veil of mist

[squirl033]

Staying on topic, I like the photo, but the things that bother me the most are:

1. Blue cast to the water. This should be fairly easy to correct, and I'm sure there are multiple ways to do it.

2. The composition bugs me a bit. The subject is a bit centered. For me, I like to see space for the waterfall to fall into. In your photo, I'd like to see more space on the right side of the photo, and perhaps see a the pool into which the water is flowing, if there was one.

Other than that, it's pretty nice. It seems a little soft. Is this a cropped photo? Or perhaps it was handheld and it's the slow shutter speed that caused the softness. Or, and with me this is always an option, I'm just seeing things.

Ok, I just checked your website, and I don't think I have any right to give you too much advice. I will say, though, this is by far not your strongest work.

thanks, Moe. yeah, i agree, it's far from my best, but it was the best i got out of a rather unproductive trip to Big Four Mountain. this is a crop from a larger image. the bottom of the falls was just a jumble of rocks, and the top was so far above that the falls itself was just a ribbon, but this part of the falls had a ghostly, misty look that appealed to me... shot from a tripod, it's the slow shutter that gives the water that soft, misty look.

 

[squirl033]

I looked through your site and found some really nice stuff.

But I have to agree, I don't find anything that really conveys more then a snapshot of a waterfall, with this one.

I miss Washington......

The OP's site? I'm hoping you are being sarcastic lol I thought they were really good.

?
I said he had some really nice stuff in there. I wasn't saying anything negative.

seems there's some confusion over who's looking at what...

 

[Big]

I looked through your site and found some really nice stuff.

But I have to agree, I don't find anything that really conveys more then a snapshot of a waterfall, with this one.

I miss Washington......

The OP's site? I'm hoping you are being sarcastic lol I thought they were really good.

?
I said he had some really nice stuff in there. I wasn't saying anything negative.

Oops my bad Dominantly, I was just thrown off by you saying there wasn't anything that was more than a snapshot. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[TrollMongo]

not very flattering to either your wife or the Corvette. with some attention paid to lighting, better poses and angles, and perhaps a different wardrobe (lose the cheap plastic "hooker" heels), you might be able to achieve some nice results.

Then it seems to be a difference in taste. I like the "Hooker Heels"...I see nothing sexy about a woman in shoes with heels like my old dead grandmother is wearing...that is why pretty much all models, dancers and such wear HIGH heels....it also changes how the ladies butt and legs look by about 200%

Perhaps you missed the fact that this shoot was done while we were working on the car...The second was done while cleaning/detailing for a show, the first was done while installing the louvers...a messy job cutting fiberglass.

I agree the lighting needed to be better...the pose is a matter of taste and I like both...same with the wardrobe, we both like what she was wearing and those are the tamer outfits.

 

[Moe]

Funny. I bet this is the only waterfall thread that mentions high heels...and not just high heels but HIGH heels and hooker heels.

OP, I know what you mean about unproductive trips. And, going back and looking at the photo, I see the ghostliness you are talking about.

 

[TrollMongo]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better cut out the beans...that sort of thing isn't very lady like..!!

 

[squirl033]

"Perhaps you missed the fact that this shoot was done while we were working on the car...The second was done while cleaning/detailing for a show, the first was done while installing the louvers...a messy job cutting fiberglass."

rather an odd setting to attempt "glamor" photography, then, don't you think? why not wait till the car was done, then do it right, with decent lighting, a better setting, more glamorous wardrobe and poses, and so forth? my main point isn't that i don't like "glamor" photography - it's that these amateurish "upskirt" photos are not very flattering to your wife, and there's really nothing tasteful or glamorous about them. if that's what you were after, well, better luck next time.

 

[squirl033]

Funny. I bet this is the only waterfall thread that mentions high heels...and not just high heels but HIGH heels and hooker heels.

OP, I know what you mean about unproductive trips. And, going back and looking at the photo, I see the ghostliness you are talking about.

um... where did the "OP" come from???

 

[Moe]

Sorry, too lazy to write squirl033. Stands for Original Poster, the person starting the thread.

 

[squirl033]

Sorry, too lazy to write squirl033. Stands for Original Poster, the person starting the thread.

ah... gotcha... thanks!

 

[TrollMongo]

and there's really nothing tasteful or glamorous about them. if that's what you were after, well, better luck next time.

The point is the shoot was about the work on the car....Like you said you don't like glamor photography so why bother to look and shock yourself...maybe you wish your wife (if you have one) looked as good and wore something other than flat shoes.
Other than the lighting, I am very happy with those photos...and if I ever decide to shoot scenic stuff, then I'll be listening intently to your critique

 

[squirl033]

and there's really nothing tasteful or glamorous about them. if that's what you were after, well, better luck next time.

The point is the shoot was about the work on the car....Like you said you don't like glamor photography so why bother to look and shock yourself...maybe you wish your wife (if you have one) looked as good and wore something other than flat shoes.
Other than the lighting, I am very happy with those photos...and if I ever decide to shoot scenic stuff, then I'll be listening intently to your critique

if the point of the shoot was the work on the car, why did you pose your wife flashing her crotch at the world, so that her a$$ was the focal point of the picture? nice try, but that dog won't hunt. that shot was simply an amateurish attempt at junior-high erotica. if that's what makes your socks roll up and down, that's fine, i have no problem with it. but don't whine and snivel when i point out that it's tasteless and unflattering to your subject.

i never said i didn't like glamor photography. just because it's not what i *do*, doesn't mean i don't like it. i just know that photographing people is not my forte - or even my interest - so i have the good sense to leave that sort of thing to people who do it better than i. believe me, your pictures don't shock me. what does perplex me a bit is why your wife puts up with it.

 

[TrollMongo]

what does perplex me a bit is why your wife puts up with it.

Puts up with it? I guess you've never know any interesting women.
(Hint...All women are exhibitionist...)

She posts those same photos on her two sites...she loves the attention and she sure gets it.

She is the kind of women you think about when you make love to your wife...in the dark...under the covers. The kind of woman you've never been able to get a date with...

 

[squirl033]

what does perplex me a bit is why your wife puts up with it.

She is the kind of women you think about when you make love to your wife...in the dark...under the covers. The kind of woman you've never been able to get a date with...

far from it, actually... but if thinking that makes you feel better about yourself, you just go right ahead...

 

[squirl033]

"Hint...All women are exhibitionist..."

i guess if your sum total experience with women involves strippers, hookers, and other "loose women", you might arrive at that conclusion...