| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2004 01:33:19 PM · #26 |
I gave this one a ten - and can't believe it finished as low as 24th:
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 13:56:30. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:32:34 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
While we're on the subject, I though it interesting to compare the following two images, side by side. Like others, I consider frumoaznicul's 'Opaque' a strong and stirring image, well seen and appropiately rendered. BobsterLobster's (I couldn't believe this image was his) 'Bound', to me, is sheer 'fluff' compared to it. It is a weak image, because it does not involve a single sense. I cannot even consider it 'sensual' as several people commenting on the shot have done. It is 'sexually' suggestive, although calling it 'suggestive' even may be a stretch of the imagination.
I imagine, if it stirs anything in anyone it would be a base stirring on a physical level alone, restricted to the lower torso of certain people who cannot, apparently, help but respond in this way when their senses have been dulled. The subject's posed pose (more of a predicament than a pose), frivolous attire and vacuously helpless facial expression contributes much to my perception of her unfortunate circumstance within the shallow limits of this frill. This is precisely the kind of picture I cannot, for the life of me, take seriously or with grace.
Fromoaznicul's 'Opaque', instead, shines with the very qualities that are so blanketly absent from Bobster's 'Bound'. The title too (although this peculiar choice may be incidental to someone whose native tongue is not English) is quite a finesse in light of the subject's physical dimensions, and one respectful of her humanity. While visually a dark picture, it is free of any 'gravity of mood'. All the details and tones relevant to portraying the subject truthfully within the ambient instant of the shot are preserved by obeying the very charcteristics derived from it.
It is a profound vision, not because any intrinsic traits indigenous to the subject itself, but because it can be so easily mistaken for any woman or man without loss or alteration of individual identity. It is a profound vision also because of the sheer range of human emotion captured in a single shutter-induced instant. The approach is appropiately and demonstratively sincere, since all discernible photographic effects are subordinated to the given reality of the seen.
(With apologies to BobsterLobster, whose body of work I respect and admire, for the harsh treatment I have afforded this particular image).
  |
Wow, where was this critique during the challenge? ;-)
Seriously, I'm always open to criticism... good or bad. I'd like to answer some of your points though.
I think here you're really comparing chalk and cheese. Of course it's fluff, but I don't think the model is vacant. How many models have you shot who would be able to be this playful and un-selfconscious in front of a camera? I love the expression in her eyes... hardly vacant.
I think that art encompasses a wide variety of purposes, moods and objectives, and I don't think that 'serious' is any more worthy than 'light'. There's room for both in our world, and a playful, sexy photo can be just as 'worthy' as a black and white character shot of an old person with a textured face. In fact, I feel there is an element of the freakshow in that shot although it is shot with some sympathy and the exposure is spot-on.
There seems to be a need for many people to dismiss 'sexy' shots as somehow not worthy of people's artistic attention... it's just a part of life like everything else. I think it says more about the people that claim to be put off by it than the people who are critiqued!
I didn't claim that my photo should have been in the top 10, but I do query the amount of ones that it received (14). Was it really that bad? Look at the number of ones that Opaque recieved (1). That's my point here.
We all have a libido, and I don't see a problem with a well taken shot that consists of elements that play on this part of life. I don't see this as any different to shots of children that tug on the heartstrings, or clever shots that appeal to the intellect, or shots of water that appeal to the senses. It's just another part of life.
Anyway, thanks for the comments.
Bob |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:38:39 PM · #28 |
Awwww.. thanks! I really didn't expect my shot to show up here. lol. A few people commented that I should have had her face showing, but for some reason I liked it when she was looking away.. so phbbtt on them. hehehe.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:00:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
While we're on the subject... |
Wow, where was this critique during the challenge? ... |
I croped both quotes for a better reading. While I thank you zeuszen for the appreciation of my image, I have to completely agree with the Bobster. I don't think compareing the to images can get you anywhere. The 2 have as much in common, as different they are, tehniques are different, that doesn't mean any of them is wrong. It may be your option to like my tehnique more than Bobsters personaly I like it to more, I only gave Bobster's image a 5 wich I always give to images that are not bad butthey don't impress me much. This is my option and yours and probably a few other's option but the same time I completely agree and recognize nude and sexy photography as a form of photography just as much relevant as the type of photography I do. I just opted for something else, is the way I see the world is the way i comunicate thru images. But others are allowed to communicate in any different way they please. Erotic photography is there since forever, and will always be, same way as there always whas and will be intentional overexposure as a tehnique. I like dark dramatic photo's yes I do, look at all my work most are like that, but if they are good I can also apreciate any kind of photography no matter how different from mine is. Belive me I'm sure many considered my shot "too dark" as much as many considered Bobsters "too bright" And I also belive what Bobster is saying that many people developed hate thowards certain subjects, some hate baby shots, others hate cats, dogs, erotism, flags, religious items, etc, and they don't even bother to look if it's a good image or bad, if it's a cat than it gets a 1. End of story. This is what I consider really wrong. And I belive bobster's image may have suffered from that. Some people likes my image other likes Bobs, I'm perfectly ok with that and the world is big enough for both of us. :))
Again thank you for your appreciation, and I am really happy you could connect to my image, but stop compareing shots they have nothing in common. Besides as Bobster said, where whas this criticism during the challenge? But better late than never, thank you!
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:08:19 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
This image by grigrigirl absolutely amazes me.
The window frame is bright without being blown out and the exposure on the veil is perfect. Add details, such as the right eye gazing back at the viewer through the veil, once again exposed perfectly, and it obvious that this wasn't just a lucky shot. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is by far the most creative image in this challenge. The concept and execution are beyond question. The lighting superb. By far, the best creative image. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:08:26 PM · #31 |
Wow, some really GREAT work in that challenge.
A lot of competition. Congrats to all :-) |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:12:41 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by eojedaa:
|
Thank you so much for choosing mine here! I wanted it to do better and it got little attention so thanks for the uplift! |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:18:48 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
While we're on the subject, I though it interesting to compare the following two images, side by side. Like others, I consider frumoaznicul's 'Opaque' a strong and stirring image, well seen and appropiately rendered. BobsterLobster's (I couldn't believe this image was his) 'Bound', to me, is sheer 'fluff' compared to it. It is a weak image, because it does not involve a single sense. I cannot even consider it 'sensual' as several people commenting on the shot have done. It is 'sexually' suggestive, although calling it 'suggestive' even may be a stretch of the imagination.
I imagine, if it stirs anything in anyone it would be a base stirring on a physical level alone, restricted to the lower torso of certain people who cannot, apparently, help but respond in this way when their senses have been dulled. The subject's posed pose (more of a predicament than a pose), frivolous attire and vacuously helpless facial expression contributes much to my perception of her unfortunate circumstance within the shallow limits of this frill. This is precisely the kind of picture I cannot, for the life of me, take seriously or with grace.
Fromoaznicul's 'Opaque', instead, shines with the very qualities that are so blanketly absent from Bobster's 'Bound'. The title too (although this peculiar choice may be incidental to someone whose native tongue is not English) is quite a finesse in light of the subject's physical dimensions, and one respectful of her humanity. While visually a dark picture, it is free of any 'gravity of mood'. All the details and tones relevant to portraying the subject truthfully within the ambient instant of the shot are preserved by obeying the very charcteristics derived from it.
It is a profound vision, not because any intrinsic traits indigenous to the subject itself, but because it can be so easily mistaken for any woman or man without loss or alteration of individual identity. It is a profound vision also because of the sheer range of human emotion captured in a single shutter-induced instant. The approach is appropiately and demonstratively sincere, since all discernible photographic effects are subordinated to the given reality of the seen.
(With apologies to BobsterLobster, whose body of work I respect and admire, for the harsh treatment I have afforded this particular image).
|
Wow, where was this critique during the challenge? ;-)
Seriously, I'm always open to criticism... good or bad. I'd like to answer some of your points though.
I think here you're really comparing chalk and cheese. Of course it's fluff, but I don't think the model is vacant. How many models have you shot who would be able to be this playful and un-selfconscious in front of a camera? I love the expression in her eyes... hardly vacant.
I think that art encompasses a wide variety of purposes, moods and objectives, and I don't think that 'serious' is any more worthy than 'light'. There's room for both in our world, and a playful, sexy photo can be just as 'worthy' as a black and white character shot of an old person with a textured face. In fact, I feel there is an element of the freakshow in that shot although it is shot with some sympathy and the exposure is spot-on.
There seems to be a need for many people to dismiss 'sexy' shots as somehow not worthy of people's artistic attention... it's just a part of life like everything else. I think it says more about the people that claim to be put off by it than the people who are critiqued!
I didn't claim that my photo should have been in the top 10, but I do query the amount of ones that it received (14). Was it really that bad? Look at the number of ones that Opaque recieved (1). That's my point here.
We all have a libido, and I don't see a problem with a well taken shot that consists of elements that play on this part of life. I don't see this as any different to shots of children that tug on the heartstrings, or clever shots that appeal to the intellect, or shots of water that appeal to the senses. It's just another part of life.
Anyway, thanks for the comments.
Bob |
- Yes, I am comparing 'chalk and cheese' (to use your expression), but aren't we compelled to make such comparisons anyway in the course of every challenge?
- I'm not saying that your model was or is 'vacant'. I said, I think, that the subject of the image displayed a vacuous facial expression. I have, of course, never worked with her and, therefore cannot know what she is like as a person. I can, however, examine what I see in this particular picture.
- When you say that 'serious' should not be more worthy than 'light', I full heartedly agree with you. "Gravity" (Lawrence Sterne once said), "a mysterious carriage of the body to conceal defects of the mind." Frumoaznicul's 'Opaque', however, is not a 'grave' image at all. There is much humour and lightness to it, as well. As I said (above), it's the 'range' of emotion that can be extracted from it, which makes it remarkable.
- Neither do I have anything against "sexy shots". You will find nudes and erotica in my favourites and in my own portfolio. I am quite taken with grigrirgirl's work, plenty of which is highly erotic and sensual.
It is the lack of sensual range in 'Bound' I am criticizing, not any overt or latent suggestion of 'sexiness'. When the sensual range consists of no more than evidence of flesh and when this evidence is 'fluffed' into an aesthetic reminiscent of pornographic photography, I feel I am being sold an exploitation of my and your subject's vulnerabilities. It is the (cheap) commercial feel and aura of such images that I find repugnant, not the subject of 'sex'.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:20:27.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:36:42 PM · #34 |
@zeuszen
PS also thank you verry much for mentioning the title issue for my image, I named it like that because they say eyes are windows to the soul, but in this case when I got home and prepared the shot for the challenge I kept looking and looking on her eyes and wondering what's her soul like. The person is completely unknown to me never saw her before and never again after, I don't know anything about her, She can be a good and pleasant person as well as she could be an evil witch. I really can't see none of this in her eyes I just can't see her soul throu her windows that's why I thought her windows to the soul are opaque. Wich is preety much as you understood it, and during the challenge I thought maybe the title sounds too sophisticated to people as an explanation for I admit a score lower than I whas hoping for, but now that you connected to it so well I know I made a right choice. I'm really so happy when someone understands my images and connects to them, counts to me much more than 2 ribbons at once. Thank u!
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:39:04.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:39:40 PM · #35 |
| Substance is the word, don't shoot me now. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 04:09:12 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It is the lack of sensual range in 'Bound' I am criticizing, not any overt or latent suggestion of 'sexiness'. When the sensual range consists of no more than evidence of flesh and when this evidence is 'fluffed' into an aesthetic reminiscent of pornographic photography, I feel I am being sold an exploitation of my and your subject's vulnerabilities. It is the (cheap) commercial feel and aura of such images that I find repugnant, not the subject of 'sex'. |
This, said so much better than I ever could have said it, is why I was one of 14 who gave this shot a 1. It was a viewer's way of saying "I find this to be empty, invalid source material for a photograph." As Zueszen said, not because it is sexual, but because is gutteral to me.
I know many feel that a photo that has technical merit deserves a few point for that, but I think a photo that has obvious technical merit need not be rewarded fot that. A person who shoots a technically sound photo is aware of that and a couple of point won't assist that photographer in appreciating his own technical merit.
When a photographer has moved past the accomplishment of technical excellence it is his job to move the viewer with emotion. In this respect, this photo violates my sense of sexuality and sensuality. I think you are right that this speaks more of the voter than the photographer, but that makes it no less valid. I refer to the idea represented in my signature.
This challenge had far too many shots that held my appeal - for this reason I did not comment my low scoring shots. I'm writing this to provide the insight people are always requesting in regards to their votes of 1.
It should be said that I do greatly admire your other work, and offer these comments only in discussion.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 04:20:28 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by just-married:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It is the lack of sensual range in 'Bound' I am criticizing, not any overt or latent suggestion of 'sexiness'. When the sensual range consists of no more than evidence of flesh and when this evidence is 'fluffed' into an aesthetic reminiscent of pornographic photography, I feel I am being sold an exploitation of my and your subject's vulnerabilities. It is the (cheap) commercial feel and aura of such images that I find repugnant, not the subject of 'sex'. |
This, said so much better than I ever could have said it, is why I was one of 14 who gave this shot a 1. It was a viewer's way of saying "I find this to be empty, invalid source material for a photograph." As Zueszen said, not because it is sexual, but because is gutteral to me.
I know many feel that a photo that has technical merit deserves a few point for that, but I think a photo that has obvious technical merit need not be rewarded fot that. A person who shoots a technically sound photo is aware of that and a couple of point won't assist that photographer in appreciating his own technical merit.
When a photographer has moved past the accomplishment of technical excellence it is his job to move the viewer with emotion. In this respect, this photo violates my sense of sexuality and sensuality. I think you are right that this speaks more of the voter than the photographer, but that makes it no less valid. I refer to the idea represented in my signature.
This challenge had far too many shots that held my appeal - for this reason I did not comment my low scoring shots. I'm writing this to provide the insight people are always requesting in regards to their votes of 1.
It should be said that I do greatly admire your other work, and offer these comments only in discussion. |
Thanks for your post, I appreciate the honesty.
I do find it interesting how controversial photos like this can become... and to tell the truth, the shot isn't entirely in my taste because I had no control over the choice of model, the clothes or props. I was just allowed one set's worth of shots as an assistant to another photographer. If I had creative control over the whole session, I would have done it very differently.
However, I still find value in the shot, and don't find it 'gutteral' as you called it. In fact, the high-key approach was designed to give it more of an 'airy' feel, which is taking the viewer in the opposite direction. I find it interesting that people have mentioned that this is too 'pornographic', when the model is covered fairly well in this shot. Pornography to me is very different... it's down to just showing flesh and nether regions.
What I find really baffling is that this shot feels very similar in value to everything else in my portfolio... I didn't turn off something in my brain when I took it and then post-edited it... it comes from the same place that all my other shots have, but I am looking forward to more creative input when working with more models.
Thanks again for your candour though.
Cheers,
Bob |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 04:49:48 PM · #38 |
I need to jump in here in defense of Bobster.
There is a style of photography known as fetish photography. It uses both female and male models. It is refered to as edgy. It is not at all in the same category as porn. The object is more to titillate than to arouse. Many fine photographers have incorporated because like any other of expression it allows great creative freedom in its representation.
You will notice that these images mask the rawness with either high or low key effects so as to remove the spice otherwise present. Of course, it follows many path but it is pursued mostly by artistic photographers which are able to render fine images and studies from this subject.
To dismiss this as an insult to the subject or viewer because it appeals to the lower emotions is indeed a great error in judgment. Many of these works hang in galleries to the great amusement and appreciation of the viewers.
Yes, some people are hyper-sensitive to sexually oriented material in any form or implication and consider the festish a perversion or sexual abberation. They are correct to a degree but the artist presents this slice of life like it does all others. In the final end, who is to rise as judge as what an artist can incorporate. The artist simply issues a statement and we either like or dislike the work. However, the artist merely hopes that his work will be looked at first as an inner expression rather then a desire to exploit, accent or demean the subject matter. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 05:05:18 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Why I rated it high (9)? I think the emotion is great, the photo tells a lot about the girl and the composition is pretty good for that. |
I loved the colors and emotion attached to it. 10 from me.
 [/quote]
This was my entry. Thank you just-married and SDW65.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 17:08:23.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 05:37:39 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by photom:
I gave this one a ten - and can't believe it finished as low as 24th:
|
Tom, thank you for the kind words (Coming from the "Numero Uno" in the challenge, I`m flattered)
Finishing 24th was better than my expectation as I know the techniques employed are not to everyone`s taste (a bit like selective desat).
However,my outlook now to challenges is simple,I merely submit images I`m pleased with and if they do well, then it`s a pleasant surprise for me.
Congratulations on a well deserved blue.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 06:01:18 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by geewhy:
Originally posted by photom:
I gave this one a ten - and can't believe it finished as low as 24th:
|
Tom, thank you for the kind words (Coming from the "Numero Uno" in the challenge, I`m flattered)
Finishing 24th was better than my expectation as I know the techniques employed are not to everyone`s taste (a bit like selective desat).
However,my outlook now to challenges is simple,I merely submit images I`m pleased with and if they do well, then it`s a pleasant surprise for me.
Congratulations on a well deserved blue. |
I was hoping this one would win. GREAT SHOT, im very impressed by your work Gordon.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 06:39:21 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I find it interesting that people have mentioned that this is too 'pornographic', when the model is covered fairly well in this shot. Pornography to me is very different... it's down to just showing flesh and nether regions ...
Cheers,
Bob |
I think the element which might make this image cross the vague boundary from erotica to pornography is that of consent -- the pose and props carry the implication of the lack thereof on the part of the model ... and I think most people agree that depicting rape falls over the boundary these days.
While it is possible that the model is engaging in entirely consensual and pleasurable S&M activities, I believe that when that is not explicitly clear, an appeal to the viewer's less-wholesome imagination an almost inevitable (and predictable) result.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 18:40:11. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:17:25 PM · #43 |
Mine of course. I think Digital Quixote said it right and I quote "It is an interesting image, a bit disconcerting. I can imagine a number of magazines that would publish it for a variety of purposes. In the DPC forum, it is a bit risky and I would be surprised if it scores well." ( I hope you don't mind the quote Quixote) I also realize this sort of thing doesn't always hit with the masses, especially when they think it's two photos and try to have it DQ'd. But no hard feelings as I'm beginning to realize that my vision is what I've always wanted it to be, unique, and in that I'm always a winner. Even if the everyday people don't think so. Thanks to everyone for commenting, even those who misunderstood it enough to DQ request it. All in all I think this shot would have done better had people understood it.
-Joe
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:18:29 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think the element which might make this image cross the vague boundary from erotica to pornography is that of consent -- the pose and props carry the implication of the lack thereof on the part of the model ... and I think most people agree that depicting rape falls over the boundary these days.
While it is possible that the model is engaging in entirely consensual and pleasurable S&M activities, I believe that when that is not explicitly clear, an appeal to the viewer's less-wholesome imagination an almost inevitable (and predictable) result. |
well atleast she doesnt look scared...lol.
on a side note-
even tho i got 88th place with  i guess im fairly happy with it. there were alot under my rank that deserved to be above me. surprised i got 5 favorites on it as well.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:19:06 PM · #45 |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:22:02 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
 |
As amazing as this photo is, I'd like to give extra credit to John for phenomenal use of the Photographer Comments section.
John, I truly appeciate the time you put into sharing the details of your photograph with us, this helps us all learn.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:28:36 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Philos31:
I think She is:
And it's not even mine :) |
Thanks mate. I really care for you liking it so much, bet she (model) does as well.
21 of 488 isn't too bad... One fine day I'll get my ribbon! =)
Congrats with the 4th place!
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:30:42 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...I'd like to give extra credit to John for phenomenal use of the Photographer Comments section... |
You're right, it's examplary.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:39:53 PM · #49 |
These four should all have scored right at the top.
1.
2.
3.
4. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 07:50:27 PM · #50 |
| this is my favorite , should have been higher |
|
