 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
925 online
Server Time:
2024-04-20 04:57:23
|
|
|
 Maglyte
 |  | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 20 on 7/19/2013 5:45 PM >
|  | | | Posted by Rashomon
No! It's a "normal" person, a person you'd see off the street. It could be your mother, your sister or your friend. It is who she is.
No wondering there is a ban in published media to ban excessive photoshopping. It really does twist people's image of beauty and inability to separate fantasy from reality.
With a comment like that, I bet you are way better looking than Justin Timberlake.
Remember this is a photo critique, not a personal attack on how people look and highlight their shortcomings. Because I bet, you are absolutely perfect in every possible way.
Stay classy!
|
cant be my mother ass**** she is dead and quite frankly you just plain suck %%%%
mmmm. mandias....... |
|
hyter
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 21 on 7/19/2013 5:52 PM >
| | | | Posted by MutantMandias
If you'd like to do some deep meditation on intention and detail in photography, check out Gregory Crewdson
|
that is a good start there are several others to take some real shots check out getdpi.com more pros there than anywhere else
|
|
Intrinsic
      
Location: Collingwood
Gender: Male
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 22 on 7/19/2013 6:36 PM >
| | | | Posted by Maglyte
cant be my mother ass**** she is dead and quite frankly you just plain suck %%%%
|
I'm not much for nudes done in abandoned places, I prefer the beauty of the buildings. However even accounting for different tastes, to call someone an asshole and tell them that they 'plain suck' really shows Rashomon's ability to accept criticism and your lack thereof.
|
|
hyter
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 23 on 7/19/2013 6:45 PM >
| | | | ehhhhh
[last edit 7/19/2013 7:06 PM by hyter - edited 2 times]
|
|
Maglyte
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 24 on 7/19/2013 7:07 PM >
| | | | guilty as charged that's fine with me
mmmm. mandias....... |
|
Intrinsic
Location: Collingwood
Gender: Male
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 25 on 7/19/2013 8:59 PM >
| | | |
Odd, before you edited your reply it read "guilty as charged". Perhaps you and Maglyte are psychic twins.
[last edit 7/19/2013 9:38 PM by Intrinsic - edited 1 times]
|
|
La Cigale
Location: Paris, France
Gender: Male
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 26 on 7/25/2013 1:45 AM >
| | | | Been a while since I've been on this tread, was chased off once for giving my honest opinion… but once again I will give my honest opinion as I wish others do the same to me. The other photography group is for fluffy photos. And I have a shoot tomorrow, so training my mind to critique will only serve to train my own for my own images. So… nothing personal ... just business".
1. Great images.
2. I feel as if the two photos are from the same set, so I question the great colour shift between the two. One could argue that the shift represents a different time of day, but this seams like a long shot. I feel as if the two images are disconnected from each other. And if that is the intention, then why place them both on the same feed.
3. loose the socks. I know this has been spoken about, but the brightness… the contrast to the rest of the wardrobe, they all make them jar. Socks themselves are not bad… just not these socks.
4. I love the relation to the teddy bear.
5. In the first photo the shaded face adds to the shot. We can think that it is mystery, crazy, our mind can wonder and create a scenario which we choose to apply to the setting, or get lost in the possibilities. While the second photo shows a intimacy. In this case the shadows on the faces doesn't add anything. My immediate though is that the models did not want to be identified, which is a valid concern, but I in that case would not try and set up a shot that requires that. In the same vein I wouldn't shoot a football match with my iPhone. Use the materials and people available to the best of their abilities and to what is suites to them. If it was a deliberate choice, then I am left question the intention behind it. It also seams so jarring that the faces are very dark ad the breasts are very light… which brings me to...
6. The breasts are too bright. The are already a fairly central focus point, and not to be so bashful to say that they shouldn't be there… if you know my work you will see I shoot nudes often as well, but rather that they seam to be over emphasised. Although clearly not porn, the brightens of the breasts makes the image a little vulgar, and that is usually not what an art photographer wants. The eyes are naturally attract to brightness as a focus (hence my issue with the socks as well as they were the first thing I looked at, especially in the first image.)
7. The light coming through the window on the second shot also seams a little too bright, I would have brought it down in post processing… which leads me to my next point…
8. "I do not enjoy touching up photos" - I don't enjoy a lot of things in my life, but they are necessary parts of life. And as a photographer your job is only half complete if you don't make modifications afterwards. Digital manipulation is one thing… and the topic of a completely different debate, but colour correction, dodging and burning, density, saturation, sharpness, all of these things are essential parts of processing an image. This is why I prefer using the work "processing" as a posed to "photoshoping". Photoshoping can mean digital manipulation/or processing, where as processing is more akin of darkroom, or digital darkroom. Darkroom was such a large part of my photography studies. It is only since digital photography has our society as a whole demonise processing. For even when you took your prints to a 1h photo booth, there was still some form of control from the negative to the printed image. It was a very specialised job, as it is not as well. My suggestion is that if you don't like PS… give it to someone that does. Don't think that "I don't like photoshopped images" is a valid excuse, you are most likely confusing it with "I don't like badly photoshopped images". A good processed image should be undetectable. I never liked processing my images as well, and I never liked using flash. I always told myself I was being natural… I realised many years later, I didn't know what to do and was just nervous to learn new methods. Modern SLR cameras are designed to give you the most information to work with... they're not meant as a direct end product result. They are created to give you the most information so you have the best ability to process them in the way which suits you're tastes and needs.
9. I don't care about the shoes. They might be strange because they unbalance the equilibrium of the image, but apart from that I don't see any great problem with them.
10. The stomach kinda bugs me… and it's not a manipulation issue… you could have repositioned the model in the first place.
And that is about all I have to say. Apart from that they are lovely images, full of wicked promise and I will be very excited to see what you come up with next. This theme really inspires me, and people like you that actually go out there and do it inspire me even more. The concept is there, the results are still of a good quality and I applaud thee.
La Cigale
*** There is a fucking up up up*** |
|
Rashomon
Location: Hamilton
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 27 on 7/27/2013 12:52 AM >
| | | | Posted by La Cigale
Been a while since I've been on this tread, was chased off once for giving my honest opinion… but once again I will give my honest opinion as I wish others do the same to me. The other photography group is for fluffy photos. And I have a shoot tomorrow, so training my mind to critique will only serve to train my own for my own images. So… nothing personal ... just business".
1. Great images.
2. I feel as if the two photos are from the same set, so I question the great colour shift between the two. One could argue that the shift represents a different time of day, but this seams like a long shot. I feel as if the two images are disconnected from each other. And if that is the intention, then why place them both on the same feed.
3. loose the socks. I know this has been spoken about, but the brightness… the contrast to the rest of the wardrobe, they all make them jar. Socks themselves are not bad… just not these socks.
4. I love the relation to the teddy bear.
5. In the first photo the shaded face adds to the shot. We can think that it is mystery, crazy, our mind can wonder and create a scenario which we choose to apply to the setting, or get lost in the possibilities. While the second photo shows a intimacy. In this case the shadows on the faces doesn't add anything. My immediate though is that the models did not want to be identified, which is a valid concern, but I in that case would not try and set up a shot that requires that. In the same vein I wouldn't shoot a football match with my iPhone. Use the materials and people available to the best of their abilities and to what is suites to them. If it was a deliberate choice, then I am left question the intention behind it. It also seams so jarring that the faces are very dark ad the breasts are very light… which brings me to...
6. The breasts are too bright. The are already a fairly central focus point, and not to be so bashful to say that they shouldn't be there… if you know my work you will see I shoot nudes often as well, but rather that they seam to be over emphasised. Although clearly not porn, the brightens of the breasts makes the image a little vulgar, and that is usually not what an art photographer wants. The eyes are naturally attract to brightness as a focus (hence my issue with the socks as well as they were the first thing I looked at, especially in the first image.)
7. The light coming through the window on the second shot also seams a little too bright, I would have brought it down in post processing… which leads me to my next point…
8. "I do not enjoy touching up photos" - I don't enjoy a lot of things in my life, but they are necessary parts of life. And as a photographer your job is only half complete if you don't make modifications afterwards. Digital manipulation is one thing… and the topic of a completely different debate, but colour correction, dodging and burning, density, saturation, sharpness, all of these things are essential parts of processing an image. This is why I prefer using the work "processing" as a posed to "photoshoping". Photoshoping can mean digital manipulation/or processing, where as processing is more akin of darkroom, or digital darkroom. Darkroom was such a large part of my photography studies. It is only since digital photography has our society as a whole demonise processing. For even when you took your prints to a 1h photo booth, there was still some form of control from the negative to the printed image. It was a very specialised job, as it is not as well. My suggestion is that if you don't like PS… give it to someone that does. Don't think that "I don't like photoshopped images" is a valid excuse, you are most likely confusing it with "I don't like badly photoshopped images". A good processed image should be undetectable. I never liked processing my images as well, and I never liked using flash. I always told myself I was being natural… I realised many years later, I didn't know what to do and was just nervous to learn new methods. Modern SLR cameras are designed to give you the most information to work with... they're not meant as a direct end product result. They are created to give you the most information so you have the best ability to process them in the way which suits you're tastes and needs.
9. I don't care about the shoes. They might be strange because they unbalance the equilibrium of the image, but apart from that I don't see any great problem with them.
10. The stomach kinda bugs me… and it's not a manipulation issue… you could have repositioned the model in the first place.
And that is about all I have to say. Apart from that they are lovely images, full of wicked promise and I will be very excited to see what you come up with next. This theme really inspires me, and people like you that actually go out there and do it inspire me even more. The concept is there, the results are still of a good quality and I applaud thee.
La Cigale
|
La Cigale,
Your analysis and critique are most appreciated. You've really knocked some sense in to me with all your points, especially 5,6,7,8,9 and 10. Number 8 is of particular "enlightenment" as I never saw it that way. You are totally correct to say "processing" instead of "photoshopping". What a difference a change of wording and therefore attitude makes!  You've made me believe in post "processing". Indeed, when you say that a DSLR's job is to capture information and that taking the shot is only half the job while the other half begins on a computer editing really was an eye opener. Like I said, I never saw it that way so thank you for that, Sir
Your critique of the position and light hitting on my models is also greatly valued. Secondly, I have never thought about presentation and the sequence in which these two photos appeared in the same thread.
My intention was that in photo one there is a lonely girl but there is hope because light is shining on her. So in the second photo, a nice sexy nurse comes to comfort her and I positioned them in a way that it looks like they are about to kiss. They theme was not meant to be sexual but suggestive and that they "could be" doing the nasty and I've stopped at the second frame so the viewer can imagine what will happen between the two.
And yes, honest, open and constructive feed back is always great compared to name calling and one sentences tell me that "I plain suck" ... LOL ...
If you are going to tell me I plain suck, please tell me why ... LOL ... and, the name calling is just plain childish ... LOL
Thank you La Cigale I look forward to your work and future critiques! I have definitely learned a lot from you post and looked at digital photography in a new way
Cheers!
Enjoy your weekend!
|
|
Rashomon
Location: Hamilton
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 28 on 7/27/2013 12:52 AM >
| | | | Posted by La Cigale
Been a while since I've been on this tread, was chased off once for giving my honest opinion… but once again I will give my honest opinion as I wish others do the same to me. The other photography group is for fluffy photos. And I have a shoot tomorrow, so training my mind to critique will only serve to train my own for my own images. So… nothing personal ... just business".
1. Great images.
2. I feel as if the two photos are from the same set, so I question the great colour shift between the two. One could argue that the shift represents a different time of day, but this seams like a long shot. I feel as if the two images are disconnected from each other. And if that is the intention, then why place them both on the same feed.
3. loose the socks. I know this has been spoken about, but the brightness… the contrast to the rest of the wardrobe, they all make them jar. Socks themselves are not bad… just not these socks.
4. I love the relation to the teddy bear.
5. In the first photo the shaded face adds to the shot. We can think that it is mystery, crazy, our mind can wonder and create a scenario which we choose to apply to the setting, or get lost in the possibilities. While the second photo shows a intimacy. In this case the shadows on the faces doesn't add anything. My immediate though is that the models did not want to be identified, which is a valid concern, but I in that case would not try and set up a shot that requires that. In the same vein I wouldn't shoot a football match with my iPhone. Use the materials and people available to the best of their abilities and to what is suites to them. If it was a deliberate choice, then I am left question the intention behind it. It also seams so jarring that the faces are very dark ad the breasts are very light… which brings me to...
6. The breasts are too bright. The are already a fairly central focus point, and not to be so bashful to say that they shouldn't be there… if you know my work you will see I shoot nudes often as well, but rather that they seam to be over emphasised. Although clearly not porn, the brightens of the breasts makes the image a little vulgar, and that is usually not what an art photographer wants. The eyes are naturally attract to brightness as a focus (hence my issue with the socks as well as they were the first thing I looked at, especially in the first image.)
7. The light coming through the window on the second shot also seams a little too bright, I would have brought it down in post processing… which leads me to my next point…
8. "I do not enjoy touching up photos" - I don't enjoy a lot of things in my life, but they are necessary parts of life. And as a photographer your job is only half complete if you don't make modifications afterwards. Digital manipulation is one thing… and the topic of a completely different debate, but colour correction, dodging and burning, density, saturation, sharpness, all of these things are essential parts of processing an image. This is why I prefer using the work "processing" as a posed to "photoshoping". Photoshoping can mean digital manipulation/or processing, where as processing is more akin of darkroom, or digital darkroom. Darkroom was such a large part of my photography studies. It is only since digital photography has our society as a whole demonise processing. For even when you took your prints to a 1h photo booth, there was still some form of control from the negative to the printed image. It was a very specialised job, as it is not as well. My suggestion is that if you don't like PS… give it to someone that does. Don't think that "I don't like photoshopped images" is a valid excuse, you are most likely confusing it with "I don't like badly photoshopped images". A good processed image should be undetectable. I never liked processing my images as well, and I never liked using flash. I always told myself I was being natural… I realised many years later, I didn't know what to do and was just nervous to learn new methods. Modern SLR cameras are designed to give you the most information to work with... they're not meant as a direct end product result. They are created to give you the most information so you have the best ability to process them in the way which suits you're tastes and needs.
9. I don't care about the shoes. They might be strange because they unbalance the equilibrium of the image, but apart from that I don't see any great problem with them.
10. The stomach kinda bugs me… and it's not a manipulation issue… you could have repositioned the model in the first place.
And that is about all I have to say. Apart from that they are lovely images, full of wicked promise and I will be very excited to see what you come up with next. This theme really inspires me, and people like you that actually go out there and do it inspire me even more. The concept is there, the results are still of a good quality and I applaud thee.
La Cigale
|
La Cigale,
Your analysis and critique are most appreciated. You've really knocked some sense in to me with all your points, especially 5,6,7,8,9 and 10. Number 8 is of particular "enlightenment" as I never saw it that way. You are totally correct to say "processing" instead of "photoshopping". What a difference a change of wording and therefore attitude makes! You've made me believe in post "processing". Indeed, when you say that a DSLR's job is to capture information and that taking the shot is only half the job while the other half begins on a computer editing really was an eye opener. Like I said, I never saw it that way so thank you for that, Sir
Your critique of the position and light hitting on my models is also greatly valued. Secondly, I have never thought about presentation and the sequence in which these two photos appeared in the same thread.
My intention was that in photo one there is a lonely girl but there is hope because light is shining on her. So in the second photo, a nice sexy nurse comes to comfort her and I positioned them in a way that it looks like they are about to kiss. They theme was not meant to be sexual but suggestive and that they "could be" doing the nasty and I've stopped at the second frame so the viewer can imagine what will happen between the two.
And yes, honest, open and constructive feed back is always great compared to name calling and one sentences tell me that "I plain suck" ... LOL ...
If you are going to tell me I plain suck, please tell me why ... LOL ... and, the name calling is just plain childish ... LOL
Thank you La Cigale I look forward to your work and future critiques! I have definitely learned a lot from you post and looked at digital photography in a new way
Cheers!
Enjoy your weekend!
|
|
Therrin
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: North of Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
*Therrin puts on the penguin-suit
| |  | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 29 on 7/27/2013 6:06 AM >
| | | | Posted by Rashomon
No! It's a "normal" person, a person you'd see off the street. It could be your mother, your sister or your friend. It is who she is.
No wondering there is a ban in published media to ban excessive photoshopping. It really does twist people's image of beauty and inability to separate fantasy from reality.
With a comment like that, I bet you are way better looking than Justin Timberlake.
Remember this is a photo critique, not a personal attack on how people look and highlight their shortcomings. Because I bet, you are absolutely perfect in every possible way.
Stay classy!
|
After reading this post, I couldn't help but realizing how much it clashed with your first post on here,
I am ready and have thick skin. I realize only through constructive criticisms will I grow, learn and improve. Please leave your comments, as harsh as they are I will be able to handle them.
Thank you in advance.
Like the mob says "nothing personal ... just business" ... LOL ... |
What happened to "nothing personal ... just business"?
These people are telling you what they THINK. What YOU asked them for.
The issue isn't whether it's a normal person or not... it's what you're audience sees.
If you're gonna use cute girls with their tits hanging out to get across what you want someone to feel when they see the picture with a patient and a teddy bear, then you're already willing to go a certain distance in USING the female figure to elicit a reaction to a certain audience.
By following that up with using her hunched over in a posture which causes a visual clash that WE all notice instantly, but then trying to defend it by saying it's "natural beauty" doesn't really jive to well.
That aspect of what is off-putting about the picture is NO DIFFERENT than that the picture isn't straight, that the shoes are left in the corner.
Or that the faces/heads are so fucking dark, that when I look at these pictures I feel like there are Black Holes super-imposed over the top of them, where I would have liked to see a little more clarity or feature.
If you're going to preface a thread by saying that you want ALL ZE INPUT and that yer not gonna bitch... then don't bitch. You don't have to agree with it, just don't let everyone know that you so vehemently disagree with it.
[last edit 7/27/2013 6:18 AM by Therrin - edited 1 times]
Give a person a match and they'll be warm for a minute, but light them on fire and they'll be warm for the rest of their life. =) |
|
Therrin
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: North of Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
*Therrin puts on the penguin-suit
| | | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 30 on 7/27/2013 6:13 AM >
| | | | La Cigale,
If you're gonna just SPEW blocks of text at people, you should at least realize that when most people see that much fucking text all blocked together, they just ignore it outright. I didn't even read it.
Break it up a little. Refine it if you have to.
I tend to write A LOT sometimes, but I at least try to make it a little more visually appealing.
Add some bold to emphasize your main points.
Use italics if you feel like it. or Underline things.
Do SOMETHING. Don't just unload a fucking wall of text on people. Half the time the OP won't even read it and you'll start seeing a lot of "TL;DR"
Give a person a match and they'll be warm for a minute, but light them on fire and they'll be warm for the rest of their life. =) |
|
Maglyte
| | Re: Give it to me folks ... (NSFW)
<Reply # 31 on 7/27/2013 11:22 PM >
| | | | Posted by Therrin
After reading this post, I couldn't help but realizing how much it clashed with your first post on here,
What happened to "nothing personal ... just business"?
These people are telling you what they THINK. What YOU asked them for.
The issue isn't whether it's a normal person or not... it's what you're audience sees.
If you're gonna use cute girls with their tits hanging out to get across what you want someone to feel when they see the picture with a patient and a teddy bear, then you're already willing to go a certain distance in USING the female figure to elicit a reaction to a certain audience.
By following that up with using her hunched over in a posture which causes a visual clash that WE all notice instantly, but then trying to defend it by saying it's "natural beauty" doesn't really jive to well.
That aspect of what is off-putting about the picture is NO DIFFERENT than that the picture isn't straight, that the shoes are left in the corner.
Or that the faces/heads are so fucking dark, that when I look at these pictures I feel like there are Black Holes super-imposed over the top of them, where I would have liked to see a little more clarity or feature.
If you're going to preface a thread by saying that you want ALL ZE INPUT and that yer not gonna bitch... then don't bitch. You don't have to agree with it, just don't let everyone know that you so vehemently disagree with it.
|
+1!!!
mmmm. mandias....... |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 142 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 738570479 pages have been generated.
|
|
