| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2010 12:04:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My vote was a 2. This would be my comment on the image (although  posthumous used less words):
Energy/Range/Story: 2/2/1
Composition/perspective/manner: 2/5/2
Aesthetics/Technical: 2/3
Presentation:2
Total: 2.3
Vote: 2
Remarks: From How I (try very hard to) Vote
2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no perceptible artistic (choice of subject, composition, perspective, manner, emotional energy and range, etc.) merit or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or an indelicate and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling; the pursuit of cliché without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, allegory, metaphor etc.) |
Z - is there someplace we can see the whole list 1-10? I looked on your profile page and didn't see it. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 12:19:40 PM · #27 |
Technically lacking is where I fall. My first thought was that was no energy spent on the lighting. It's pretty cold and If you look at the skin tones separately (face, shoulder, back, butt) they are all quite different. That paired with a flat aperture choice and an off-the-rack setting, leaves you just North of a snapshot. Shadows can be fine but in this image... pretty uninspired.
//1x.com/OEfullSize/28081-fullsize.jpg
Given the opportunity with your model, I would have gone in the direction of the image posted above. Any setting and natural light...you could pull that off or something similar, easily.
Next time...go dreamy!
Message edited by karmat - please keep pics to under 500 in forums. thankyou. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 01:02:50 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...Z - is there someplace we can see the whole list 1-10? ... |
From previous threads:
This is how I try (very hard) to vote:
1 > a technically (focus, exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo without hope for any sensible interpretation or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to image size), one 'offensive' to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'
2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no perceptible artistic (choice of subject, composition, perspective, manner, emotional energy and range, etc.) merit or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or an indelicate and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling; the pursuit of cliché without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, allegory, metaphor etc.)
3 > a photo of mixed or questionable merit, both artistically and technically; a technically 'acceptable' one without marked artistic or journalistic interest; a sentimental or symptomatically 'commercialized' image designed to 'sell' a product or (worse! -of a person) of reasonable or considerable technical merit; a potentially 'interesting' or 'promising' photo (subject matter/perspective) with 'severe' technical flaws and/or without 'clear' intent or direction; a technically flawless image void of emotion and lacking sensory stimuli
4 > a 'pretty' photo reminiscent of many; an otherwise captivating image with one or more clearly distracting elements, either within the capture itself or via border and/or title; a technically accomplished photo relying predominantly on an idea, subject and/or title for impact; an artistically 'promising' capture with clearly noticeable technical defects, compositional issues or incongruous aesthetics; a technically 'stunning' capture otherwise lacking in feeling, 'aesthetic 'sense' or compelling engagement
5 > a 'good' photo by most standards; one that communicates capably without necessarily teaching or exhilarating us; an artistically interesting photo pointing an unusual view, perspective or matter, even if it suffers from distinct technical 'flaws'; a technically 'stunning' capture with limited human or artistic 'range'
6 > a remarkable image, well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image imitative within a 'classic' fashion, but well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait etc.)
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'innovative' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight
9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which stirs 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other.
On (Challenge) Topicality
Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a bat.
I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.
I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs here penalized for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate. If I consider the photo remarkable (artistically very interesting), I may just decide to award the highest mark possible in the faint hope to compensate for a predictably overall devaluation.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 01:16:11 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
when I saw that picture I was quite amused that someone wants their signature style to be soft core |
Where do you get soft core from this? She is clothed with no emphasis on really any of her parts? Do you assume that every girl in lingerie is soft core? |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 01:20:17 PM · #30 |
| This is actually really good. I like seeing the full range of votes and comments when it comes to photos like this. Z i respect you for coming out and saying you voted at 2...most people won't admit to something like that...and I like that you backed it up. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 01:40:36 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by albc28:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when I saw that picture I was quite amused that someone wants their signature style to be soft core |
Where do you get soft core from this? She is clothed with no emphasis on really any of her parts? Do you assume that every girl in lingerie is soft core? |
To be honest....with the harsh lighting and overall feel of the shot it gives me a sense of home-made amateur soft-core. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 04:34:08 PM · #32 |
this isn't a perfect edit by any means - but I think it throws the emphasis back on the model
 |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 04:45:01 PM · #33 |
Didn't vote - but first impressions is that lighting is VERY harsh.
Also the crop's not great for me - her legs cut off there seems really drastic. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 04:47:18 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
this isn't a perfect edit by any means - but I think it throws the emphasis back on the model
|
YESSSSSS, I like that much better!!!! |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 05:09:12 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by albc28:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when I saw that picture I was quite amused that someone wants their signature style to be soft core |
Where do you get soft core from this? She is clothed with no emphasis on really any of her parts? Do you assume that every girl in lingerie is soft core? |
Her pose brings emphasis to her rear. The lighting only serves to illuminate her body like an overhead light fixture does to a room. Your title is "sexy angel". What else is there to pull from that photo other than the erotic? Serious question.
Message edited by author 2010-01-20 17:10:32. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 05:12:13 PM · #36 |
It is not a wow photo for a lingerie model shot. The bottom could use some skin softening. Lighting, pose, scene.... Would give it a 5. 4.9 seems exactly right.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 05:45:35 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Jedusi:
this isn't a perfect edit by any means - but I think it throws the emphasis back on the model
|
YESSSSSS, I like that much better!!!! |
Me too |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 09:51:57 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
...skin softening... |
That's what it's lacking. There is so much contrast in the skin, it doesn't look soft and feminine. I have to disagree with the "180 flip" idea, the original orientation works a lot better for me.
I'm kind of split on the "not a flattering pose" idea. The over-the-shoulder look works well, drawing you into her eyes very well. However, she doesn't have a "bubble butt" (excuse my French), and this position doesn't work very well for someone with a smaller heinie. The fact that you have her in a thong makes me think you wanted to emphasize it [her butt], but:
-the tight crop, with it next to the edge, makes me think you weren't trying to emphasize it
-you can't see the size of the legs because of the tight crop (thin legs would make it look bigger)
-again, she's in a position that doesn't really make it look very big
So the lack of emphasis on the buttocks/lack of a "bubble butt"/lack of a flattering pose may have made it less of an attractive shot. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:26:11 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by albc28:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when I saw that picture I was quite amused that someone wants their signature style to be soft core |
Where do you get soft core from this? She is clothed with no emphasis on really any of her parts? Do you assume that every girl in lingerie is soft core? |
What is the point of the image if it's not soft core? Read george917's comment. You're both participating in the tradition of soft core, a set of rules and conventions. Seriously, what do you think it is? |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 12:01:21 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by albc28:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when I saw that picture I was quite amused that someone wants their signature style to be soft core |
Where do you get soft core from this? She is clothed with no emphasis on really any of her parts? Do you assume that every girl in lingerie is soft core? |
What is the point of the image if it's not soft core? Read george917's comment. You're both participating in the tradition of soft core, a set of rules and conventions. Seriously, what do you think it is? |
I agree. The only point of the lingerie is that it's there and it's certainly not being emphasized as it would be in any ad. If it was the subject she would be showing it off more and most likely not flipped over. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 07:20:16 AM · #41 |
Actually George is right in one sense...I wasn't trying to focus on her butt. Hence the dark lighting on it and the light drawing you to her face. I saw a sort of look of innocence in her face...not really trying to entice you or be overtly sexy in her face...but the clothing she was wearing brought a sort of sexy factor into. Just because she is wearing lingerie doesn't mean the emphasis has to be on the sex factor.
I will say that this photo was taken particularly for this challenge. So there are several more shots, some were meant to be focused on her body, this one was not. This was was meant to lead you directly to her face, which is why her breast are covered and her butt is so tightly cropped.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2010 07:25:51 AM · #42 |
| There is definitely more work to be done on the photo. Having these comments helps point out some of the things I missed....like the shadow on the wall. Probably not going to flip the photo...definitely going to tone down the lighting and maybe even work with a soft focus version to see how that looks. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 07:52:13 AM · #43 |
This is really well done!
Originally posted by zeuszen:
From previous threads:
This is how I try (very hard) to vote:
1 > a technically (focus, exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo without hope for any sensible interpretation or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to image size), one 'offensive' to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'
2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no perceptible artistic (choice of subject, composition, perspective, manner, emotional energy and range, etc.) merit or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or an indelicate and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling; the pursuit of cliché without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, allegory, metaphor etc.)
3 > a photo of mixed or questionable merit, both artistically and technically; a technically 'acceptable' one without marked artistic or journalistic interest; a sentimental or symptomatically 'commercialized' image designed to 'sell' a product or (worse! -of a person) of reasonable or considerable technical merit; a potentially 'interesting' or 'promising' photo (subject matter/perspective) with 'severe' technical flaws and/or without 'clear' intent or direction; a technically flawless image void of emotion and lacking sensory stimuli
4 > a 'pretty' photo reminiscent of many; an otherwise captivating image with one or more clearly distracting elements, either within the capture itself or via border and/or title; a technically accomplished photo relying predominantly on an idea, subject and/or title for impact; an artistically 'promising' capture with clearly noticeable technical defects, compositional issues or incongruous aesthetics; a technically 'stunning' capture otherwise lacking in feeling, 'aesthetic 'sense' or compelling engagement
5 > a 'good' photo by most standards; one that communicates capably without necessarily teaching or exhilarating us; an artistically interesting photo pointing an unusual view, perspective or matter, even if it suffers from distinct technical 'flaws'; a technically 'stunning' capture with limited human or artistic 'range'
6 > a remarkable image, well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image imitative within a 'classic' fashion, but well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait etc.)
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'innovative' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight
9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which stirs 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other.
On (Challenge) Topicality
Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a bat.
I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.
I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs here penalized for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate. If I consider the photo remarkable (artistically very interesting), I may just decide to award the highest mark possible in the faint hope to compensate for a predictably overall devaluation. |
The emboldened part above is the most beautiful of the pearls contained within this informative & comprehensive set of guidelines for voting, IMNSHO.
Well done,  zeuszen!
|
|
|
|
01/21/2010 08:13:50 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
This is really well done!
Originally posted by zeuszen:
From previous threads:
On (Challenge) Topicality
Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a bat.
I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.
I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs here penalized for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate. If I consider the photo remarkable (artistically very interesting), I may just decide to award the highest mark possible in the faint hope to compensate for a predictably overall devaluation. |
The emboldened part above is the most beautiful of the pearls contained within this informative & comprehensive set of guidelines for voting, IMNSHO.
Well done, zeuszen! |
***This is prolly for another thread, but i couldn't help it***
It is well done in its description...but may be a tad bit too harsh, although I respect that he has a scale. My main fault for it would be the part about meeting the challenge. (and yes this horse has been beat to death...revived..and then beat some more). But i think you have to included the challenge topic when voting. Entering a landscape photo in a macro challenge has to be taken into account. According to Z, he can give a great landscape a 10 even though it has no business in the challenge topic. Keep in mind that this site is also to help us develop our businesses (hobbies for some), so that means being able to be on topic when given one. There should be some penalty for completely missing the topic...maybe not for the ones that have a wide interpretation that you may have missed, but definitely in challenges with specific topics.
Message edited by author 2010-01-21 08:59:29. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 08:14:28 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by albc28:
I saw a sort of look of innocence in her face...not really trying to entice you or be overtly sexy in her face...but the clothing she was wearing brought a sort of sexy factor into. Just because she is wearing lingerie doesn't mean the emphasis has to be on the sex factor. |
I think you struck something fundamentally interesting here in what you see in her look as opposed to what other people are seeing. I don't see any innocence...not by a long shot. In fact, the eye make-up, multiple piercings in her ear and huge tattoo kinda strip innocence quickly from the frame. Topped off by skin/lingerie...well. Her look is actually quite alluring...maybe even a bit sneaky
Lingerie and sex have had a pretty long and prosperous partnership over the years and not to say that this is over the top but you shouldn't dismiss that people will make an instant connection. I don't think nudity itself does or should imply sex but lingerie, kinda does. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 08:23:52 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I think you struck something fundamentally interesting here in what you see in her look as opposed to what other people are seeing. I don't see any innocence...not by a long shot. In fact, the eye make-up, multiple piercings in her ear and huge tattoo kinda strip innocence quickly from the frame. Topped off by skin/lingerie...well. Her look is actually quite alluring...maybe even a bit sneaky
Lingerie and sex have had a pretty long and prosperous partnership over the years and not to say that this is over the top but you shouldn't dismiss that people will make an instant connection. I don't think nudity itself does or should imply sex but lingerie, kinda does. |
The items you pointed at are again items she's wearing, earrings and lingerie...and not necessarily the look on her face. I didn't do a good job separating what she is wearing from the look on her face. But maybe you are right...I may be seeing more than you.
There is background information that I obviously know that you don't. That this was in the beginning of the shoot when she was shy and as she got more comfortable her expressions became more comfortable. Although she was wearing lingerie, she was quite shy in this look on her face. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 08:28:56 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... Lingerie and sex have had a pretty long and prosperous partnership over the years and not to say that this is over the top but you shouldn't dismiss that people will make an instant connection. I don't think nudity itself does or should imply sex but lingerie, kinda does. |
110% on the mark with this statement (and I don't agree with Steve very often). :-) |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 09:07:14 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by albc28:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I think you struck something fundamentally interesting here in what you see in her look as opposed to what other people are seeing. I don't see any innocence...not by a long shot. In fact, the eye make-up, multiple piercings in her ear and huge tattoo kinda strip innocence quickly from the frame. Topped off by skin/lingerie...well. Her look is actually quite alluring...maybe even a bit sneaky
Lingerie and sex have had a pretty long and prosperous partnership over the years and not to say that this is over the top but you shouldn't dismiss that people will make an instant connection. I don't think nudity itself does or should imply sex but lingerie, kinda does. |
The items you pointed at are again items she's wearing, earrings and lingerie...and not necessarily the look on her face. I didn't do a good job separating what she is wearing from the look on her face. But maybe you are right...I may be seeing more than you.
There is background information that I obviously know that you don't. That this was in the beginning of the shoot when she was shy and as she got more comfortable her expressions became more comfortable. Although she was wearing lingerie, she was quite shy in this look on her face. |
If you're looking to show innocence shoot a puppy. If you're looking to show something far from innocent shoot a woman with multiple earrings, lingerie and a tattoo that covers the entire upper left portion of her back. If you want to show the shyness in her face then just do a portrait. If you truly take an objective look at this shot you'll see that not a single thing in it cries innocence - especially when the first thing that pops out at you is a nearly naked bum.
Message edited by author 2010-01-21 09:07:42. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 09:22:18 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by albc28:
There is background information that I obviously know that you don't... |
Therein is the magic of a great photograph...capturing the story or bits and pieces of it and allowing that "background information" to come through in the image.
I think if people sensed any of that, in the image we'd be having a completely different conversation. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 10:07:56 AM · #50 |
I've given you a 7 so this isn't the reason. Perhaps the fact that this is one of those challenges where people will put more effort into will play a big role in the scores. The average score was much higher than the other one running at the same time.
Don't forget also that when the competition is stronger, your votes will be lower.
Your photo wasn't weak but the competition was much stronger than usual. |
|
