Madison Rowley, World Beard and Mustache Championship Winner

[runnah]

The beard was the subject; great beard


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you. I actually tried to make it so the beard was a main focal point, but didn't want it to overshadow the model completely.

Did he keep having to say "my eyes are up here!".

 

[Ysarex]

I had soup for dinner.

Joe

 

[DanOstergren]

The beard was the subject; great beard


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you. I actually tried to make it so the beard was a main focal point, but didn't want it to overshadow the model completely.

Did he keep having to say "my eyes are up here!".

He was probably thinking it.

 

[DanOstergren]

I had soup for dinner.

Joe

That's lovely.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Someone mentioned the hand looking too posed earlier and I'm going to go ahead and disagree.. If i think about it really hard I can tell it was somewhat positioned for the image but I think for what it is it looks very natural.

On the topic of the hand, I love that two fingers point to his head and two point to is beard, as if to show the viewer exactly what to look at. The rings, being on the fingers that point to the beard seem to act as symbols of his champion status as a beardsman.

I think this image is amazing. Good job Dan!!

the before is stellar. too bad you're one of those zombie artists.

I disagree. Obviously the before is a good image, I have no qualms with it, but I think that the aesthetic quality's of Dan's editing creates a visual style for his portraits that is all his own. If anything he's being less of a zombie by ignoring the idea that images should retain their "as shot" look in favor of a styalized look that is probably exactly what his clients are looking for. He didn't catch the attention of this particularly famous individual by doing what everyone else does, and that's a fact.

IMHO A good question for people to ask themselves if they want to give a productive and helpful critique on post processing is: Would you hate on this look if it were shot using film that produced the same results? Because, in the days of color film photography there were plenty of films that had unnatural color casts and people would use them to produce effects similar to the way photographers use post processing today. All photographers Adhering to a specific, perfect-color, SOOC regiment would be like everyone using only one type of film.

I recognize that the plague of over-photoshopped bullcrap images makes people who care a lot about photography prefer a very natural look, but going too far with that mentality can stifle creativity and hurt photography in a much bigger way than noobs with heavy hands can.

 

[Austin Greene]

This is really great. The window frame doesn't cut off his elbow, it frames him and sets up the whole shot. I'm glad you kept part of the chair in the frame.

Something to aspire to, for the rest of us, I mean.

 

[Braineack]

the before is stellar. too bad you're one of those zombie artists.

I disagree. Obviously the before is a good image, I have no qualms with it, but I think that the aesthetic quality's of Dan's editing creates a visual style for his portraits that is all his own. If anything he's being less of a zombie by ignoring the idea that images should retain their "as shot" look in favor of a styalized look that is probably exactly what his clients are looking for. He didn't catch the attention of this particularly famous individual by doing what everyone else does, and that's a fact.

Just like when every goth kid you see wearing black is being different right?

The dude looks like a zombie--sorry--but he does. the loss of skin detail and the color looks bad. It makes him look dead. It makes it look like the artist was on autopilot. It seriosuly detracts from the image.

There's still PLENTY of style in the first shot. I see no "style" added from the edit all i see is someone that was editing on a monitor that was too bright.

I know of Dan's style, and this edit is not doing it justice whatsoever. It's easy to spot of his shots. This image is one of his best shots I've seen to-date, but probably the worst artist-flare-for-the-sake-of-adding-artist-flare I've ever seen added to-date as well.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

the before is stellar. too bad you're one of those zombie artists.

I disagree. Obviously the before is a good image, I have no qualms with it, but I think that the aesthetic quality's of Dan's editing creates a visual style for his portraits that is all his own. If anything he's being less of a zombie by ignoring the idea that images should retain their "as shot" look in favor of a styalized look that is probably exactly what his clients are looking for. He didn't catch the attention of this particularly famous individual by doing what everyone else does, and that's a fact.

Just like when every goth kid you see wearing black is being different right?

The dude looks like a zombie--sorry--but he does. the loss of skin detail and the color looks bad. It makes him look dead. It makes it look like the artist was on autopilot. It seriosuly detracts from the image.

There's still PLENTY of style in the first shot. I see no "style" added from the edit all i see is someone that was editing on a monitor that was too bright.

I know of Dan's style, and this edit is not doing it justice whatsoever. It's easy to spot of his shots. This image is one of his best shots I've seen to-date, but probably the worst artist-flare-for-the-sake-of-adding-artist-flare I've ever seen added to-date as well.

No. More like how every adult has a personal style that fits their personality and that they've developed over time. It doesn't necessarily have to be different but it should be the way that they want it to be, not the way other people think they should dress. Otherwise its no longer "Personal" and more of a "collective" style, which in most situations doesn't make a lot of sense.

While I agree that the original version is full of style I think it's a style that doesn't fit as well in Dan's complete body of portrait work. However I feel his edited image does, and for that reason I think he made the right choice in processing it in that manner.

Looking at it outside of the context of the rest of his work however.. I see how you could prefer the original. As a completely stand alone image it really is hard to decide which version is better. Of course with all aesthetic matters its all subjective anyways.

 

[Braineack]

dan's work usually doesn't look bad. this edit looks bad. therefore it doesn't fit into the body of his work.

this is totally subjective. But if applying an ugly color overlay makes or breaks one work for the sole/soul purpose of artist flare, then that's kinda sad.


I also wanted to clarify: when i said zombie artist, I wasn't saying he was being a lemming/sheep. I was saying he was turning humans into zombies.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Meh. To each his own I guess. It is a tid-bit too dark, but I really like the desaturation.

 

[DanOstergren]

the before is stellar. too bad you're one of those zombie artists.

I disagree. Obviously the before is a good image, I have no qualms with it, but I think that the aesthetic quality's of Dan's editing creates a visual style for his portraits that is all his own. If anything he's being less of a zombie by ignoring the idea that images should retain their "as shot" look in favor of a styalized look that is probably exactly what his clients are looking for. He didn't catch the attention of this particularly famous individual by doing what everyone else does, and that's a fact.

Just like when every goth kid you see wearing black is being different right?

The dude looks like a zombie--sorry--but he does. the loss of skin detail and the color looks bad. It makes him look dead. It makes it look like the artist was on autopilot. It seriosuly detracts from the image.

There's still PLENTY of style in the first shot. I see no "style" added from the edit all i see is someone that was editing on a monitor that was too bright.

I know of Dan's style, and this edit is not doing it justice whatsoever. It's easy to spot of his shots. This image is one of his best shots I've seen to-date, but probably the worst artist-flare-for-the-sake-of-adding-artist-flare I've ever seen added to-date as well.

My only issue with what you have to say is that you present your opinions as facts. I wasn't on auto-pilot, nor did I add "artist-flare-for-the-sake-of-adding-artist-flare" to this image. I had a clear vision in mind from the beginning and went with it.

Otherwise, thanks for the feedback, but I don't think it looks bad at all and I'm sticking with my original edit despite you saying it looks bad. Anyone may feel free to call me arrogant because of my refusal to acknowledge your critique as useful to me, but I couldn't give a rat's ass if you think so. Have a nice day.

 

[Forkie]

dan's work usually doesn't look bad. this edit looks bad. therefore it doesn't fit into the body of his work.

this is totally subjective. But if applying an ugly color overlay makes or breaks one work for the sole/soul purpose of artist flare, then that's kinda sad.


I also wanted to clarify: when i said zombie artist, I wasn't saying he was being a lemming/sheep. I was saying he was turning humans into zombies.

The problem I have with your posts like this (and I see it often in your critiques) is that you state what you don't like and insist that because it is not to your taste that that makes it wrong, or technically incorrect or that the photographer has dropped the ball and then appear to lament when they don't take your "advice" as absolute.

What is correct exposure anyway? What is correct white balance? That the image should look the way it looked with your eyes? If that's the case, there would be no such thing as creative photography. The correct WB or exposure is not necessarily the right WB or exposure.

The WB and exposures of this, this and this are not "correct", either. But they are right, and clearly what the artist intended.

Always assume that a finished image is as the artist intended. Ask questions about why the artist made a particular choice if it's not to your particular taste, but don't be so arrogant to assert that what they did or why is wrong.

 

[petrochemist]

"Artistic interpretation" doesn't exist on TPF.

I disagree. The fact that we don't see a lot of it here doesn't mean it is not presented occasionally.

I beg to differ. Very commonly I see people accused of all sorts of BS simply for having an artistic interpretation that others don't agree with. More so here than ANYWHERE I have ever shared my photographs.

The fact that some don't agree with artistic interpretation doesn't mean its never presented. Designer didn't it was frequent nor did he claim it would get nothing but praise either.

 

[Braineack]

My only issue with what you have to say is that you present your opinions as facts. I wasn't on auto-pilot, nor did I add "artist-flare-for-the-sake-of-adding-artist-flare" to this image. I had a clear vision in mind from the beginning and went with it.

Otherwise, thanks for the feedback, but I don't think it looks bad at all and I'm sticking with my original edit despite you saying it looks bad. Anyone may feel free to call me arrogant because of my refusal to acknowledge your critique as useful to me, but I couldn't give a rat's ass if you think so. Have a nice day.

I think I wrote somewhere that it was subjective.

It is my opinion that the color edit detracts, adds/conveys nothing, and doesn't match your style.

I think it's a gorgeous capture, and I generally like your edits and the mood you add--but not here. Typically when I see your before/after, I don't ever dislike the after and generally like the mood/feel you're able to emote. In this case I really dislike the after--the color overlay you added makes his skin look bad. It looks dull and dead--hence my zombie comment. I never said you were on auto-pilot or press pre-sets and export, but it felt a little that way to me. It wasn't as successful as your previous work I've seen in those regards.

I think my first comment here, and first thought, was that it looked odd. You have a guy sitting in front of a bright window, yet his skin looks flat and dimmed. It looks intentionally underexposed in post and not in camera. If you were trying to convey a dark/dreary overcast sky then I don't think you achieved it.

Whatever you were going for, all the power to you. I suggest everyone take what I say with a grain of salt. To me this image is a miss and I was simply expressing what I disliked about it. You can take from it what you want--my critique is equally as unuseful as it is useful.

I'm a big fan of your work--how many of your images have I nominated for Photo of the Month here? At least 4-5.

never forget: i defended the girl's reflection.

 

[Braineack]

The problem I have with your posts like this (and I see it often in your critiques) is that you state what you don't like and insist that because it is not to your taste that that makes it wrong, or technically incorrect or that the photographer has dropped the ball and then appear to lament when they don't take your "advice" as absolute.

I'm not the artist, so I can only tell you my experience.

Always assume that a finished image is as the artist intended.

I can't make it that easy for the artist.

I'm not entirely sure the artist intended this guys skin to have a zombie-like appearance.

I put it out there for the artist to consider and that's all it is. You're not going to convince me that the guy's skin doesn't look bad to me and I may not convince Dan that it should be reworked, but at least it's something for him to consider.

I also try to inject a lot of humor in my posts, just trying to have fun with it, not trying to be poloarizing.