent and not his argument.

You are young.
There are lots of young fools here who can't take pictures either.
Does that make your opinion foolish and your pictures bad?

 

[Ballistics]

Besides the fact that the picture is composed well, whether the picture is flawed or not, telling someone not to edit due to the flaws is telling someone to waste a massive amount of time.
Why not learn how to edit and take quality pictures at the same time? A picture shouldn't have to be worthy of an edit, in order to learn how to edit. That's silly.

You older members need to get with the times. This whole anti-horizontal portrait and anti-head cropping ship has set sail and isn't coming back. As I've already shown 4 examples, this style of photography
is extremely popular among high end portrait photographers.

I assume you mean that your opinion is that it is composed well.
On the other hand I think the there is so much space on the L&R and her neck and head are so truncated that it looks a bit like she is being squeezed into that frame.

I don't need the weight of popular opinion to tell me whether I like something or that its good or not.
The fact that something is popular in general doesn't make a specific instance good.

Trying to make your argument more sensible by making me be less believable because I am older seems a like an attempt to shore up a weak position bu attacking the opponent and not his argument.

You are young.
There are lots of young fools here who can't take pictures either.
Does that make your opinion foolish and your pictures bad?

You need to read the words in the post without adding any of your own. Starting from the bottom:

Trying to make your argument more sensible by making me be less believable because I am older seems a like an attempt to shore up a weak position bu attacking the opponent and not his argument.

For starters, there is no possible way you could have interpreted what I said that way, without purposely doing so.

I said:

You older members need to get with the times.

And what that means, is that you older members, need to get with the times.
Watered down - that says, you guys who have been doing photography a certain way for a long time, need to understand that things,like composition, evolve.
This may have been a nono 20 years ago, but it is done in the professional realm right now.

I assume you mean that your opinion is that it is composed well.
On the other hand I think the there is so much space on the L&R and her neck and head are so truncated that it looks a bit like she is being squeezed into that frame.

Yeah, just like I assumed you mean that in your opinion that all the space on each side and chopping so much off the head are basic things that are wrong.

I don't need the weight of popular opinion to tell me whether I like something or that its good or not.
The fact that something is popular in general doesn't make a specific instance good.

I disagree. If the general public think your work sucks... I got news for you... you may want to rethink how you do things.
As for the popularity of something, top tier professional photographers shoot this way. So who is one supposed to follow in regards to what is right and wrong?
Some stranger on an internet forum? Or published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?

 

[The_Traveler]

You didn't hear me or you are capable of understanding.

I don't care what is popular or what 'professional photographers' think is au courant.
I don't need anyone to tell me what is good or bad.
I have my own creative opinions and that's what drives my work and how I see other's pictures.

You can follow whatever leaders you want.
You know what every sled dog but the leader sees?

 

[Thayli]

The crop at the head isn't a major problem imho.

I don't care for it... it seems to be becoming an accepted norm with a certain class of photographer (you know, the ones with Facebook PRO pages, huge watermarks, bad WB and lot of wide open aperture fuzzy "Bokeh" shots). Same for bad horizontal framing on portraits...

Like this class of photographers?

Volum' Express® The Rocket? Waterproof Mascara
Clean Express!? Classic Eye Make Up Remover
Revlon Products: Makeup, Fragrances, Hair Color, Nails, Beauty Tools
P!NK | COVERGIRL Talent

Without being argumentative, (really), those 4 examples are all selling a product, specifically makeup, so are those shots not cropped off to enlarge the face area? In other words the focus is on the product, not the person?

 

[cgipson1]

published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?

It is called advertising! It is not necessarily good photography, it is meant to emphasize whatever it is they are trying to sell! Want EYES... cut the forehead.... it sells more makeup!

It does go against the guidelines, which have been around much longer that madison avenue and all these advertising people that do things like this. And yes.. it is popular with certain segment of the population... mostly young girls and women that read the fashion magazines that are basically financed and controlled by the clothing and makeup industries. Shots like that are really popular on Facebook... and that alone should make you pause before you praise it, or say it is the "new way of doing things"! If they start doing massive Selective Color, and fake vintage crap, you going to fall right in line, and praise that too?

 

[Parker219]

cgipson1- Nice job getting rid of the shadows, but I think you went a little overboard on the skin softening.

 

[cgipson1]

cgipson1- Nice job getting rid of the shadows, but I think you went a little overboard on the skin softening.

It was a tough call....

 

[Ballistics]

You didn't hear me or you are capable of understanding.

Really? And I'm the young one? Don't be bitter -

I don't care what is popular or what 'professional photographers' think is au courant.
I don't need anyone to tell me what is good or bad.
I have my own creative opinions and that's what drives my work and how I see other's pictures.

I heard you the first time - which is why my response was

I disagree

Followed by why I disagreed.

You can follow whatever leaders you want.
You know what every sled dog but the leader sees?

You need to learn how to be led, before you can lead. If you ignore those that are in the position
where you want to be, you'll never know how to do what they do better than they do it.

I don't care what you do or don't follow - you tried pointing out that what I said was an opinion.
Guess what Lew? What you said is an opinion as well. The difference is, I provided some evidence as to why my opinion was what it was.

You on the other hand, manipulated what I said to turn it into an attack against you, so you can attack me back and insult my intelligence.

 

[Ballistics]

published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?

It is called advertising! It is not necessarily good photography, it is meant to emphasize whatever it is they are trying to sell! Want EYES... cut the forehead.... it sells more makeup!

It does go against the guidelines, which have been around much longer that madison avenue and all these advertising people that do things like this. And yes.. it is popular with certain segment of the population... mostly young girls and women that read the fashion magazines that are basically financed and controlled by the clothing and makeup industries. Shots like that are really popular on Facebook... and that alone should make you pause before you praise it, or say it is the "new way of doing things"! If they start doing massive Selective Color, and fake vintage crap, you going to fall right in line, and praise that too?

I'm certainly not going to say " This is wrong" and then insult every person that thinks it is right. Everyone has their tastes, but to call something done by high-end professionals wrong... my response to you is, be a high-end professional first, then tell your peers that what they are doing is wrong.

 

[cgipson1]

published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?

It is called advertising! It is not necessarily good photography, it is meant to emphasize whatever it is they are trying to sell! Want EYES... cut the forehead.... it sells more makeup!

It does go against the guidelines, which have been around much longer that madison avenue and all these advertising people that do things like this. And yes.. it is popular with certain segment of the population... mostly young girls and women that read the fashion magazines that are basically financed and controlled by the clothing and makeup industries. Shots like that are really popular on Facebook... and that alone should make you pause before you praise it, or say it is the "new way of doing things"! If they start doing massive Selective Color, and fake vintage crap, you going to fall right in line, and praise that too?

I'm certainly not going to say " This is wrong" and then insult every person that thinks it is right. Everyone has their tastes, but to call something done by high-end professionals wrong... my response to you is, be a high-end professional first, then tell your peers that what they are doing is wrong.

The photographers (my peers!) are NOT calling the shots... it is the advertising geeks!

 

[Ballistics]

It is called advertising! It is not necessarily good photography, it is meant to emphasize whatever it is they are trying to sell! Want EYES... cut the forehead.... it sells more makeup!

It does go against the guidelines, which have been around much longer that madison avenue and all these advertising people that do things like this. And yes.. it is popular with certain segment of the population... mostly young girls and women that read the fashion magazines that are basically financed and controlled by the clothing and makeup industries. Shots like that are really popular on Facebook... and that alone should make you pause before you praise it, or say it is the "new way of doing things"! If they start doing massive Selective Color, and fake vintage crap, you going to fall right in line, and praise that too?

I'm certainly not going to say " This is wrong" and then insult every person that thinks it is right. Everyone has their tastes, but to call something done by high-end professionals wrong... my response to you is, be a high-end professional first, then tell your peers that what they are doing is wrong.

The photographers (my peers!) are NOT calling the shots... it is the advertising geeks!

This kind of composition is not limited to fashion and advertising photography. Texkam already showed an image of the prince and his wife in this style comp. Neither fashion, nor advertising.

 

[cgipson1]

I'm certainly not going to say " This is wrong" and then insult every person that thinks it is right. Everyone has their tastes, but to call something done by high-end professionals wrong... my response to you is, be a high-end professional first, then tell your peers that what they are doing is wrong.

The photographers (my peers!) are NOT calling the shots... it is the advertising geeks!

This kind of composition is not limited to fashion and advertising photography. Texkam already showed an image of the prince and his wife in this style comp. Neither fashion, nor advertising.

Yea, sure... whatever! Not worth arguing about... you win, ok! You want to shoot like an MWAC? Go for it... I don't care!

 

[Ballistics]

The photographers (my peers!) are NOT calling the shots... it is the advertising geeks!

This kind of composition is not limited to fashion and advertising photography. Texkam already showed an image of the prince and his wife in this style comp. Neither fashion, nor advertising.

Yea, sure... whatever! Not worth arguing about... you win, ok! You want to shoot like an MWAC? Go for it... I don't care!

What is it with you guys, carrying on a disagreement for 5 or 6 posts and then suddenly saying it's not worth arguing about it, only to end with subtle insults?
I'm at a loss here. Is it because I'm just supposed to take what you and traveler say as gospel and that's it? Can't question it?
You guys are saying it's amateur to do this, and when I provide proof that high level pros are doing it, it's blasphemous and then I'm hit with these little passive aggressive comments about
reading womens magazines .

No matter how much you don't like it, MWACs are not photographing Royalty, or shooting for revlon and maybelline, Charlie.

 

[rexbobcat]

I generally agree with the concensus, but saying that ALL chopped headshots are amateurish is the kind of blanket statement that needs to be scrutinized for credibility or truth lol.

This guy is really into chopped headshots and everybody seems to love him:

http://peterhurley.com/

 

[slow231]

And

but I think one should be careful with just reasoning with a negative stigmatization of the opposing opinion.

Isn't that redundant?
What would a positive stigmatization be? "You're a miserable monstrous fat ugly person with bad breath but you hardly smell when you sweat."

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

not sure what you point is. it's really not all that uncommon to be redundant when describing something, particularly when you want to highlight a certain aspect, in this case it was the fact that a justification was made just purely around making a negative association.

so did a quick search on your posts, and the 4th post down is this:

While I like the picture a lot, it is calm and soozing, I do think that the image as posted is oversharpened.
Virtually every straight line has a sharpening halo.

what do you know, soothing by definition is calming...
\[begin pointless drivel (yes that's redundant too)]
isn't that redundant? what would a frenzied soothing be? + blah blah blah...

The photographers (my peers!) are NOT calling the shots... it is the advertising geeks!

This kind of composition is not limited to fashion and advertising photography. Texkam already showed an image of the prince and his wife in this style comp. Neither fashion, nor advertising.

Yea, sure... whatever! Not worth arguing about... you win, ok! You want to shoot like an MWAC? Go for it... I don't care!

why don't you just say "i don't like the way it looks because ..." instead of saying "anyone that does that is a *insert name/NEGATIVE stigmatization here*" (again that's for you lew). it's quite clear that plenty of working photographers do this, and that it doesn't bother plenty of people, regardless of if it's driven by the ad "geeks" (again more name calling/stigmatization of those who don't agree with you about something aesthetic...) or the photographers. saying that the OP was too crowded especially up top would be fine (and also true imo), or even just saying that cropped heads are something you notice and it bothers you. but just attacking the opposing viewpoint with opinionated associations is childish and self fulfilling.