# Alexis- Model Portrait



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2015)

My intern and I have developed a great friendship, and one of our favorite things to do is get together with our friend Alexis and do random photo shoots. I went through her wardrobe and picked a simple outfit for her, then we went to the pond near her house and shot some portraits. This is the only one I've had time to edit between other assignments and whatnot, but it really stood out to me enough to make me edit it before any of the other shots. Her makeup was a little thick, so her face looked a bit more "porcelain" than I normally prefer, but it didn't ruin the look for me. 
*You may not edit my photos in any way. *
All natural light. 
EOS 5D MKI
85mm @ f/2
1/160th sec
ISO 800


----------



## weepete (Mar 31, 2015)

Nice, good use of a leading line, good lighting and I like the tones which are all very complimentary which your PP has matched really well. A very good fluid coherant portrait IMO.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 31, 2015)

I really like this. 

The thing I like most about it is that the highlights in her hair mirror the curling rushes behind.  Don't know if you intended that at the time, but i'll assume you did 

The background and processing are really well suited to her look, too.  Really nice portrait.


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 31, 2015)

Gorgeous!


----------



## sscarmack (Mar 31, 2015)

Very nice! Especially the pond in the background.

Your photos definitely tell a story, so much emotion and 'feel' to them.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 31, 2015)

Not sure if anyone's gunna follow me here or not but there is a really nice "swirling" effect that this composition has on my eye. As in, when I look at it my eye follows the log up and around the model and I explore the background while never really taking my focus off of her; so I get a sense of the environment while never even moving my eye away from her at all. 

Very nice shot. I'm especially loving the subdued colors in this.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 31, 2015)

it is my opinion that I like this image.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2015)

Nice light and a very nice portrait. I'm not a fan of the processing however. It's very faddish and I don't think it was ever a productive fad. Removing all black from the photo (matte black look) just makes it look like a botched exposure -- IMO. And blue/cyan skin is not flattering for the young lady or people in general. Again it's very faddish but I find it unattractive to see her looking oxygen starved -- IMO.

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Mar 31, 2015)

I acutally like this one.

If anything most people would pump up the orange/yellow, and the color tone of this images conveys a darker mood that matches the model.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 31, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Nice light and a very nice portrait. I'm not a fan of the processing however. It's very faddish and I don't think it was ever a productive fad. Removing all black from the photo (matte black look) just makes it look like a botched exposure -- IMO. And blue/cyan skin is not flattering for the young lady or people in general. Again it's very faddish but I find it unattractive to see her looking oxygen starved -- IMO.
> 
> Joe



She's wearing black lipstick and her sweater has skulls and crossbones on it...


----------



## Forkie (Mar 31, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Nice light and a very nice portrait. I'm not a fan of the processing however. It's very faddish and I don't think it was ever a productive fad. Removing all black from the photo (matte black look) just makes it look like a botched exposure -- IMO. And blue/cyan skin is not flattering for the young lady or people in general. Again it's very faddish but I find it unattractive to see her looking oxygen starved -- IMO.
> 
> Joe




Even though she's clearly [dressed as] a goth?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Nice light and a very nice portrait. I'm not a fan of the processing however. It's very faddish and I don't think it was ever a productive fad. Removing all black from the photo (matte black look) just makes it look like a botched exposure -- IMO. And blue/cyan skin is not flattering for the young lady or people in general. Again it's very faddish but I find it unattractive to see her looking oxygen starved -- IMO.
> ...



Yes -- goths like black, and, as a rule, so should a good photo.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Nice light and a very nice portrait. I'm not a fan of the processing however. It's very faddish and I don't think it was ever a productive fad. Removing all black from the photo (matte black look) just makes it look like a botched exposure -- IMO. And blue/cyan skin is not flattering for the young lady or people in general. Again it's very faddish but I find it unattractive to see her looking oxygen starved -- IMO.
> ...



I saw that -- and if she was wearing makeup to add a blue/cyan color cast to her skin -- if the presentation was more theatrical......ok. The back of her left hand is prominent in the photo. That is not the skin color of a healthy human being and I find that disconcerting even given the skulls on the sweater and the lipstick -- IMO.

Joe


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 31, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



I think if that hand were dodged a bit it would look fine, but to each their own. If it didn't have the grading that it does, I wouldn't like it as much.

I guess I prefer disconcerting over dissonant.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2015)

Any reason you went 85 vs 135?


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2015)

runnah said:


> Any reason you went 85 vs 135?


I was letting my intern borrow the 135mm.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2015)

weepete said:


> Nice, good use of a leading line, good lighting and I like the tones which are all very complimentary which your PP has matched really well. A very good fluid coherant portrait IMO.


Thank you. 



Forkie said:


> I really like this.
> 
> The thing I like most about it is that the highlights in her hair mirror the curling rushes behind.  Don't know if you intended that at the time, but i'll assume you did
> 
> The background and processing are really well suited to her look, too.  Really nice portrait.


Just a happy accident. Thank you. 



BrickHouse said:


> Gorgeous!


Thank you. 



sscarmack said:


> Very nice! Especially the pond in the background.
> 
> Your photos definitely tell a story, so much emotion and 'feel' to them.


Thank you. That's what I try for. 



W.Y.Photo said:


> Not sure if anyone's gunna follow me here or not but there is a really nice "swirling" effect that this composition has on my eye. As in, when I look at it my eye follows the log up and around the model and I explore the background while never really taking my focus off of her; so I get a sense of the environment while never even moving my eye away from her at all.
> 
> Very nice shot. I'm especially loving the subdued colors in this.


Thank you. In all honesty the color tones needed very very little changing. I just barely enhanced what was already captured by the camera. The sun had just barely gone down and the sky was partially overcast, and to me that lended to the natural color cast already created by the surroundings and the wardrobe/ model. 



rexbobcat said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


Lol, in all honesty this image is pretty close to being straight out of camera besides some skin touch ups and dodging and burning. To each there own though; clearly not everyone is going to like my style, and I'm learning that those who don't just LOVE to say so.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 31, 2015)

Well, it's a photo of a pretty girl.

- What an obviously urban girl like her is doing in a bunch of dried weeds next to a lake is anyone's guess.

- The bokeh are jittery/nervous, which makes the already chaotic and uncomfortable background moreso.

- As usual, you've pushed the contrast up to make her look kind of strobed, but you're not given the weeds the same treatment, so the light on her makes no sense in context.

- She's got her "this is the face I use when someone's photographing me" face going on, and so is completely closed to us. This, there exists, to my eye, the exact opposite of an emotional connection here.

- Corpselike skin, as noted. But you're in Portland, right? Where corpselike skin is in fact the norm in spring.

That's what I see. These all might be good or bad things depending on what you want out of the image.


----------



## D-B-J (Mar 31, 2015)

I think what sets you apart from so many is your post-processing.  It's killer. Truly. 

Lovely image as always, Dan. 

Jake


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Well, it's a photo of a pretty girl.
> 
> - What an obviously urban girl like her is doing in a bunch of dried weeds next to a lake is anyone's guess.
> 
> ...


Sarcasm and nitpicks aside, thanks for sharing your opinions. 

Have a lovely day! I know I sure will!


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2015)

D-B-J said:


> I think what sets you apart from so many is your post-processing.  It's killer. Truly.
> 
> Lovely image as always, Dan.
> 
> Jake


Wow, thank you! I work very hard to constantly improve in that aspect, but also work equally hard to make sure the exposure is as close to perfect as possible straight out of camera as well.


----------



## e.rose (Apr 1, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> as a rule, so should a good photo.



There is literally no rule that says this.

It's a stylistic choice. 

You don't like it, that's fine. Others do. But there is no "rule".


----------



## Fred Berg (Apr 1, 2015)

I would prefer the blacks to be more defined. For me, it has a somewhat washed-out look, which perhaps aims at recapturing the look of a film like Portra but doesn't quite deliver.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

I'm not sure if you were implying I was being sarcastic or if you were warning of your own incoming sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was telling you what I see.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2015)

e.rose said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > as a rule, so should a good photo.
> ...



Yes there literally is a rule.

There are rules in photography as in most things. For example: the subject in a photo should be in focus. All rules have exceptions and we've all seen out of focus photos that work, but exceptions don't negate the rule or make the rule less important. In the overwhelming majority of cases a photo with an out of focus subject is recognized as a mistake because it breaks the rule.

*[Good tonality in a photo requires (among other things) reaching a black point]* is a venerable and fundamental rule with the historic weight of well over 100 years of accepted practice. My teachers taught me that rule 40 years ago. Remember learning the Zone System and all those paper DMAX tests we had to run to determine minimum exposure to black? We did that to make sure we were following the rule -- it's a well acknowledged rule and for good reason.

It's easy to find references to this rule:
"What makes a compelling photograph?  Well, there are quite a number of things and one of them is 'Black point'.... Photographs look better if they utilize most if not all of the inherent dynamic range of the medium, be that paper, a computer monitor or some other electronic medium.  This is to say that the image has deep shadows, brilliant highlights and the full range of tonalities in between."
-- Ralp Nordstrom

"Ansel Adams wrote extensively about the importance of blacks in a print in his classic book, The Print. While there’s only one true black tone in a print, there are usually many spots of black throughout the image, and this is where the term 'blacks' comes from. Without blacks in a print, it will never have the life and depth it needs, and with color images, the color either."
-- Rob Sheppard

"Most images look best when they utilize the full range dark to light which can be displayed on your screen or in a print. This means that it is often best to perform levels such that the histogram extends all the way from black (0) to white (255). Images which do not extend to fill the entire tonal range often look washed out and can lack impact."
-- Sean McHugh

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

'As a rule' is an idiomatic phrase which does not mean that there is a literal rule.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 1, 2015)

Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?

Clearly to me, the artist has made conscious decisions in his post processing. 

So if I don't like, understand, or agree with it....."I don't like it, not my style" Next!


----------



## Designer (Apr 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?


It is axiomatic that one must learn the rules in order to eventually break those rules, and he must know HOW and WHEN to break the rules to make his art exemplary.

Just ignoring rules of composition means nothing, and conveys a sense that the artist is not familiar with the rules.


----------



## Forkie (Apr 1, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...




40 years ago you were shooting in black and white.  And in a teaching environment, it makes sense to teach the "rules", especially at a time where photography, in general, was more conservative whereas these days, people are much more accepting of experimental, stylised techniques.  

I notice that the 3 photographers you quoted are all primarily landscape/nature photographers where again, in general, there is much less experimentation than in portraiture or fashion photography.

Low contrast and muted shadows/highlights in fashion and portraiture (or frankly, any genre) is a legitimate stylisation type.  You'd be hard pressed to find a well-known wedding photographer at the moment that doesn't use the technique.  

And, contrary to what Mr Sean McHugh (whoever he is) says, it is the very "washed out" appearance that gives the image the impact.  The internet is awash with tutorials on how to achieve just that appearance.


----------



## Designer (Apr 1, 2015)

You can exhibit a photograph in sepia mid tones for all I care, as long as the medium is not the issue, but rather the subject.

If the OP in this thread wishes to make his post-capture editing the main point of discussion instead of something else, then so be it.


----------



## Forkie (Apr 1, 2015)

I'd argue that the post-capture editing is as important as the capture itself.  So is a valid area of debate in any photographic discussion.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...


 
40 years ago we did have color and I also worked in color (Kodachrome was invented in 1935). In the 60s and 70s photography was not more conservative than now. Very arguably it was quite the opposite. It's more conservative now.



Forkie said:


> I notice that the 3 photographers you quoted are all primarily landscape/nature photographers where again, in general, there is much less experimentation than in portraiture or fashion photography.
> 
> Low contrast and muted shadows/highlights in fashion and portraiture (or frankly, any genre) is a legitimate stylisation type.  You'd be hard pressed to find a well-known wedding photographer at the moment that doesn't use the technique.



I believe that's what I said. You're almost quoting me now (although I didn't use the term legitimate) I said it is faddish. I agree it is a very popular fad right now to render the photo without any black. Fads come and go. I'm in favor of this one going IMO.



Forkie said:


> And, contrary to what Mr Sean McHugh (whoever he is) says, it is the very "washed out" appearance that gives the image the impact.  The internet is awash with tutorials on how to achieve just that appearance.



Sean McHugh is the author of arguably the best photo tutorial site on the web: Cambridge in Colour - Photography Tutorials Learning Community And again you're repeating what I originally said -- I also provided a link to one of the glut of tutorials out there on how to achieve this faddish look. You noted experimentation above with at least the implication it was positive. To that I would say slavishly jumping on the current rage is the opposite of experimentation.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

Ugh.

There aren't "rules of composition" there are things you can do that have effects. Whether you want that effect or not is up to you. The presence or absence of an effect may or may not alter how people view your image. Ho hum. The "you have to know the rules to break them" canard isn't even wrong.

As for dark blacks, they're a tool. There are at least two substantial ways the tool is used.

1. To create contrast. Without dark and light tones, you cannot create high contrast. High contrast can be used to manage the eye, to point out what the important things are. This technique is as old as the hills, a splash of light paint next to a splash of dark. More generally, higher contrast can create visual drama.

2. To more closely approximate the world. The straight photography crew, Ansel Adams among them, strove to extract the full range of possible tonality from their prints, to better approximate the (much wider) range of tonality seen by the eye.

I am pretty sure that technicians like Adams also simply felt it was wrong to not use all the available tonal range, out of some sort of sense of fitness.

That said, the weak blacks thing is definitely a fad. It appears to my eye to be a lame effort to create a "soft, dreamlike" appearance, invented by people who don't know enough photoshop to create this effect in less jarring ways. It is a trope, and it immediately marks the photographer as (probably) of a type.


----------



## Forkie (Apr 1, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...




If I have misread the entire post that I replied to, that's my bad and I would be obliged if you would correct me, but I read your post (and the others you posted) as an argument entirely against the use of the matted black style because you viewed it as an un-productive fad, then used quotes from a few photographers (whose styles and particular genres, in general, probably merit that view in most cases) to back up that claim up and show that it was a "rule" that must be followed to make a good photo.

My post was arguing that it _is_, in fact, a productive style due to it's overwhelming current popularity.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2015)

Forkie said:


> If I have misread the entire post that I replied to, that's my bad and I would be obliged if you would correct me, but I read your post (and the others you posted) as an argument entirely against the use of the matted black style because you viewed it as an un-productive fad, then used quotes from a few photographers (whose styles and particular genres, in general, probably merit that view in most cases) to back up that claim up and show that it was a "rule" that must be followed to make a good photo.
> 
> My post was arguing that it _is_, in fact, a productive style due to it's overwhelming current popularity.



My original post in the thread noted that I liked the lighting and the photo but did not care for the processing. The matte black look is faddish and I find it most often degrades a photo. It is a very popular fad right now which I noted. You are correct -- I don't care for it. Neither do I care for the markedly blue skin tones which is likewise a fad often seen hanging out with the matte black fad.

You then noted that the model was dressed as a goth and suggested that was justification for the matte black look. I said goths like black and, as a rule, so does a good photo.

e.rose then commented that there is no such rule. The post then that you saw and just replied to this morning was in response to e.rose's comment that there is no such rule. That rule is fundamental and long standing.

In the arts "rules" are guides. Exceptions exist and artistic vision is always encouraged, but the rules remain. When artistic vision deviates from the rules/guides it is evaluated relative to those rules/guides because they have been deemed important by the artistic community at large. No rules/guides are cast in concrete and unalterable for all time. They can evolve and change, but that fact does not negate them in the same way that exceptions do not negate them. In the case of a new fad only time will tell and it will take some time. Historically most fads fade away and become embarrassments, but some few become successful and accepted. In the case of this matte black fad the jury will be out for some time. I'm voting guilty.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2015)

Forkie said:


> My post was arguing that it _is_, in fact, a productive style due to it's overwhelming current popularity.



Reality TV is overwhelmingly popular. That's what a fad is -- everybody is raving about it. Remember harem pants? Should I continue with a list?

Joe


----------



## FITBMX (Apr 1, 2015)

I really like it! 
I don't like her makeup, it's to thick looking like you said. But that is a personal preference, and has nothing to do with this great photo and lovely girl!


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?
> 
> Clearly to me, the artist has made conscious decisions in his post processing.
> 
> So if I don't like, understand, or agree with it....."I don't like it, not my style" Next!


This sort of thing does not work here in TPF. In this forum the terms "Artist" and "Artistic vision" are villainized and if you don't follow the "rules" then you are told that your photos are crap.

I disagree that a photograph must meet certain requirements in order to be good, but unfortunately here there are a certain handful of members here who will express their opinions as facts and are compelled to find the tiniest nitpicks so they don't have to say anything positive, and then pass it off as "critique". If you try to tell them differently they tell you that you don't know better than they do and then they list a bunch of old photographer's quotes as if they are hard facts that prove that your photos fail as being anything good. It's absurd, and booooooooring. All I hear when that particular group get's going (and it's always the same group) is .


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> I would prefer the blacks to be more defined. For me, it has a somewhat washed-out look, which perhaps aims at recapturing the look of a film like Portra but doesn't quite deliver.


Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it, really, and also appreciate that you aren't delivering it in a way that tries to make me look like a fool, such as the way a few others here are doing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?
> ...


You keep insinuating in more than one of my topics that I don't know what I'm doing. In one topic you outright said it. Perhaps you're right, but honestly I don't care if I'm right or wrong about it or if you think I don't know what I'm doing when it comes to making pictures. You can keep going on and on about it in every one of my topics, but all I hear when you say I don't know what I'm doing is .

TL;DR:  I like my photos and don't care if you think I don't know what I'm doing . Have a nice day.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

FITBMX said:


> I really like it!
> I don't like her makeup, it's to thick looking like you said. But that is a personal preference, and has nothing to do with this great photo and lovely girl!


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

This obsession with rules is so boring... I can't wait to hear "you young whipper-snappers need to start following the rules!" and "You need to know the rules before you break them!!!" again when I post my next image!


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

What does this mean?


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> What does this mean?


I'm sure you can figure it out. Have a nice day.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

Well, I suspected that it meant something quite unflattering about you. I thought perhaps you'd take the chance to correct me.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Well, I suspected that it meant something quite unflattering about you. I thought perhaps you'd take the chance to correct me.


You are free to make whatever conclusions you like. Also, your posts are no longer relevant here. If all you can do is make insulting comments at this point then you can leave.


----------



## Designer (Apr 1, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Well, I suspected that it meant something quite unflattering about you. I thought perhaps you'd take the chance to correct me.


It means he is not listening.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I suspected that it meant something quite unflattering about you. I thought perhaps you'd take the chance to correct me.
> ...



WHAT?

With all due respect, Mr. Ostergren, please point out where I made an insulting comment.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 1, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> What does this mean?



I believe that's the emoticon equivalent of  "blah, blah, blah".  Or if you're from New York, then "yada, yada, yada".


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


I don't have to explain myself at this point.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Does not the rule of artistic vision and freedom trump all other so called rules?
> ...


 
I see the debate going in circles.  "Exemplary" to whom?  Even exemplary is subjective in the art world in my view.  I don't know that the OP does not know the rules.  Without asking, I would guess that he probably does know the rules and truly does not allow them to get in the way of his artistic freedom. 

From Dictionary.com
*artistic license*
noun
the freedom to create an artwork, musical work, or piece of writing based on the artist's interpretation and mainly for effect; also called poetic license, etc.

Examples
Artistic license often provokes controversy by offending those who resent the reinterpretation of cherished beliefs or previous works.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Artistic freedom* is the extent of freedom of an artist to produce art to his/her own insight. The extent can deviate to customs in a certain school of art, directives of the assigner, etc.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


Shhh, it's safer to just let them assume I don't know what I'm doing. It's more fun for them, that way they can come into my threads and do this same thing every time I post something they don't like (and if they don't like it, then obviously that means I don't know what I'm doing, at least by their logic).


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

Mr. Ostergren, you are never required to explain yourself.

When you refuse to do so, however, it may reflect poorly on you. When you throw around accusations you cannot support, it reflects poorly on you.

The fact is that you cannot stand anything other than positive remarks. My _completely neutral_ remarks have drawn your ire, and led to several quite obnoxious posts on your part, all tied up with disingenuous  "have a nice day!" signoffs to mask, but badly, the obnoxiousness. When you first rolled in here a couple years back you were such a creative guy, and your models gave you so much. Your pictures had so much life and possibility. Things are, well, they're different now. I am genuinely disappointed.

ETA: Boylesque Dancer Isaiah Photography Forum (ignore all the blah blah about tonality and look at that amazing model and what he's giving. Just _look!_)


----------



## SurvivalDad (Apr 1, 2015)

I really like this photo. I'm pretty new at this so I don't have the tech words but, nice job.


----------



## runnah (Apr 1, 2015)

Let's keep this on track folks. If you want to debate take it to the discussion section.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Mr. Ostergren, you are never required to explain yourself.
> 
> When you refuse to do so, however, it may reflect poorly on you. When you throw around accusations you cannot support, it reflects poorly on you.
> 
> The fact is that you cannot stand anything other than positive remarks. My _completely neutral_ remarks have drawn your ire, and led to several quite obnoxious posts on your part, all tied up with disingenuous  "have a nice day!" signoffs to mask, but badly, the obnoxiousness. When you first rolled in here a couple years back you were such a creative guy, and your models gave you so much. Your pictures had so much life and possibility. Things are, well, they're different now. I am genuinely disappointed.


Nor did you have to explain that you assumed an emote meant something "quite unflattering about you" to me. That's a backhanded comment meant to insult me.

The way you word your "critique" is done in a way that is NOT neutral and is also unnecessarily rude. Even now telling me that my pictures "used to have life and possibility. Things are well, they're different now. I am genuinely disappointed" is also rude and unnecessary.  You are stating these opinions as fact and nitpicking, and to me that is obnoxious.

I can take feedback and am happy to receive it when it's not done sarcastically or put in a way that tries to make me look like a fool such as the way you worded your "critique". Even in this thread I have thanked members for leaving their feedback, even if they didn't like the photos. But when a "critique" is laced with sarcasm and done so in a way that makes me look foolish, it's obnoxious. What you are doing is nitpicking and passing it off as critique, and doing so in a way that is quite rude. So if you think I'm being rude or obnoxious, then so be it. I have every right to stand up for myself when people comment on my photos in the manner that you and a handful of others here have.

Have a nice day.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

runnah said:


> Let's keep this on track folks. If you want to debate take it to the discussion section.


THANK YOUUUUU!!!


----------



## ibrahimacisse2010 (Apr 1, 2015)

Ok


----------



## Rosy (Apr 1, 2015)

never disappointed with your images...been away from this site for some time.  you are only getting better.


----------



## snowbear (Apr 1, 2015)

I like it; a lot.  She is a lovely model, and I like the setting.  Yes, the skin tones are cooler than I prefer, but I'm not the one the photo is for.  Another wonderful job.  Thank you for sharing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

Rosy said:


> never disappointed with your images...been away from this site for some time.  you are only getting better.


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 1, 2015)

snowbear said:


> I like it; a lot.  She is a lovely model, and I like the setting.  Yes, the skin tones are cooler than I prefer, but I'm not the one the photo is for.  Another wonderful job.  Thank you for sharing.


Thanks! And thank you for commenting.


----------



## annamaria (Apr 1, 2015)

Really like the tone, feel and processing of this image. The porcelain gothic look goes very well.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 2, 2015)

annamaria said:


> Really like the tone, feel and processing of this image. The porcelain gothic look goes very well.


Thank you. Honestly it isn't far from being straight out of camera.


----------



## annamaria (Apr 3, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> > Really like the tone, feel and processing of this image. The porcelain gothic look goes very well.
> ...



Well you definitely know how to use your camera.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 3, 2015)

annamaria said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > annamaria said:
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## mishele (Apr 3, 2015)

Dan, I always enjoy seeing your work. Inspirational!


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 4, 2015)

mishele said:


> Dan, I always enjoy seeing your work. Inspirational!


Thanks Mishele!


----------



## Ron Smith (Apr 7, 2015)

Nicely done!  captures an emotion and all the photostuff is right too IMO...


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 9, 2015)

Ron Smith said:


> Nicely done!  captures an emotion and all the photostuff is right too IMO...


Thank you.


----------



## sscarmack (Apr 9, 2015)

Your threads are always just as interesting as your work.

Never a dull moment. I applaud you for not "falling in line".

My photos are come across dark and moody, but its my style.

I applaud you sir.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 9, 2015)

sscarmack said:


> Your threads are always just as interesting as your work.
> 
> Never a dull moment. I applaud you for not "falling in line".
> 
> ...


Hahaha, thank you! I've noticed that trend in my threads as well.


----------

