# Jeanette on the streets *May not be work safe*



## TheBodyShot (Jul 12, 2004)

Hey guys, I'm new to the board and talked to the admin about posting here to get some feedback for our photographers.  I hope you like my posts and can offer some good criticism for our photographers.

These ones were done by DJ Bynum dj@thebodyshot.com



























See full set here 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 12, 2004)

Welcome.

One thing that I notices about most of these shots is that the model's eyes are not in sharp focus.  Typically you want to have the subject's eyes in sharp focus.  It's especially important when shooting in low light / wide aperture.


----------



## canonrebel (Jul 12, 2004)

I didn't notice the eyes  

I enjoyed the documentary-type style.  I liked the images very much.

The pictures had a central theme.  I envisioned a street walker displaying her wares to potential clients.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 12, 2004)

The fourth one (even with the blown out areas) is by far the best.


----------



## graigdavis (Jul 12, 2004)

I wouldnt normaly put a critique in the gallery, but since you asked.

They seem verry snapshot-ish.  Nothing I could see being used in a magazine or anything of the sort.

Better use of DOF and lighting would help a lot.  I agree that the eyes need to be in focus before anything else, even if everything else is what you want us to see.

Out of the bunch the second B&W (4th down) is the best.  Good job with no bad hot spots when using the cameras flash.  Again, shallow DOF would make it much better.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 12, 2004)

I maybe wrong but this look like Spam to me


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 12, 2004)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Welcome.
> 
> One thing that I notices about most of these shots is that the model's eyes are not in sharp focus.



He's aiming for the boobs!!!  

However I do think he's pretty successful in capturing the subject in low light condition. For me I have to use a tripot, if not flash which I hate.


----------



## canonrebel (Jul 12, 2004)

Jeff Canes said:
			
		

> I maybe wrong but this look like Spam to me



You're wrong...nobody's selling anything--just asking for critique.


----------



## TheBodyShot (Jul 12, 2004)

Jeff Canes said:
			
		

> I maybe wrong but this look like Spam to me



Yea...It's not meant to be.  We don't have a members section...there are no fee's at all...its really just a glorified personal site.

Thanks for all your comments.  DJ just did a shoot last night of Amber and I will be posting a few of those soon.  

Also...As I'm seeking critique for our pictures and allowing me to post on this board, I invite you to post on our Picture Post board as well for some more feedback.  Yea, its mostly pics of girls, but general photography is equally as welcomed.

http://www.thebodyshot.com/bathroomwall/viewforum.php?f=16

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Annette (Jul 12, 2004)

Huh?  You have your own board for posting images but you still need to post them here as well as the link to your board with an invitation for people to post on your board and this still isn't spam??  I guess ...

Any way - as to the photos.  I don't really care for them or the content so I haven't taken the time to look closely enough to determine if they are good or bad. 

No offense intended.


----------



## Ant (Jul 12, 2004)

Annette said:
			
		

> Huh?  You have your own board for posting images but you still need to post them here as well as the link to your board with an invitation for people to post on your board and this still isn't spam??  I guess ...
> 
> Any way - as to the photos.  I don't really care for them or the content so I haven't taken the time to look closely enough to determine if they are good or bad.
> 
> No offense intended.



If this isn't your kind of thing then why did you even bother posting in this thread? I mean you haven't exactly said anything constructive have you?

No offense intended


----------



## TheBodyShot (Jul 12, 2004)

Annette said:
			
		

> Huh?  You have your own board for posting images but you still need to post them here as well as the link to your board with an invitation for people to post on your board and this still isn't spam??  I guess ...
> 
> Any way - as to the photos.  I don't really care for them or the content so I haven't taken the time to look closely enough to determine if they are good or bad.
> 
> No offense intended.



To be honest, I don't care if you come to my site or not.  I'm honestly just looking for outside opinions than our regular guys oogling saying "ohh thats hot."

But, I did have enough forethought to ask this site's admin if it would be ok before I even posted anything.  I did not intend to start a controversy.

In addition, hospitality should be a mutual thing, so that is the purpose of the invite to my boards.  

Finally...do you honestly think I would take this much time out of my day to explain myself to you and ask the admin permission if I intended to spam this site? 

That's all, carpal-tunnel is starting to set in,
Tom


----------



## graigdavis (Jul 12, 2004)

Well the majority of the shots do not have that artsy look to them.  The objective of these pictures are to look at the chicks chest and other areas.  I dont think the photographer exactly had the mind set of Art over "I wana hit that".  So posting these pictures for an artistic critique is a little inane.

I think for those who have posted just to say they dont like the subject are wasting everyones time and bandwidth.

Post some Art rather than a sad attempt at smut and people wont be so quick to pull the spam card.


----------



## Ant (Jul 12, 2004)

> *Post some Art rather than a sad attempt at smut and people wont be so quick to pull the spam card.*



And who's definition of art would that be?


----------



## graigdavis (Jul 12, 2004)

An artists?


----------



## Ant (Jul 12, 2004)

graigdavis said:
			
		

> An artists?



LOL. You've got to be joking. Have you seen some of the sh!t (sometimes quite literally) that so called artists pass off as art these days?


----------



## TheBodyShot (Jul 12, 2004)

graigdavis said:
			
		

> Well the majority of the shots do not have that artsy look to them.  The objective of these pictures are to look at the chicks chest and other areas.  I dont think the photographer exactly had the mind set of Art over "I wana hit that".  So posting these pictures for an artistic critique is a little inane.
> 
> I think for those who have posted just to say they dont like the subject are wasting everyones time and bandwidth.
> 
> Post some Art rather than a sad attempt at smut and people wont be so quick to pull the spam card.



From a post of yours... 

"http://www.thephotoforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10585/normal_%236.jpg 

and the photoforum females calendar begins!"

allow me to display the picture here:






The objective of this picture is to look at the chicks ass and other areas. 

Hypocrite


----------



## photogoddess (Jul 12, 2004)

Ok guys - let's play nice. For what it's worth, the art vs smut debate has been going on for years. Robert Mapplethorpe was an extremely controversial photographer and took photos that some could only describe as smut. Some of it was downright pornographic. Even his photos of flowers had a sexual tone to them. Regardless of how his work affected the tender sensibilities of the masses, it was still art. 

While I personally believe that these photos were probably taken just for the T & A factor,  TheBodyShot did ask for a critque.  

My opinion of these photos is that they need to be better focused, the posing is pretty bland (although guys looking at a hottie probably wouldn't notice), the lighting needs to be more even - especially on the faces (diffuser?) and unless you want a girls arse to look huge, don't make it the focus of your shot.  When you have a bright light behind your model, try to move around and use it as a hair light instead of letting it steal the thunder of your subject by glaring brightly as a hotspot in the photo. 

btw - This is a friendly forum with many members that have been "together" for quite a while. Lots of newbies too.  You took the shot of Terri washing her car completely out of context. Go back and read that entire thread and you will understand.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 12, 2004)

photogoddess said:
			
		

> You took the shot of Terri washing her car completely out of context. Go back and read that entire thread and you will understand.



Actually go back and read about the past six months of the off topic forum to get context.  That was a pretty lame shot, bodyshot (no pun intended).   :?  Poor form, sir, poor form.


----------



## photobug (Jul 12, 2004)

Gee, and it's only _Monday_!


----------



## TheBodyShot (Jul 12, 2004)

photogoddess said:
			
		

> Ok guys - let's play nice.
> ...
> btw - This is a friendly forum with many members that have been "together" for quite a while. Lots of newbies too.  You took the shot of Terri washing her car completely out of context. Go back and read that entire thread and you will understand.



it's ok...just pick on the new guy   And yes...her ass was the focus of that shot 

PS...you guys are awesome...most fun I've had on a board since...yea....


----------



## Annette (Jul 12, 2004)

Ant said:
			
		

> If this isn't your kind of thing then why did you even bother posting in this thread? I mean you haven't exactly said anything constructive have you?
> 
> No offense intended



Because whether the content is appreciated can be just as important as the technical aspects of the photos.  

You can take a technically good photo of poo but if a percentage of people don't like it then maybe you don't want to take photos of poo any more.

Just my opinion.


----------



## manda (Jul 12, 2004)

Alright ...
The BodyShot did in fact email us to ask whether the photographs were suitable to begin with and we cleared them for the reason that he is here to genuinely ask opinions. That is obvious by the amount of time he has wasted trying to explain that to everyone.

It is not nudity and if you do not feel that the photographs are "art", then close the thread. There are a lot of photographs that have been posted here that are also not "art" yet nobody ever calls the not  arty enough thing on those.

The Bodyshot has done nothing wrong, especially since he asked permission first. 
However, yes, pulling the pic of our beloved Terri who was not someone whom has critisized you, was a low blow. Her photograph was in fun and one that her husband took, not made for the same purpose yours are taken (which is the reason people here have got their knickers in a knot- pardon the pun).
That said, I can understand what point you were trying to make. 

Overall everyone, thebodyshot was merely asking for opinions and he did get quite a few mature responses which is good to see. 
If you do not agree with the photographs, then hit the back button on your browser.


----------



## canonrebel (Jul 12, 2004)

graigdavis said:
			
		

> An artists?



:lmao: :LOL:  :smileys:


----------



## StvShoop (Jul 12, 2004)

oh man, how did i pass over this thread before?  its like a rollercoaster

yes, art definitely has to be understood along with the context in which it was made
if it's offensive, maybe the author intended offense as part of the communication?

and yeah... my ISP banned the photos in question...


----------



## canonrebel (Jul 12, 2004)

Those images that you've posted here for critique were snapshots comparable to snaps made with a kodak 110 throw-away, but they are not porn.  I thought the sequence of pictures had a central theme.  I envisioned a streetwalker displaying her wares to prospective clients.

Members here have posted shots that were far more revealing of the nude body and more riske than any of those posted in this thread, but they *were more artistic* and transcended the rating of "snapshot".

I've just visited your forum and I was generally impressed with the talent displayed there.  Some of those submissions were very tasteful.  I would label them art by any means. 

A few in most every crowd will complain about a porn flick being disgusting after watching it from beginning to end.  They didn't have to watch it through its entirety if they found it so disgusting.  But I don't believe any of our members on this forum fit that description.  All of us here are "Artists" (even if self-proclaimed)


----------



## Alison (Jul 12, 2004)

canonrebel said:
			
		

> I've just visited your forum and I was generally impressed with the talent displayed there.  Some of those submissions were very tasteful.  I would label them art by any means.



I agree, I took a look at your forum and there are some really nice images there. I don't think the ones you posted here are representative of the work at your forum. The pictures here lacked depth and I felt the poses were no flattering to the model.


----------



## Ant (Jul 13, 2004)

Annette said:
			
		

> Ant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, that's a good point and I agree to some extent, but there's a line between putting forward valid constructive criticism and just posting an opinion because you want to make a personal point or a moral judgement, which may not be at all constructive to the subject at hand.

In your example of the poo photo (good one ) telling the photographer that poo isn't a very good subject is perfectly valid criticism, because chances are that most people will feel the same way as you and so the photographer will move on to taking pics of more pleasing subjects, which will reach a larger potential audience. So you've helped him/her in a way.

However, in this case it's quite obvious that many many people....most men in fact, are rather partial to photos of attractive women and always have been, so your criticism of the subject matter is totally non-constructive, because you're not only going against the grain of mass opinion, but you won't make the photographer change the subject matter either.....you haven't helped anybody with your criticism! 

For example, landscape pics mostly just don't do anything for me at all. No matter how well they're shot or how technically competent they are I just think most of them are boring....that's just me. So if I see a thread with a landscape photo in it I just don't comment, unless I can say something constructive, because I know that many people do like landscape photos and no matter what I say people aren't going to stop taking them.

It's the difference between genuine constructive criticism and just being negative about something because it's not to your personal taste. Your initial post just came across to me as the latter rather than the former.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion of course, but one thing I've learned about internet discussion forums (fora?) is that if you post your opinion then expect somebody to occasionally challenge it.

Besides, if everybody always agreed with everybody else then places like this would be really boring and nobody would learn anything.


----------



## Ant (Jul 13, 2004)

> *All of us here are "Artists" (even if self-proclaimed)*



Oh no, I'm definitely not an artist.


----------



## StvShoop (Jul 13, 2004)

Ant said:
			
		

> In your example of the poo photo (good one ) telling the photographer that poo isn't a very good subject is perfectly valid criticism, because chances are that most people will feel the same way as you and so the photographer will move on to taking pics of more pleasing subjects, which will reach a larger potential audience. So you've helped him/her in a way.
> 
> However, in this case it's quite obvious that many many people....most men in fact, are rather partial to photos of attractive women and always have been, so your criticism of the subject matter is totally non-constructive, because you're not only going against the grain of mass opinion, but you won't make the photographer change the subject matter either.....you haven't helped anybody with your criticism!



there's more to content than can be effectively determined by a publicity survey; the value of how it is received publicly depends on the intended use of the photo also. art doesn't have to be appreciated to be art.
most people don't know what the hell they want or like anyway, so their preference is dust in the wind

i realize that's a little bit of a tangent off of the main discussion. i really wish i could see the pics so i could understand it all better  :?


----------



## Ant (Jul 13, 2004)

> *there's more to content than can be effectively determined by a publicity survey; the value of how it is received publicly depends on the intended use of the photo also. art doesn't have to be appreciated to be art.
> most people don't know what the hell they want or like anyway, so their preference is dust in the wind*



Agreed. However, if you're going to criticize something I believe you've got to put a little more thought into that critique rather than just saying 'I don't like the pics and I haven't even bothered to look at them'  How many people are going to even give a statement like that any credibility? and if you don't want anybody to take your words with any credibility then you're down to little more than verbal self gratification.


----------



## canonrebel (Jul 13, 2004)

> It's the difference between genuine constructive criticism and just being negative about something because it's not to your personal taste.



There was a time (not too long ago, infact) when a higher volume of this negativity prevailed on our forum than what is currently being observed.  It's a good thing to see that most of it has dissipated and the blood-letting has subsided.  It was often entertaining to watch the negativists struggle for dominance.  This forum is getting sweeter with age. It's really starting to bloom.  And that's a compliment of the highest order.


----------



## StvShoop (Jul 13, 2004)

ant, while i think your intentions are good... bashing someone for not providing a constructive critique is, in itself, not constructive. maybe you didn't realize you were bashing
if you don't like annette's opinion, then just say so and let that be the end plz   

*shakes hands*


----------



## Ant (Jul 13, 2004)

StvShoop said:
			
		

> ant, while i think your intentions are good... bashing someone for not providing a constructive critique is, in itself, not constructive. maybe you didn't realize you were bashing
> if you don't like annette's opinion, then just say so and let that be the end plz
> 
> *shakes hands*



Yeah I suppose you're right. *shakes hands*

Anyway, I've just posted my first pic in the critique forum so I'd be perfectly happy for Annette to go over and tell me that my photo sucks


----------



## Annette (Jul 13, 2004)

Ant said:
			
		

> Annette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Annette (Jul 13, 2004)

Ant said:
			
		

> StvShoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was completely BS and uncalled for.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 13, 2004)

I'd like to see sharper focus, a lot less DOF, and no flash from anywhere near the camera.  None of these images by itself really pops, but I can see a style starting to develop.  Keep working on it.

As far as smut vs. art goes, they have been intertwined since the first fertility goddess was sculpted out of mud.  I like it because it's smutty, and arty.


----------



## Ant (Jul 14, 2004)

Annette said:
			
		

> Ant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. Looking at it a day after I posted it does seem to come across in a tone a little harsher than it was meant. Apologies if it caused offense. It was just supposed to be light hearted to show that I don't hold any grudges but sometimes tone can be difficult to get across on the internet...even with emoticons. No genuine offence or sarcasm was meant.

I wasn't having a go at you for giggles, now you're making an assumption about me; but I suppose you could say I'm guilty of that about you so I can't really complain.

I'm afraid that your initial post did come across to me as being very judgemental and negative, which is why I took issue with it. If that wasn't your intention then again. apologies for the misunderstanding.

I do feel, however, that if somebody can't say anything constructive about a photo then they shouldn't say anything at all, and as far as I could see your initial post contained nothing constructive whatsoever. That's just my opinion though and if you disagree then we'll just have to agree to differ.


----------

