| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2004 11:10:07 PM · #1 |
How do you rate this shot? I thought this would be a good viewpoint to shoot from.
 |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 11:16:56 PM · #2 |
Hmmm... to be honest, it looks like a picture that was taken because "you just had to get the shot, and had no other choice but to shoot from this angle".
The high-up angle might work if it looked more like it was on purpose. Maybe if the girl was doing something .. or perhaps if she was looking up .. or if the angle of her body somehow complimented the background.
I think you'd be better off getting down to her level so you can get a better view of her face. Or at least call out her name and get her to look up...
You'll also want to position her differently. Give her room to walk. With the direction she is facing, she should be positioned in the top right quadrant of the photo, not the bottom left.
Also, watch the backgrounds... that tripod growing out of her shoulder raises some questions.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 02:36:54 AM · #3 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 21:26:37.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 03:59:26 AM · #4 |
Yeah, I agree with dwterry and aerogurl but totally disagree on the artistic potential of this setup. This setup is a very difficult one to master if you want to cut out all "up skirt" connotations or other implications. (edit) I think if you manage to do this focus of the viewer transfers directly to the big headed flat people and this might not be funny but insulting.
I like shots like this for some reason. I studied a bit self portraits in net, the kinds you take with a camera and mirror using low angle (camera points down).
These images easily make a drastic perspective, since focal length must be short since you take the photo with camera in one hand. It also makes some limitations to composition. Some use mirror and some don't. This setup is also commonly used in marketing and commercials (atleast in finland, #%¤"!! canada! ;D), usually in a funny context.
I think this is a photography woth exploring since it is kind of personal and untraditional (and amateurish-kitchy ;D).
It is true that there are people who would be upset of this kind of photography. But there are also those who are not (propably a tiny minority).
Look at these pictures on a site:
//www.bodymodifications.net/person.php?id=234
Ok they're kind of exaggerated but shows the idea of 'bighead' concept. The schoolteacher shot is a killer ;D.
Mmh. Just poped in my mind that a flat image of this type gives it a kind of voyer-like touch, compared to short focal length which implicates closeness and intimacy?
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 04:05:30.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 12:34:10 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I would be upset if someone was taking my photo like this. Its like the 'up skirt' photos, except its 'down top'. Even though you can't see anything in this photo, if you stand at that angle and shoot enough women, sooner or later you are going to get quite a few 'down the top' shots. I think the idea of her looking up is good, but to photograph a woman from this angle is in poor taste. |
I disagree.. i dont think the guy was shooting for that reason and if you can see anything from that particular angle, you should put some clothes on anyway.
with the exception of the tripod and the slight graininess of the shot, i think its not bad overall.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 12:44:36 PM · #6 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 21:28:01.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 12:51:43 PM · #7 |
I like it, BUT, here's a couple NICE suggestions:
1] if she's not going to be looking up, then get a tight-TIGHT- shot, without all the background so it looks less like a snapshot. You could get more of her expression in that way as well.
2] Yeah, okay, would be great if it were a tighter crop with her looking up.
There's nothing wrong with shootign from above. 90% of my clients [mostly female] specifically ASK for shots like this. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 12:52:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Thats like saying women deserve to be raped because of the clothing they choose to wear.
|
No it's not. If he said that, I'd be pissed and I'd reply harshly.
What he said was much milder. He didn't even say that women who wear that kind of clothing deserve to have their breasts photographed, he simply commented that they should wear more modest clothing.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him, but the comparison you make sounds like the "so and so is just like hitler" leaps that people make in their arguments.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 12:53:29. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:10:41 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Originally posted by saintaugust:
I disagree.. i dont think the guy was shooting for that reason and if you can see anything from that particular angle, you should put some clothes on anyway. |
Thats an absolutely ridiculious thing to say. Thats like saying women deserve to be raped because of the clothing they choose to wear. I will wear what I want, when I want, and that Never gives anyone the right to look up my skirt or down my shirt. Voyeurism is not ok, no matter how you look at it. I stated in my reply that even though in this photo you can see Nothing of the womans breasts, if you took enough photos of women, sooner or later you would.
Looking for a different angle is a great thing, I try to do it all the time, but from a womans point of view, this is not an angle I would want to be photographed from.
Cheers |
It's not a ridiculous thing to say, nor do I appreciate you saying so. for one thing, maybe this guy knows that and wouldn't be taking pics if he could see more than he should. you are assuming he is out to degrade women or something. (sooner or later...) cmon now.. its a nice shot i think, why pull it apart so much.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:14:02 PM · #10 |
Woah woah woah, out of control dpc'ers! A question about an angle gets turned into a discussion of degredation and rape?
I already posted it, but I'll say it again: most of my female clients request to be shot from above.
And really, it irks me endlessly that this is because the photographer is a male. Would there be ANY issues of rape/abuse if he had been a 'she'. Got my doubts. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:15:27 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Woah woah woah, out of control dpc'ers! A question about an angle gets turned into a discussion of degredation and rape?
I already posted it, but I'll say it again: most of my female clients request to be shot from above.
And really, it irks me endlessly that this is because the photographer is a male. Would there be ANY issues of rape/abuse if he had been a 'she'. Got my doubts. |
my thoughts exactly. i dont see at all how the angle suggests degradation or bad intentions from the photographer. and for the record, i like the way she has her head, it looks candid...! looking up would take away from the effect, would it not????
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:15:49 PM · #12 |
just a little out of line, don't you think?
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Thats like saying women deserve to be raped because of the clothing they choose to wear. I will wear what I want, when I want, and that Never gives anyone the right to look up my skirt or down my shirt. Voyeurism is not ok, no matter how you look at it. |
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:18:27 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
and for the record, i like the way she has her head, it looks candid...! looking up would take away from the effect, would it not???? |
I see what you're saying, but I love those candid shots that are taken at the very second the subject first glances at the photographer.
It's like forever catching a moment of a passing glimpse as you pass somebody on the street...true beauty! |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:25:20 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by saintaugust:
and for the record, i like the way she has her head, it looks candid...! looking up would take away from the effect, would it not???? |
I see what you're saying, but I love those candid shots that are taken at the very second the subject first glances at the photographer.
It's like forever catching a moment of a passing glimpse as you pass somebody on the street...true beauty! |
also a good point.. but i like the idea of capturing someone in a natural situation.. and not looking up at the photographer. besides, who knows, she could freak out because someone is trying to shoot down her top ... . . .. .?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:30:23 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
also a good point.. but i like the idea of capturing someone in a natural situation.. and not looking up at the photographer. besides, who knows, she could freak out because someone is trying to shoot down her top ... . . .. .? |
well, to be fair...I did understand part of what aerogurl was saying, just not her accusations towards you and your comment.
If I was walking down the street and saw someone taking photos down at ladies below I have to say I'd be a bit suspicious as well. Anyway... |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 01:44:11 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Originally posted by saintaugust:
I disagree.. i dont think the guy was shooting for that reason and if you can see anything from that particular angle, you should put some clothes on anyway. |
Thats an absolutely ridiculious thing to say. Thats like saying women deserve to be raped because of the clothing they choose to wear. I will wear what I want, when I want, and that Never gives anyone the right to look up my skirt or down my shirt. Voyeurism is not ok, no matter how you look at it. I stated in my reply that even though in this photo you can see Nothing of the womans breasts, if you took enough photos of women, sooner or later you would.
Looking for a different angle is a great thing, I try to do it all the time, but from a womans point of view, this is not an angle I would want to be photographed from.
Cheers |
It's not a ridiculous thing to say, nor do I appreciate you saying so. for one thing, maybe this guy knows that and wouldn't be taking pics if he could see more than he should. you are assuming he is out to degrade women or something. (sooner or later...) cmon now.. its a nice shot i think, why pull it apart so much. |
I would not take a picture where it would be looking down someone's top. that was not my intention. I like the look of a face from this angle the eyerrows nose and mouth. I it sometimes gives the model a dreamy look. as for the grain I wanted that effect i did not notice the tripod when i took the shot. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 02:23:34 PM · #17 |
I don't percieve the image to be a "upskirt" type of shot....I just don't think this image is good period. the tripod leg, the poor composition, the color balance, the soft but not intended focus just make this a weak shot.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 02:52:05 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
I don't percieve the image to be a "upskirt" type of shot....I just don't think this image is good period. the tripod leg, the poor composition, the color balance, the soft but not intended focus just make this a weak shot. |
I agree, this is a round file shot.
That said, shooting down on someone is a good way to make their body appear slimmer. Taken to the extreme, you wind up with the Big head - Little body shot that is not always good either. Shooting from below is not usually effective, because you either get the up the nose or "booger" shot and if you have the subject look down and they are not just skin and bones, they will look like they have 13 chins. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 03:19:00 PM · #19 |
| For me, this gives the impression of photos a stalker or a private detective would take (from my impressions in the movies and on TV). You can imagine a series of these being shown in a slideshow with camera shutter noises to a room full of cops/spies/villains... or perhaps as one of a series on the bedroom wall of a stalker. I think this is why it has made people uneasy in this thread. With my far-reaching zoom on my FZ10 (35-440mm equivalent) I have to be careful not to make my candids look like they were taken by a stalker... many of my photos had this kind of a feel at first. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 04:55:06 PM · #20 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 21:27:33.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:04:14 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
His exact words were: "...if you can see anything from that particular angle, you should put some clothes on anyway." That is the EXACT same as saying that if I wear a low cut top and a man standing above me can see down my shirt, its not his fault for looking, its mine for wearing a low cut top and I should put 'some clothes on'. COME ON! and I dont mean anything personally, that comment just struck me the wrong way. Sorry to offend if I did. |
just because they see, doesn't mean they were 'looking'. bah.. this is a stupid argument anyway. i don't want to open this can of worms any more.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:29:47 PM · #22 |
some people dress sexy for themselves, to feel beautiful. some people dress sexy for the world, to attract attention or to provoke the imagination... in general, if one is attentive, the difference in attitudes is quite evident.
It's all about being able to look but not go bezerk.
in my life's experience with a "sexy' GF, I found that woment were the most hypocritcal and mean of the two sexes when it came to seing a "sexy" woman. (of course I am generalising).
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:50:22 PM · #23 |
I am sure I am going to to get flamed for this but... If you are not asking to have someone look at you "in that way" why ARE you dressed so provocatively?
Originally posted by aerogurl:
His exact words were: "...if you can see anything from that particular angle, you should put some clothes on anyway." That is the EXACT same as saying that if I wear a low cut top and a man standing above me can see down my shirt, its not his fault for looking, its mine for wearing a low cut top and I should put 'some clothes on'. COME ON! and I dont mean anything personally, that comment just struck me the wrong way. Sorry to offend if I did. |
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:57:35 PM · #24 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 21:27:20.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:57:38 PM · #25 |
oh man now you've done it.. that was the can of worms I was trying not to open. hehehee.. run!
Originally posted by agrimace:
I am sure I am going to to get flamed for this but... If you are not asking to have someone look at you "in that way" why ARE you dressed so provocatively?
Originally posted by aerogurl:
His exact words were: "...if you can see anything from that particular angle, you should put some clothes on anyway." That is the EXACT same as saying that if I wear a low cut top and a man standing above me can see down my shirt, its not his fault for looking, its mine for wearing a low cut top and I should put 'some clothes on'. COME ON! and I dont mean anything personally, that comment just struck me the wrong way. Sorry to offend if I did. |
|
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 06:04:48 AM EDT.
