# Cahterine's Bridal Shoot



## bennielou (Apr 15, 2010)

Deleted by OP


----------



## mtfd635 (Apr 15, 2010)

Over the top?
These are great! Retouching no more than what makeup could do
nicely done, I understand Catherine's desire for your photography


----------



## Fedaykin (Apr 15, 2010)

Retouching is a little over the top for my taste, but it's done very well, good job.


----------



## ACrossley (Apr 15, 2010)

I agree - they are lovely bridals. I do think #1 and #4 is rather soft for my taste, but if your client wanted it then way to go!

I just did the cowboy boots and flowers this past weekend with a bride - love it!


----------



## burnws6 (Apr 15, 2010)

Besides that, the photos themselves are great. You just suck at PP,... like a lot.


----------



## jackieclayton (Apr 16, 2010)

i dont like your post processing, the bride is gorgeous and doesn't need it, it makes her look fake.  I think the white in her eyes in #1 is way too over processed... i'd go back and lessen up on that a little bit... too white and too fake.

  #8 is my favorite out of all of them... cute and sweet and girly... all brides need a down to earth shot like that.


----------



## LBPhotog (Apr 16, 2010)

I thought #2 was  a boudoir shot until I realized it was her wedding dress and not a bed sheet.  

Love #5 ... Number 6 is stunning ... and I love the fact that she wore cowboy boots under her dress ... save a horse, ride a cowgirl, eh?!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 16, 2010)

mtfd635 said:


> Over the top?
> These are great! Retouching no more than what makeup could do
> nicely done, I understand Catherine's desire for your photography


 

Thank you.   I have been trying to back off the "over the top" stuff, but every once in a while, I get brides who want that type of thing.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 16, 2010)

ACrossley said:


> I agree - they are lovely bridals. I do think #1 and #4 is rather soft for my taste, but if your client wanted it then way to go!
> 
> I just did the cowboy boots and flowers this past weekend with a bride - love it!


 
Yeah, I thought that was so fun.  It was her idea.  I can't wait to work on her wedding, because she is one of those wonderful brides who just wants to play and have fun.  She's game for pretty much anything.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 16, 2010)

2, 5, and 6 are my favorite

usually 2 would be too much retouch for me.. but her eyes are super sharp and it makes me melt


----------



## bennielou (Apr 16, 2010)

Burn, I have no idea what you are talking about. LOL.  But thanks for looking.
Jackie, thanks for looking and your comments.  You are right, it is not for everyone, but something expressely desired by the bride.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 16, 2010)

dom yo said:


> 2, 5, and 6 are my favorite
> 
> usually 2 would be too much retouch for me.. but her eyes are super sharp and it makes me melt


 

Thanks Dom Yo.  #2 isn't something I would normally give a bride, because I wouldn't think they would want to enlarge it.  But there was just something sweet about it, IMO.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Apr 17, 2010)

Well, the first thing I was going ot say is that the PP is a bit too much, but then I read what you said.  But I'm going to say it anyways.  The PP is quite a bit over the top.  Now I understand that it's 'your style' and the clients like it, and there's something to be said for that.  But there is a certain danger to allowing your clientele to be you critics and allowing 'style' to be a cop out for improvement.  I'm not saying that's what you're doing, so don't get mad, I'm just saying watch out for that.  Regardless of whether or not 'over-the-top' PP is your style, I still think it need a lot of work.  There's smooth skin and then there's textureless plastic.  Also, there are lots of smeary edges, particularly her hairline, as well as lots of soft or artifacted edges that should be sharp.  Her face looks somewhat distorted in many, like you used the liquify tool to enhance the smiles, particularly ine #4 and #8.  But maybe she just has a giant smile.  #3 I would say is the ugly duckling of the group.  For the most part the lighting is nice and the poses are pretty good and the composition is well thought out, but #3 seems like a snapshot with an awkward pose and on camera flash.  

All in all, lots of great ideas, nice light and good posing, but I think the PP good use some refining, if not a little turning down.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 17, 2010)

Hi General and thanks for the cc.  The only liquify I used was a nip at the waisteline.  I try not to liquify faces because it's pretty tricky business and I don't want to make them someone they are not.  She really did have that huge smile.

Yeah, the retouching is definately over the top for sure.  Like I said, it's a little niche market that I have.  Some people love it.  A lot of people hate it, but if it keeps me working, I'll keep doing it.  IMO, it's not about me being an artist so much as it is about making people happy.  (And I have to admit that I love playing in PS.)

I've tried a few different photo hosting sites, and several upload actions, but I just can't seem to get the uploads to look what I'm actually seeing on the screen, and might account for the artifacting you see.

Anyhoo, I appreciate your cc!


----------



## GeneralBenson (Apr 17, 2010)

Yeah, liquifying faces is super hard, and they never look quite right.  That would explain the artifacting, but I would still be careful with blurry hairlines like in #4.  That is also the photo that looked most distorted to me, but part of it is that you want to be careful with broad lighting people when they have their face turned away from the camera.  That's what make the distance between the edge of her eyes/lips and the beginning o her ear look so big.  It looks kind of like you stretched her face away from her ear, and the combination of broad lighting and skin-smoothing that takes away shadow/depth//definition can do that if you're not careful.


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 18, 2010)

Hey, Cindy.  Your usual, nice stuff.

Say...  why did you choose the lighting scheme in 3 and 4?  Just curious.

-Pete


----------



## bennielou (Apr 19, 2010)

Thanks again General.

Pete, I was avoiding glare off the painting and the windows.


----------



## templatephotoshop (Apr 21, 2010)

We have the same little niche as you do and some women ADORE this look.  I love the cowboy boots.  Lighting looks great, 3 and 4 were weaker for me, but I love the rest.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 21, 2010)

Thank you template.  It's a good nitch right?  Not everyone wants it, but when they do, they are willing to spend.


----------



## unnecessary (Apr 24, 2010)

First picture is scary...

the rest are nice


----------



## bennielou (Apr 28, 2010)

Nice Unnecessary...why?  That would help.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 28, 2010)

GeneralBenson said:


> Well, the first thing I was going ot say is that the PP is a bit too much, but then I read what you said.  But I'm going to say it anyways.  The PP is quite a bit over the top.  Now I understand that it's 'your style' and the clients like it, and there's something to be said for that.  But there is a certain danger to allowing your clientele to be you critics and allowing 'style' to be a cop out for improvement.  I'm not saying that's what you're doing, so don't get mad, I'm just saying watch out for that.  Regardless of whether or not 'over-the-top' PP is your style, I still think it need a lot of work.  There's smooth skin and then there's textureless plastic.  Also, there are lots of smeary edges, particularly her hairline, as well as lots of soft or artifacted edges that should be sharp.  Her face looks somewhat distorted in many, like you used the liquify tool to enhance the smiles, particularly ine #4 and #8.  But maybe she just has a giant smile.  #3 I would say is the ugly duckling of the group.  For the most part the lighting is nice and the poses are pretty good and the composition is well thought out, but #3 seems like a snapshot with an awkward pose and on camera flash.
> 
> All in all, lots of great ideas, nice light and good posing, but I think the PP good use some refining, if not a little turning down.



I've been reluctant to offer any C&C to your work, but I agree with GeneralBenson's multiple points. I am wondering what kind of monitor you are using, since multiple people have voiced negative feedback about the PP on these shots, in both blunt and tactful manners. I am wondering if your monitor is not up to snuff or something,since this degree of skin smoothing looks extremely plastic,and the detail killing nature of it looks like Portraiture or some other retouching application cranked to the maximum. This young woman looks like she has attractive features, but her face looks like that of a mannequin with this amount of PP work.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 28, 2010)

Hi General, (Darrel)
Please don't ever be be reluctant to give me CC.

The Monitor I am using is a $3000 top of the line NEC widescreen.  Calibrated weekly.  I know that sounds like a whole bunch of whoey, but it's the truth.  The monitor is calibrated to my printer.  However, all colors should be in range of a properly calebrated monitor.

The skin tones are Barbie on Acid.  That is what my nitch market is.  I do not dispute that.  

She is extremely attractive, but she paid extra for this service.

Let me put it this way Derrel:

NOT EVERYONE DOES WHAT I DO.  I'm not saying I'm the besty of the besties.  What I AM saying is that I do extreme retouching for brides.  They know this.

While most brides and photographers hate this, there is a small percentage of people in my state and out of state who trip over one another to get this kind of work done. They pay whatever I ask, and I am booked for the entire year, and have been since February.

This is what is called a "nitch" market.  Yes, I could tone down the skin and eyes, and look just like everyone else.  I could make happy happy with other photographers.  I could have a bigger bride slice in the big pie of weddings.  But that is not what I do.  I do the crazy stuff that they want.

Do I want to be in a big steaming pile of "everyone else"?  No.  I want to be the only person in my area who does what I do.  I don't get every bride, but I get way more than I can book.

Anyhoo I appreciate your CC, and I'm just telling you why I do things like I do.
Hugs,
Cindy


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 28, 2010)

bennielou said:


> mtfd635 said:
> 
> 
> > Over the top?
> ...



Who are you kidding? I have seen this "over the top stuff" in all of your work.

Also, why would you be proud of that "little nitch market" that you claim to have? Don't you think that if ALL decent photographers look down on this technique that there might be something wrong with it?

What you do is not professional and is something that any self conscious  high school girl with Photoshop and a Myspace could do. 

I am even more bothered by the post processing you did on the eyes. They  look ridiculous. #1 and 2 are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. The eyes are out of place. Back up and take a look at what you are doing.


I'm going to be honest, I feel bad for your clients. It seems like what you do is more or less not worth the price tag that you put on it.


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 28, 2010)

$7000?!?!? I just fell out of my chair... I just saw on another post that you robbed that poor couple of $7000. 

If you say that this poor woman paid extra for these "services", you seriously need to do a check on what you are producing for the prices that you are charging...


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 29, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> Don't you think that if ALL decent photographers look down on this technique that there might be something wrong with it?



Whoa!  Now there's a jump.  I think of myself as a decent photographer.  I find nothing wrong with Cindy's work.    And I can assure you, in the profession (among working, professional photographers), this work is above par.



JackRabbit said:


> What you do is not professional and is something that any self conscious  high school girl with Photoshop and a Myspace could do.
> 
> I am even more bothered by the post processing you did on the eyes. They  look ridiculous. #1 and 2 are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. The eyes are out of place. Back up and take a look at what you are doing.



Nice.  Attacks and name-calling, all without an ounce of justification or substance.  That's always convincing.



JackRabbit said:


> I'm going to be honest, I feel bad for your clients.



Why would you feel bad for clients who found just what they want?  Hey...  I don't like rap.  I assert that it isn't even music.  Yet, there's a category for it at the Grammies and a very lucrative industry that has millions of consumers.  I don't feel bad they found something they enjoy.  Good for them.



JackRabbit said:


> It seems like what you do is more or less not worth the price tag that you put on it.



And that's fine.  It seems to her clients the results are worth the price.  I find that interesting.

The biggest problem I have with your post is your assertion to Cindy, "What you do is not professional..."  Explain that.  If you think this is so, share your wisdom.

-Pete


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 29, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> Who are you kidding? I have seen this "over the top stuff" in all of your work.
> 
> Also, why would you be proud of that "little nitch market" that you claim to have? Don't you think that if ALL decent photographers look down on this technique that there might be something wrong with it?
> 
> ...


 

I'm the first to say that I don't like this look.  I find it fake and would not pay anyone to do this to my pictures or accept anyone pay me for this.  I find it tacky and cheesy.  But that is me.

Just because no other photographer does it does not mean that it is something that should not be done.  If everyone were to think like that, then everyone would work like a cookie cutter and offer the same things.  The world would be very bland.

For what it is, its good.  If someone wants a plastic porcelain look with ultra freaky eyes, that is exactly what they got.  And if their budget for $7000 works, then who am I to say thats too much.   

If someone wants to buy a classic red ferrari and paint it pink with yellow polkadots, thats their choice.  If they are ok with paying someone $50,000 for that paint job, and they get the paint job they want, then its all good.

If the clients are happy with the result and getting what they pay for, then why would you feel bad for them?  They have the money, they got the product as requested.

I'm not sure if you have an intent to be a pro photographer, or even if you are one now, you might want to look more into the business end of things.  If some people are willing to pay for something that you can do a good job on, then you get a contract.  If those people show 20 of their friends and 2 like it and call you, you get 2 more contracts.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > mtfd635 said:
> ...


 
Oh my.....  I was reminded by an out of country friend not to lose my cool with posters here.

The end of the story is, you don't have to love it.  You don't even have to like it.  The deal is, my clients trip over themselves to get it.  

That's what a nitch market is.  You will learn all about that in business classes when you go to college.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> JackRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think that if ALL decent photographers look down on this technique that there might be something wrong with it?
> ...


 
God, thank you Pete.  I was so hurt after reading this.  I really didn't know how to respond.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> JackRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you kidding? I have seen this "over the top stuff" in all of your work.
> ...


 
Ok, that really hurt too, but thank you for defending me in your really backslap way.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Ok, wow wow wow. Has anyone been to this guy's website? In case you haven't, here it is:
Flickr: jackstrutz's Photostream

I won't lie, there is some good stuff there. But I can't count how many stray hairs are going across that poor beautiful girl's eyes. You would have thought he would take a nanosecond to fix that. 

Anyhoo, we obviously have a really different way of doing things. I don't know how many paid jobs he works every year, but I hope he has many.

Because he's got a BIG opinion.

Anyhoo, I'm going to go cry now. Thanks Pete for your support.

(I'm pretty much sure that this will make your day Jack. You can feel superior. That's the coolest. You hurt a person for no reason at all. I hope you are super happy.)


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 29, 2010)

bennielou said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > JackRabbit said:
> ...


 
Sorry if the fact that I dont like the look or style a backslap and you find that hurtful.  I've seen some of your work on your website, and even PMed you about it in the past, and find it oustanding.  But this specific look, I dont like.  

Just as I find tacky and cheesy all those over done cartoon looking HDR images


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

I welcome your input, Bigtwinkie. I do. But the last line is pretty hurtful if we can be honest. "Cheesy" and "Cartoonish" is hurtful.

Can you just say, I don't dig it? Can you just say I don't like it for x amount of reasons?

I've already explained a million times why I do what I do. I've said it's over the top and photographers hate it. Is there any reason at all to hurt me?

Can't you just appreciate that people pay me for this service?  You don't have to like it.  You don't.


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 29, 2010)

the x amount of reasons are because I find it cheesy and tacky.  The intent is not to hurt, they are my opinions.  I'm not sure I know of other synonyms in my limited vocabulary that will make the point as much as cheesy and tacky.  I'm seriously not trying to be confrontational at all, and if you know better words for me to use I'll try and use those.

I won't say "I dont dig it" as that is the same as the masses here who comment on posts asking for critique and just say "I like them".  

Again, its your niche market, what you do you do well, I just don't like it for the reasons I listed.

:/


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

You know what Big Twinkie? Your shots aren't my favorites either. I could actually say it's a half assed effort. But have I until now said that?
Um no.

Hey, you do things your way, and I do things my way, and at the end of the day, I hope we all make a crapload of money.

We are different my friend, and that's all cool. There is an ass for every seat. You do your thing, and I will do my thing, and I hope at the end of the day we can respect one another as business people.

Hugs,


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> the x amount of reasons are because I find it cheesy and tacky. The intent is not to hurt, they are my opinions. I'm not sure I know of other synonyms in my limited vocabulary that will make the point as much as cheesy and tacky. I'm seriously not trying to be confrontational at all, and if you know better words for me to use I'll try and use those.
> 
> I won't say "I dont dig it" as that is the same as the masses here who comment on posts asking for critique and just say "I like them".
> 
> ...


 
The reason you listed is "cheesy" and " cartoonish". That's about like saying, "That sucks". A teenager does that. You should be capable of telling me why. Exactly. Since you are so driven in giving in depth crit.
TELL ME WHY. Don't just use hurtful words, tell me why? That is not too much to ask.

Ok, you don't like the style my clients pay for. That is cool. But don't be hurtful.  I try not to be hurtful to you.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> the x amount of reasons are because I find it cheesy and tacky. The intent is not to hurt, they are my opinions. I'm not sure I know of other synonyms in my limited vocabulary that will make the point as much as cheesy and tacky. I'm seriously not trying to be confrontational at all, and if you know better words for me to use I'll try and use those.
> 
> I won't say "I dont dig it" as that is the same as the masses here who comment on posts asking for critique and just say "I like them".
> 
> ...


 

You need to get an emotion chip.  I'm not asking you to be in love with the shots.  I was asking for crit. Not name calling.  Not deratory words, crit.
Hey, if my shots are aweful to you, maybe go haunt someone else.  You have told me that my shots are horrible, and I think your shots are half assed, and so we have come to an agreement.  

OK?


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 29, 2010)

My post was not directed towards a crit of your work.  It was directed to the poster Jackrabbit in reply to his comments about the work not being what its worth and feeling sorry for clients paying the sums they do.  I didn't feel the need to explain myself to Jackrabbit.

You have made many posts here asking for comments on your work to which I don't reply to because I have nothing to say on your work.  I am not "driven" to give it in depth comments.  Its not a style I like or support and thus have never practiced it and I cannot give any comments that would be beneficial.

Its all good though, I'll continue not posting directly to you on your comment threads, but should I see something that I feel I should comment on (whether its your original post or someone's reply), I'll take note to be as in depth and objective as I can to the post I am replying to.


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 29, 2010)

bennielou said:


> You need to get an emotion chip. I'm not asking you to be in love with the shots. I was asking for crit. Not name calling. Not deratory words, crit.
> Hey, if my shots are aweful to you, maybe go haunt someone else. You have told me that my shots are horrible, and I think your shots are half assed, and so we have come to an agreement.
> 
> OK?


 
I don't remember name calling you here or in any recent thread.  Can you point me to where I did that? 

Might want to turn down that emotion chip.  Replying twice to the same comment is kinda showing that you are responding emotionally.  But hey, my goal is not to get under your skin, not at all.  If you aren't liking my comments, no need to reply, its all good.:hugs:


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> My post was not directed towards a crit of your work. It was directed to the poster Jackrabbit in reply to his comments about the work not being what its worth and feeling sorry for clients paying the sums they do. I didn't feel the need to explain myself to Jackrabbit.
> 
> You have made many posts here asking for comments on your work to which I don't reply to because I have nothing to say on your work. I am not "driven" to give it in depth comments. Its not a style I like or support and thus have never practiced it and I cannot give any comments that would be beneficial.
> 
> Its all good though, I'll continue not posting directly to you on your comment threads, but should I see something that I feel I should comment on (whether its your original post or someone's reply), I'll take note to be as in depth and objective as I can to the post I am replying to.


 
As I said, I appreciate you helping me out with junior nuthead.  I respect you, so when you say things sometimes, it hurts.
Hey if you hate my ****, that is ok.  Feel free to disregard.  It's not life and death.

At the end of the day, I hope we can respect each other as business people.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > You need to get an emotion chip. I'm not asking you to be in love with the shots. I was asking for crit. Not name calling. Not deratory words, crit.
> ...


 

I'm not ignoring you, and I appreciate your hug. I need it.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> My post was not directed towards a crit of your work. It was directed to the poster Jackrabbit in reply to his comments about the work not being what its worth and feeling sorry for clients paying the sums they do. I didn't feel the need to explain myself to Jackrabbit.
> 
> You have made many posts here asking for comments on your work to which I don't reply to because I have nothing to say on your work. I am not "driven" to give it in depth comments. Its not a style I like or support and thus have never practiced it and I cannot give any comments that would be beneficial.
> 
> Its all good though, I'll continue not posting directly to you on your comment threads, but should I see something that I feel I should comment on (whether its your original post or someone's reply), I'll take note to be as in depth and objective as I can to the post I am replying to.


 
That is all that I ask for.  Blast me, but tell me why.


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 29, 2010)

bennielou said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > My post was not directed towards a crit of your work. It was directed to the poster Jackrabbit in reply to his comments about the work not being what its worth and feeling sorry for clients paying the sums they do. I didn't feel the need to explain myself to Jackrabbit.
> ...


 
First, excuse me Ms. Hypocrite... "Junior nuthead"? Really? After you complaining that he and I were calling you names? Come on. 

Second, _LEAVE MY AGE OUT OF THIS?_ I absolutely _resent_ older photographers writing my critiques off as irrelevant because I am a sixteen year old high school student. Just because I am younger does _not_ make my opinion any less pertinent. People use my age as a way of discrediting me. But that's a whole other conversation now isn't it hahaha  [/rant])

Third, I would like to retract all statements made about your prices. It is not my place to comment on the way that you run the business side of your industry.

Fourth, you keep referring to bigtwinky as "a fellow business man." While part of photography is a business, allow me to remind you that on top of that, you are _an artist_! Don't _ever_ forget that! This job that you have decided to pursue is an art! People pay you for your art!

Now let me take a step back and comment on another post you made.


bennielou said:


> Ok, wow wow wow. Has anyone been to this guy's website? In case you haven't, here it is:
> Flickr: jackstrutz's Photostream
> 
> I won't lie, there is some good stuff there. But I can't count how many stray hairs are going across that poor beautiful girl's eyes. You would have thought he would take a nanosecond to fix that.
> ...


 
First, when it comes to my Flickr, about 1/4 of the work that is posted is not finished product. That one fourth is for client proofing and technique testing only. The other three-fourths are finished product. The senior photos that I have up there are part of the one-fourth which is for client proofing. 

Second, please leave your emotions out of this. For pete's sake... This is not a shot on you. This is an honest opinion. And sometimes the truth sucks. I know that I have had my share of critics who have said something and it really really pissed me off, but it made me take a second look at the thing that I had created and it made me realize that maybe they were right; maybe I could change this or that.


Now I am going to comment on how I feel you could do what the clients who ask for the super smooth skin from you better, and will back it up with my own work.

Now here is something that I do realize. I understand that the people that I work with are, on average, at least a good five years younger than your clients, which does make my job eons easier. 








Now here is an example of good skin post processing. Notice how when you look, you can still see the fine details (the pores), but the skin has an overall smooth feel to it still. _This_ is what you want to accomplish. Let me give you another example.






On this photo, I did the crazy skin smoothing. However, I still maintained the basic detail needed to distinguish features in a face (eg on the jawline, on the sides of the nose, all around the eyes, above and below the lips), and this you have done a pretty consistent job of doing. Notice, though, that the eyes were left more or less un-processed. Eyes are too important of a feature to mess with! When there is something more than just a quick color correct or _slight_ brighten done to them, it is always immediately noticeable and makes the eyes look out of place on the subject's face. Now, let me show you the conditions that this photo was shot:






_This_ is why I knock you for not producing what you should be with the resources you have available to you. I am able to produce a photo with similar attributes to yours with a set-up like this. Now let me put a disclaimer on that: I understand that working on location is a whole different ball game. I know that. But I'm saying that the post processing you do can be achieved by anybody (I had been into photography for about a month when this was shot). Mind you, my equipment has seen notable changes since this point but still not 5D2 plus 7k per session for whatever else I want. 
With the equipment you have--oh my gosh, it gives me the jitters just _thinking_ about the stuff I would be shooting if your equipment was even an option for me. 

I want to take a look at one specific photo from the set you just posted and that is #2. On this photo, the skin smoothing you did caused the loss of the ability to distinguish between where her jaw ends and where her shoulder starts. Now I'm not going to criticize your work further for fear of another emotional breakdown. 

I want to say more, I do, because I want to clarify what I mean but unfortunately I have homework that I must attend to, you know, because I'm a junior nuthead high schooler. Before I leave you though I would like to present you with a challenge.

I challenge you to find yourself a model (shouldn't be hard... Happy ex-clients will usually be more than willing to help) and go do a shoot. However, in your post process, I want you to do absolutely _no_ skin smoothing. I challenge you to challenge yourself to achieve desirable skin straight out of the camera. This is my definition of a true professional photographer and an artist--at least in regards to skin. 


Sincerely, 

The Junior Nuthead


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm not sure I've ever encountered a person on the internet more emotional then the OP.
Tissue paper thin skin.


----------



## Fedaykin (Apr 29, 2010)

Wow, well this thread has become something....


----------



## Derrel (Apr 29, 2010)

bennielou said:


> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fedaykin (Apr 29, 2010)

Once again, Derrel pretty much said all that needed to be said.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 30, 2010)

Fedaykin said:


> Wow, well this thread has become something....



Just as all of the others :er:



Derrel said:


> When the artist repeatedly, over weeks and weeks, launches ad hominem attacks against those who offer criticism, it gets old...and it gets old really fast.



Agreed. 

Bennielou,
Perhaps you can do us all a favor and let us know exactly what it is you expect from everyone. You "say" you want C&C, yet you only accept it when it strokes your ego. You need to be able to accept both ends of a critique without putting down the posters who offer their opinions. When the same points come up time after time, don't you think it's more logical that you may be incorrect rather than _everyone_ else in the world? No matter what, you are _always_ the victim in your eyes. It can't always be the way you want it, and the bipolar trolling you have been doing as of late isn't beneficial to yourself, nor your business. You are portraying yourself not as a professional or a mature "aged" woman, but a "hot and cold" adolescent. It would seem that you are letting your insecurities cloud your better judgement while replying to those who are merely trying to help you. 

Do you consider yourself a professional photographer or a professional photoshop artist? It seems like you are basing your profession on post processing first, and photography second. I personally would not want my girlfriend (or bride in this case) to be altered beyond recognition. I would want her to be shown in her full beauty as I see her every day; as the person I know and love deeply. To show this naturally without making her look plastic is what I would consider a true professional photo; I would not want the love of my life to be portrayed in a way that would make it seem that a fake rendition of her was in any way more desirable than who she really is. 

Yes, I realize you keep emphasizing how much these women lust after this "look" but it's just too much. In addition... It seems that every thread you start has a disclaimer (i.e. excuse) blaming the customers for the editing.


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 30, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> I'm not sure I've ever encountered a person on the internet more emotional then the OP.
> Tissue paper thin skin.



Yes...  Cindy can be emotional.  But I do understand where she's coming from.

Jack is on his way.  His work shows he has some good understanding of lighting.  But he is not yet "there"... especially when you consider all the aspects of professional portrait photography.  He's getting nearer, but a way to go.  He'll see that some day.

When someone with such limited mileage and so little life experience comes with statements like: "What you do is not professional... something that any self conscious high school girl with Photoshop and a Myspace could do... They look ridiculous... I feel bad for your clients....  what you do is more or less not worth the price tag," well...  I don't know why it has to pointed out.

And since we've open the can of worms about art vs client's specs...  I've looked at everything I can find that Jack has posted, here and elsewhere, and haven't yet seen an image that would be accepted for display at a professional state convention.  Cindy has been producing that level of work.

Sure...  Cindy can be thin-skinned at times, but Jack is not in any position to make the kind of assertions he does.

-Pete


----------



## dom yo (Apr 30, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I see what JackRabbit was saying...the chin and the chest simply merge. I don't have a $3,000 NEC monitor like bennielou says she uses, but only a 30 inch $1,800 Apple Cinema Display,and I cannot see any chin or heek along the entire camera-left side of her face until well past the 6 o-clock position where a slight shadow give a visual clue that there is indeed, a chin and cheek on the camera-right side.
> 
> This whole attack your critics and refer us to their web pages routine is old. You did it to me a couple weeks ago and ran down my work, then apologized to me and tried to play "nice". Now you're attacking a 16 year-old high school student and calling him "junior nuthead", and trying to pove that the only people qualified to make comments on your professional work are people who shoot weddings.
> 
> How good a basketball player do you think Lakers coach Phil Jackson is? How good do you think 1948 Olympic Gold Medal figure skating winner Dick Button is now, now that he's 80-something years old? Is 4-time Super Bowl winning quarterback Terry Bradshaw qualified to offer analysis about NFL football? I mean after all he doesn't currently "get payed to play" football. None of the above people actually "do" the sports they coach or comment on. Just as restaurant critics are not restaurant chefs, and film critics are not actors or directors or film makers. The entire field of criticism and analysis--in sports,the culinary arts, literature, cinema, and so on is populated with critics who make comments about the WORK. When the artist repeatedly, over weeks and weeks, launches ad hominem attacks against those who offer criticism, it gets old...and it gets old really fast.



well i have a LaCie 730 that was color calibrated 2 weeks ago and it looks like her chin and neck are merged to me as well. 

i agree with everything youve said
she cannot take criticism without demanding the other persons work
and when she finds it, she makes it sound like that person doesnt know what they are doing. she did this to someone yesterday and i looked at that persons flickr account and the portrait photos actually looks a lot better than her wedding photos. and she's sitting there telling that person "good luck" 

honestly she is a 13 year old girl in a 46 year old body, its pretty sad how much drama she starts around here


----------



## dom yo (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I've ever encountered a person on the internet more emotional then the OP.
> ...


i dont see how its anyones fault but hers when she holds herself so much higher than everyone else


----------



## Fedaykin (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I've ever encountered a person on the internet more emotional then the OP.
> ...



I'm sorry but his age/skill level( and I prefer his pictures to hers)/anything else don't mean a thing when it comes to criticism. As Derrel stated one doesn't have to be a professional in a field in order to be an able critic in said medium. Once again both you and Benneliou are simply making excuses and dodging criticism by bashing other people's works, which have no bearing on her own skills whatsoever. Not taking criticism and getting emotional about it and on top of that bashing to critic's work is simply childish.


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I've ever encountered a person on the internet more emotional then the OP.
> ...



I believe this was addressed in Derrel's and my own post. 

And did you even read the post I left? I retracted my statements on everything which commented on the business aspect of her work. So half of your post has been invalidated right there. 

What would put me into a position to make the comments that I have Pete? I understand that my work is not the greatest, nor did I claim that it was, but I have also only been shooting seriously for 4 months, during which I have also balanced school, work and friends.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 30, 2010)

Hi Jackrabbit,
I didn't see the retracted post. I saw the original one. And I have to say, it was hurtful.
People are saying that I don't take crit well. That might well be the case. But IMO, I was also attacked with some really hateful stuff. There was no, "you should do it this way" kind of thing. It was just evil, mean, and very much hurtful.

Yes, I do go to people's galleries. Online you don't know if someone started out yesterday with a camera they got at Christmas. You just don't know. They may be a shoot and burner. They may be a purist. They might be really great. You never know. So sue me if I wish to take advice from people who have done this, and know the limitations, the time constrictions, etc.

I get that pretty much all photogs hate the skin/eye thing. I have said that over and over again.

I do not have a problem with constructive crit. "Hey, there is something really distracting over there that you didn't notice." "Oh hey, I would have cropped this way....see how much better it looks now"?

What I don't expect to see is posts like "You suck, you are horrible, You're not a pro, You ripp off your clients, it's freakish", etc.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I've ever encountered a person on the internet more emotional then the OP.
> ...


 
Thank you Pete.  Sorry to have dragged you into this mess.....


----------



## bennielou (Apr 30, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> Fedaykin said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, well this thread has become something....
> ...


 

Really mean.

Don't you get what has happened here?  I'm playing the victim?  Really?

What would you do when horrible things are said about your work?  When you are personally attacked?

Also would you preface your post with an explaination of why you did things a little differently?  Or let it ride with no explaination at all.

I'm definately not a victim.  And I'm sorry you see it that way.  I'd like to see how you handle someone telling you really mean things about you, both professionally, and personally.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 30, 2010)

Derrel said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > 2.
> ...


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 30, 2010)

Read the flippin post that I took the time to outline what I mean. 

Stop whining until you've read it.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 30, 2010)

Ok, Jackrabbit.  Another nice insightful post.

I read what you wrote:

I suck

I rip people off

I am not professional

The work I do is horrible

You feel sorry for the bride.....

I get it.

Why not tell me, how you would do it differently?


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 30, 2010)

Excuse me? I do not even mention _one_ criticism of the business aspect of your photography in my second post... go read this post


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 30, 2010)

:banghead:


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 30, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> ...did you even read the post I left? I retracted my statements on everything which commented on the business aspect of her work. So half of your post has been invalidated right there.



Sure, Jack...  I read your post.  But it's not as simple as "...I would like to retract all statements made about..."  not after you see the effect your words had.  When we go too far with our words, it's takes a bit more than, "Never mind."  How is my post invalid?  By your proclamation?



JackRabbit said:


> What would put me into a position to make the comments that I have Pete?



Well...  for most of your comments...  the ones I cited... Nothing.  Nothing I know of is suitable credentials to say those sorts of things to another...  to treat someone like that, whether publicly or privately.  As for your statement, "What you do is not professional... ," that can only come from someone who has a genuine understanding of the market.  Shooting candid weddings is one of the toughest things to take on.  No matter how much planning you do, you are walking into a situation that's ever changing...  the lighting, the environment, even your subject...  and all on demand.  Time is always of the essence.  It often requires an instant summation of all the prevailing influences and an on-the-spot decision of what happens now...  and next.  All this takes place while monitoring all of your equipment and employees, and dealing with the emotions and psyche of the couple, their families and friends, the minister and caterer... and it all has to happen now, and it all has to be good.



JackRabbit said:


> I understand that my work is not the greatest, nor did I claim that it was, but I have also only been shooting seriously for 4 months, during which I have also balanced school, work and friends.



Your work if fine.  I can see you're developing a good understanding of lighting.  But four months of experience in most anything is just starting out.  Be patient.  I started much like you, only I wasn't getting the results you do as quickly.  Believe me...  ten years from now you'll think of your first couple of years as novice work.

-Pete


----------



## dom yo (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> JackRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > ...did you even read the post I left? I retracted my statements on everything which commented on the business aspect of her work. So half of your post has been invalidated right there.
> ...



i see now! thank you for pointing this out pete. she's allowed to criticize other peoples work but we arent allowed to criticize hers. the ONLY reason this is such a big deal is because she's making it out to be. every other member on this board takes C&C and uses it to their advantage where she takes it and starts an up roar of "everyones pictures suck compared to mine, i mean, have you seen their website?!" 

ever since ive started, there has been stupid drama every week caused by her. its getting really old. ive given her the benefit of the doubt but now i see that everyone else on here doesnt have a problem with C&C but her, no matter how professional they are.


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 30, 2010)

For the record, my pictures don't suck, they are "half assed".


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 30, 2010)

dom yo said:


> i see now! thank you for pointing this out pete. she's allowed to criticize other peoples work but we arent allowed to criticize hers. the ONLY reason this is such a big deal is because she's making it out to be.



Well, ya got me there.

To Cindy:  You really do need to bring this down a few notches...let this go.  Common....  deep breath...

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 30, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> For the record, my pictures don't suck, they are "half assed".



No, Pierre...  it's "half fast."  Shoot at ISO 400 and then we can call it "fast."

-Pete


----------



## dom yo (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> dom yo said:
> 
> 
> > i see now! thank you for pointing this out pete. she's allowed to criticize other peoples work but we arent allowed to criticize hers. the ONLY reason this is such a big deal is because she's making it out to be.
> ...


ive tried telling her that. i even pm'd her once when things started getting out of hand telling her to calm down. 

her response to me was calling another member in idiot and then continuing the drama on the thread even though a moderator had said to stop so then the thread ended up getting locked.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 30, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Also would you preface your post with an explaination of why you did things a little differently?  Or let it ride with no explaination at all.



Do you read anything or do you just post for the sake of trolling? Do you not remember the first thread that brought upon one of your biggest meltdowns? My initial post was nothing but constructive, yet you lashed out as you have done time and time again because you are too "great" to be talked down on. 

People are trying to help you and you are being too thick headed up on that pedestal you have placed yourself on, to hear anyone out. Disclaimer: This is NOT a personal attack. You do nothing but repeat yourself and talk yourself into a giant circle. You have already gone over these points a dozen times, and when we are trying to help address them for you, you just restate them. 

I think you should take some time away from posting, and go through all of your threads (most of them have been closed, that should be a hint) and reflect on your actions. 




bennielou said:


> I'm definately not a victim.  And I'm sorry you see it that way.  I'd like to see how you handle someone telling you really mean things about you, both professionally, and personally.



The initial "snap" is from your own interpretation of peoples' C&C, and the following comments from people are usually due to your snap. How do you expect people to act when you never accept any negative feedback, and in return for their time you put them down? Who is REALLY the instigator here?



dom yo said:


> ive tried telling her that. i even pm'd her once when things started getting out of hand telling her to calm down.
> 
> her response to me was calling another member in idiot and then continuing the drama on the thread even though a moderator had said to stop so then the thread ended up getting locked.



I think talking sh*t behind peoples' back is a cowardly way to express your insecurities and gives a good assessment of their maturity level.


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 30, 2010)

I'll shoot from the hip.

I've mentioned it before in a very similar thread, but here it goes again. I can see someone getting a little peeved at harsh or negative feedback on their work, especially if they are being paid for it as a Pro. I get that, we're only human; not to mention most photographers take their work seriously and take it to heart when you start telling them you don't agree with their vision.

Now here is where I start having issues with these threads. 

When you keep posting the same type of work, expecting different results from C&C, and then fall into the same arguments time and time again, that shows me you don't learn. If you know you're on a forum filled with people who hate doll face processing, then why post to get your feelings hurt?

Why get so emotional? The constant cries of torment are really overdone. This is the internet, people are way more critical on here then they would be in person. You have to realize this and learn to laugh it off. If you constantly come back for more, and then cry your eyes out, what are you really doing besides showing everyone you're emotionally unstable/ a glutton for punishment?

My biggest issue has to do with your ethics. When you go out and go through someones gallery with the sole intent of trying to make yourself feel better/ gain support for your case, by belittling their work; you quickly fall to the bottom of the bucket. If you post a photo and someone gives you C&C, then you asked for it. When you drag a gallery into this to discredit the C&C given, you look like a 5 yr old throwing a temper tantrum. The sad thing is you have done this NUMEROUS times. On top of that when confronted you give some bull**** story as to why you are doing it.

I am not usually this way, but I just have to say that I really don't like what I've seen from your contributions to the community. I find it to be the opposite of positive recently.

Please note: if you are going to respond by going through my gallery and commenting, be my guest. Also, I am cold like ice so I will not me moved by accusations of how mean and hurtful I might be.


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, my pictures don't suck, they are "half assed".
> ...



:greenpbl:  :mrgreen:


----------



## terri (Apr 30, 2010)

I think this thread has gone far enough, and everyone has had their say.  

Everyone tone it down, not just the OP.    It's the internet, people!


----------

