wait

[xc222]

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

First of all, I agree with your point of view, and I often call it like this.
But depending on the specific case, you can't because the model is too beautiful, you can deny the photographer's artistic creation ability.
Are we looking for ugly people as models in the future?
This is your stupidity! Not wisdom.

 

[xc222]

You are jealous of others.
But you don't have excellent photography.
I find that you will only talk about other people's works.
No level, pale and powerless!
Summary: like to install high, depreciate others, and raise myself!

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

Derrel：
You are jealous of others.
But you don't have excellent photography.
I find that you will only talk about other people's works.
No level, pale and powerless!
Summary: like to install high, depreciate others, and raise myself!

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

You could just as easily say:

All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the photo for quality or qualities perceived in the subject.

In which case I would take the comment as a complement. It is our inclination to perceive the photograph as the reality of the object rather than the reality of the photograph. It is often the case that photographers use this to mislead the viewer. It is in the subject that I find beauty, it is the subject that resonates with my memory, experience and imagination. Though I recognise your skill here I do not believe that it was ever intended to be the subject but be transparent to the viewer. You have succeeded when people see what you intend to show rather than what you try to hide.

 

[xc222]

You could just as easily say:

All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the photo for quality or qualities perceived in the subject.

In which case I would take the comment as a complement. It is our inclination to perceive the photograph as the reality of the object rather than the reality of the photograph. It is often the case that photographers use this to mislead the viewer. It is in the subject that I find beauty, it is the subject that resonates with my memory, experience and imagination. Though I recognise your skill here I do not believe that it was ever intended to be the subject but be transparent to the viewer. You have succeeded when people see what you intend to show rather than what you try to hide.

Art comes from life above life.

Art is to feel, anyone can say 10,000 points of view.

So I want real communication, not metaphysical talk.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Art comes from life above life.

Art is to feel, anyone can say 10,000 points of view.

So I want real communication, not metaphysical talk.

Ok, if your intention was to show the beauty you found in the subject then you succeeded as it resonates with me. If your intention was to showcase your skill as a photographer you've failed because you've made it so effortless to believe that the beauty resides in the subject. If you show us the beauty you see in the subject then don't be surprised if your audience believes that beauty is in the subject, that's the point isn't it? (I hope I'm not getting metaphysical here ).

Yet you appear to be admonishing Derrel because he saw a beautiful woman rather than acknowledge your skill.

I really like the shot, I see beauty. I also acknowledge your skill here. What I'm not so keen on is being directed as to what I should see, how I should comment, or how I should feel. Your responses to Derrel make me feel as though I'm walking on eggshells, that I have to make the *correct* comment rather than the honest one. You want real conversation and not metaphysical talk, yet delve into the more abstract concepts of photography yourself. Depreciate others and raise myself! Isn't that exactly what you did yourself in that paragraph? As I said, I'd take all the comments as complements.

 

[DanOstergren25]

Yet you appear to be admonishing Derrel because he saw a beautiful woman rather than acknowledge your skill.

Derrel's comment was unnecessarily catty, when he could have just given useful critique if he saw flaws in the photograph.

I would also like to say that I disagree with any notion that the photograph lacks skill or artistry. The lighting is on point, the exposure is good, the composition is creative, and the photographer succeeded in capturing an evocative moment and feeling with the model they were working with. A lovely subject is not the only merit that makes this an "agreeable image".

 

[DanOstergren25]

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

You are too attached to the beauty of the girl in the photo, and ignore the artistic content of the photo itself, this is an insult to me.

While I agree that the remark was reductive to the skill and vision behind the image, don't let this person make you feel insulted or feel that your abilities are lacking in any way. You are light years above the level of skill and artistry that was insinuated, and even the photograph we're discussing showcases that.

 

[tirediron]

I will preface my remarks with the statement that, "I don't get it." That's not intended as a negative remark towards the OP, rather an admission that our views of portraiture are [apparently] significantly different, and that's not a bad thing. It's not a good thing either, it's.... just a thing.

I think the assertion by @Derrel that it's easy(ier) to make great images with attractive people is accurate. Human nature is such that we are hard-wired by millions of years of evolution to find certain people attractive, and others less so. When someone is attractive to us, we tend not to see what others might perceive as flaws, and this is true too, of photography and other art forms. An image (be it painted, photographed, sculpted or made of macaroni) of an attractive person is always going to garner more positive attention than one un-attractive person. As we are looking at that image of an attractive person we are MUCH more focused on the person than the image as a whole, and are much more likely to gloss over lighting, posing, etc, and to give less weight in critique to those attributes because the model is attractive.

This does not in any way negate the work and skill applied by the artist to the creation of the image. It's analogous to wood working... a cabinet maker can make a beautiful piece of furniture from a piece of fine, clear or wood or a piece of knotty, checked wood. They will both look nice at the end, but the piece made of clear wood will have been easier because the materials were "better"* to start with and people will look at the finished product, whereas the item made of the less desirable material will more clearly show the skill needed to craft it.

When I look at this image, I see what I believe to be an attractive young lady, but to be frank, the image doesn't hold my attention because I find it hard to see her. There is only a small amount of face and chest, and a suggestion of cleavage, with a lot of deep shadow obscuring details. The overall tone of the image feels 'muddy' to me and lacking in tonal sharpness. As a photographer, I can look at the image more objectively and interpret what the artist has done, but that doesn't make it more appealing. Now, that said, had this been an image, of someone who was less conventionally attractive, I suspect that I would have had even less interest in the image.

*nb: I am comparing the fine, clear wood to how attractive a person is based on generally accepted societal norms, nothing more.

 

[DanOstergren25]

I will preface my remarks with the statement that, "I don't get it." That's not intended as a negative remark towards the OP, rather an admission that our views of portraiture are [apparently] significantly different, and that's not a bad thing. It's not a good thing either, it's.... just a thing.

I think the assertion by @Derrel that it's easy(ier) to make great images with attractive people is accurate. Human nature is such that we are hard-wired by millions of years of evolution to find certain people attractive, and others less so. When someone is attractive to us, we tend not to see what others might perceive as flaws, and this is true too, of photography and other art forms. An image (be it painted, photographed, sculpted or made of macaroni) of an attractive person is always going to garner more positive attention than one un-attractive person. As we are looking at that image of an attractive person we are MUCH more focused on the person than the image as a whole, and are much more likely to gloss over lighting, posing, etc, and to give less weight in critique to those attributes because the model is attractive.

This does not in any way negate the work and skill applied by the artist to the creation of the image. It's analogous to wood working... a cabinet maker can make a beautiful piece of furniture from a piece of fine, clear or wood or a piece of knotty, checked wood. They will both look nice at the end, but the piece made of clear wood will have been easier because the materials were "better"* to start with and people will look at the finished product, whereas the item made of the less desirable material will more clearly show the skill needed to craft it.

When I look at this image, I see what I believe to be an attractive young lady, but to be frank, the image doesn't hold my attention because I find it hard to see her. There is only a small amount of face and chest, and a suggestion of cleavage, with a lot of deep shadow obscuring details. The overall tone of the image feels 'muddy' to me and lacking in tonal sharpness. As a photographer, I can look at the image more objectively and interpret what the artist has done, but that doesn't make it more appealing. Now, that said, had this been an image, of someone who was less conventionally attractive, I suspect that I would have had even less interest in the image.

*nb: I am comparing the fine, clear wood to how attractive a person is based on generally accepted societal norms, nothing more.

While I agree that a beautiful subject indeed enhances a photograph, I think that in itself merits it's own separate topic, but I also think it's an unnecessary thing to say as a singular response to this person's photo. On it's own with no additional reasoning or critique, it's catty and reductive and there's nothing constructive about it.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I would also like to say that I disagree with any notion that the photograph lacks skill or artistry. The lighting is on point, the exposure is good, the composition is creative, and the photographer succeeded in capturing an evocative moment and feeling with the model they were working with. A lovely subject is not the only merit that makes this an "agreeable image".

Dan, I agree with you 100%. I was just making the point that it was the subject that evoked emotion and not the photographer. If I took an image of a woman and others remarked how evocative *she* was I would would be jumping with joy as that would be my entire aim in such an image. If I wanted to say "look what I did" then I would have to demonstrate that the beauty didn't exist before the photograph. It's a bit of a dichotomy as for an image to resonate you have to believe that it's the subject rather than the photographer. The better this is done then the less the photographer's hand will be visible.

Robert Adams said something along the lines of; the only way beauty is convincing is if we make it seem effortless because that's when we are convinced that it exists around us. I don't want people to say, "you're a great photographer/you must have a good camera." I would rather they said, "wow, she's beautiful..."

If it were as easy as we want to believe it is then the forum would be flooded with evocative images.

 

[otherprof86 28]

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

I can't understand why this was seen as controversial. I love dogs, particularly beagles. Show me a picture of a beagle and I'll like it - the "it" being the dog, the subject - not necessarily the photo. It's easy to push emotional buttons with the right subject - an execution, sex, kittens - but not every picture of a kitten is a good photograph. Your comment seemed not-at-all controversial to me. (Now back to looking at the "squirrel" thread . . .)

 

[Derrel]

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

You are too attached to the beauty of the girl in the photo, and ignore the artistic content of the photo itself, this is an insult to me.

Sorry, but my initial comment in this post was brief, and deliberately avoided mentioning what I see as poor composition The original photo's excessively cramped top margin, with her head placed way too far to the top? Don't like it. My initial comment in this post was made brief, to avoid telling you what I think of _your contribution_ to the photo, and your compositional skill, overall. I saw your last post of a beautiful woman, with multiple images; some were well-composed, a couple had very poor composition. In this shot, I see poor composition; lots of visual tension, due to the high placement of her face within the frame, and a facial expression that is the exact opposite of the tension created by the placement of her within the frame. "Creative composition" is one way to describe the original photo...I myself disagree with that description.

I am sorry that you, the OP, feel insulted by my comment, which was a true comment. Lovely ladies do make for agreeable images. Those looking ONLY for favorable, fawning, positive, enthusiastic comments, will not receive such from me on a regular basis, unless the work itself meets high standards for compositional and artistic achievement. While the photo is "agreeable", I do not think it is especially good, nor compelling. Others may hold differing opinions, and that's perfectly fine.

There was nothing "catty" about my comment, Dan Ostergren.Yesterday was my 56th birthday, and I have been away most of the time since then. I started photographing at age 12, over four decades ago, so I'm pretty familiar with C&C of all types. And "catty"...love that feminized put-down word. What do we say to work that we really do not like? Nothing whatsoever? THE OP is new here; I was trying to treat him with kid gloves.

I've worked in the past as a professional, five-days-week portrait photographer; I have photographed somewhere over 10,000 people. The initial post in this thread has a number of artistic,and technical, issues that, I think, make it less-than-compelling. The post-processing that Dan Ostergren mentioned as being necessary for an excellent photo? Muddy, gray, flat. I feel no need to continue, except to apologize to anybody who feels hurt, or who feels a sense of third-party-hurt-for-the-OP.

The referred-to artistic content within the photo is not engaging me. The low-contrast post processing and the odd placement of the subject within the frame, and the visual tension and imbalance, all those issues lead me to avoid making any comment, except a brief one. If the artistic message of the original photo is so strong, I'd love to see it transferred to a homely subject next time. Or to a vase and flowers. Or to a kitten.

 

[xc222]

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

You are too attached to the beauty of the girl in the photo, and ignore the artistic content of the photo itself, this is an insult to me.

Sorry, but my initial comment in this post was brief, and deliberately avoided mentioning what I see as poor composition The original photo's excessively cramped top margin, with her head placed way too far to the top? Don't like it. My initial comment in this post was made brief, to avoid telling you what I think of _your contribution_ to the photo, and your compositional skill, overall. I saw your last post of a beautiful woman, with multiple images; some were well-composed, a couple had very poor composition. In this shot, I see poor composition; lots of visual tension, due to the high placement of her face within the frame, and a facial expression that is the exact opposite of the tension created by the placement of her within the frame. "Creative composition" is one way to describe the original photo...I myself disagree with that description.

I am sorry that you, the OP, feel insulted by my comment, which was a true comment. Lovely ladies do make for agreeable images. Those looking ONLY for favorable, fawning, positive, enthusiastic comments, will not receive such from me on a regular basis, unless the work itself meets high standards for compositional and artistic achievement. While the photo is "agreeable", I do not think it is especially good, nor compelling. Others may hold differing opinions, and that's perfectly fine.

There was nothing "catty" about my comment, Dan Ostergren.Yesterday was my 56th birthday, and I have been away most of the time since then. I started photographing at age 12, over four decades ago, so I'm pretty familiar with C&C of all types. And "catty"...love that feminized put-down word. What do we say to work that we really do not like? Nothing whatsoever? THE OP is new here; I was trying to treat him with kid gloves.

I've worked in the past as a professional, five-days-week portrait photographer; I have photographed somewhere over 10,000 people. The initial post in this thread has a number of artistic,and technical, issues that, I think, make it less-than-compelling. The post-processing that Dan Ostergren mentioned as being necessary for an excellent photo? Muddy, gray, flat. I feel no need to continue, except to apologize to anybody who feels hurt, or who feels a sense of third-party-hurt-for-the-OP.

The referred-to artistic content within the photo is not engaging me. The low-contrast post processing and the odd placement of the subject within the frame, and the visual tension and imbalance, all those issues lead me to avoid making any comment, except a brief one. If the artistic message of the original photo is so strong, I'd love to see it transferred to a homely subject next time. Or to a vase and flowers. Or to a kitten.

No matter how you explain it, I have a bad opinion of you.
You're giving yourself cover by criticizing so much.
A man who is afraid to admit his mistake and can't apologize is not responsible.
There is a good irony: the body of a man, the heart of a woman.
I despise hypocrites.
Thank you for your message.
I am no longer interested in you, please do not reply, thank you!

 

[xc222]

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.

Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, and lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.

Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...

You are too attached to the beauty of the girl in the photo, and ignore the artistic content of the photo itself, this is an insult to me.

While I agree that the remark was reductive to the skill and vision behind the image, don't let this person make you feel insulted or feel that your abilities are lacking in any way. You are light years above the level of skill and artistry that was insinuated, and even the photograph we're discussing showcases that.

Thank you！

I am sorry that this has affected your mood.

Nice to meet you. Thanks again!

Have a nice day!

 

[gusandgloria]

Art comes from life above life.

Art is to feel, anyone can say 10,000 points of view.

So I want real communication, not metaphysical talk.

Ok, if your intention was to show the beauty you found in the subject then you succeeded as it resonates with me. If your intention was to showcase your skill as a photographer you've failed because you've made it so effortless to believe that the beauty resides in the subject. If you show us the beauty you see in the subject then don't be surprised if your audience believes that beauty is in the subject, that's the point isn't it? (I hope I'm not getting metaphysical here ).

Yet you appear to be admonishing Derrel because he saw a beautiful woman rather than acknowledge your skill.

I really like the shot, I see beauty. I also acknowledge your skill here. What I'm not so keen on is being directed as to what I should see, how I should comment, or how I should feel. Your responses to Derrel make me feel as though I'm walking on eggshells, that I have to make the *correct* comment rather than the honest one. You want real conversation and not metaphysical talk, yet delve into the more abstract concepts of photography yourself. Depreciate others and raise myself! Isn't that exactly what you did yourself in that paragraph? As I said, I'd take all the comments as complements.

DANG -- well said.