# wait



## xc222 (Jan 12, 2019)




----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 12, 2019)

Very nice image..........


----------



## Donde (Jan 13, 2019)

It's an unusual crop.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 13, 2019)

Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 13, 2019)

Jeff15 said:


> Very nice image..........





Donde said:


> It's an unusual crop.





Derrel said:


> Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.


Thanks a lot!!!!!


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 13, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.


Lovely lighting, creative composition, skilled editing and photo craftsmanship, _and _lovely ladies who exhibit great evocative modeling skills in front of the camera (as well as a photographer who can guide them) make for agreeable images. It takes a skilled photographer and model, not just a lovely lady.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 13, 2019)

Really well done. I like that you approach your portraits with a creative sense of composition and you capture a very evocative moment with your models.


----------



## SergioMalik (Jan 14, 2019)

It's a nice one


----------



## xc222 (Jan 14, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.
> ...





DanOstergren said:


> Really well done. I like that you approach your portraits with a creative sense of composition and you capture a very evocative moment with your models.


Thanks a lot! for all of nice words! I am very happy to see your message.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 14, 2019)

SergioMalik said:


> It's a nice one


Thanks a lot!!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 15, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely ladies make for agreeable images.
> ...



Put a homely one in front of the camera. Or one that's wrinkled an an old tobacco pouch, and then see how the photo is received. It's super-easy to make an agreeable image with a beautiful,young model. It's so easy that sometimes even image flaws are overlooked in admiration of the beauty of a handsome or beautiful subject. All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the subject for quality or qualities perceived in the photo. Just saying...


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



So why not critique the photograph instead of making a catty remark?


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## xc222 (Jan 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



I want to say:

If photography depends solely on the beauty of the model to determine success or failure, it must be sad.

Photography is happy, do not be tired.

So happy photography this sentence seems simple, in fact, is the essence of photography.

Never forget the original intention to create, to feel the charm and joy of photography.

Creation must be conceived before action.

If you shoot for the sake of shooting, it's not photography, it's record.

Because the first function of photography is to record truthfully, boundless and no purpose in the mind of the shooting is record.

Even if you do take part in some shooting, it's only because you don't feel it.

No feeling will be blind, shooting will feel boring, do not know how to shoot.

So it was like walking dead until the end of filming.

The so-called reflector, flash, and so on, is just equipment support, this has nothing to do with the nature of photography.

So blindly to pursue advanced equipment and the so-called technology is not correct.

Cultivate their own aesthetic should be the first, with a good aesthetic, will naturally know how to perform is the best, and then with technical assistance that is correct.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


Please tell us about the flaws in this work.
Please don't pay attention to beauty.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


You are too attached to the beauty of the girl in the photo, and ignore the artistic content of the photo itself, this is an insult to me.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


First of all, I agree with your point of view, and I often call it like this.
But depending on the specific case, you can't because the model is too beautiful, you can deny the photographer's artistic creation ability.
Are we looking for ugly people as models in the future?
This is your stupidity! Not wisdom.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 16, 2019)

You are jealous of others.
But you don't have excellent photography.
I find that you will only talk about other people's works.
No level, pale and powerless!
Summary:  like to install high, depreciate others, and raise myself!


Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




Derrel：
You are jealous of others.
But you don't have excellent photography.
I find that you will only talk about other people's works.
No level, pale and powerless!
Summary:  like to install high, depreciate others, and raise myself!


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 16, 2019)

You could just as easily say: 

_All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the photo for quality or qualities perceived in the subject._

In which case I would take the comment as a complement. It is our inclination to perceive the photograph as the reality of the object rather than the reality of the photograph. It is often the case that photographers use this to mislead the viewer. It is in the subject that I find beauty, it is the subject that resonates with my memory, experience and imagination. Though I recognise your skill here I do not believe that it was ever intended to be the subject but be transparent to the viewer. You have succeeded when people see what you intend to show rather than what you try to hide.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 16, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> You could just as easily say:
> 
> _All too often, people mistake the beauty found and displayed in the photo for quality or qualities perceived in the subject._
> 
> In which case I would take the comment as a complement. It is our inclination to perceive the photograph as the reality of the object rather than the reality of the photograph. It is often the case that photographers use this to mislead the viewer. It is in the subject that I find beauty, it is the subject that resonates with my memory, experience and imagination. Though I recognise your skill here I do not believe that it was ever intended to be the subject but be transparent to the viewer. You have succeeded when people see what you intend to show rather than what you try to hide.


Art comes from life above life.

Art is to feel, anyone can say 10,000 points of view.

So I want real communication, not metaphysical talk.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 16, 2019)

xc222 said:


> Art comes from life above life.
> 
> Art is to feel, anyone can say 10,000 points of view.
> 
> So I want real communication, not metaphysical talk.



Ok, if your intention was to show the beauty you found in the subject then you succeeded as it resonates with me. If your intention was to showcase your skill as a photographer you've failed because you've made it so effortless to believe that the beauty resides in the subject. If you show us the beauty you see in the subject then don't be surprised if your audience believes that beauty is in the subject, that's the point isn't it? (I hope I'm not getting metaphysical here  ).

Yet you appear to be admonishing Derrel because he saw a beautiful woman rather than acknowledge your skill.

I really like the shot, I see beauty. I also acknowledge your skill here. What I'm not so keen on is being directed as to what I should see, how I should comment, or how I should feel. Your responses to Derrel make me feel as though I'm walking on eggshells, that I have to make the *correct* comment rather than the honest one. You want real conversation and not metaphysical talk, yet delve into the more abstract concepts of photography yourself. Depreciate others and raise myself! Isn't that exactly what you did yourself in that paragraph? As I said, I'd take all the comments as complements.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 16, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Yet you appear to be admonishing Derrel because he saw a beautiful woman rather than acknowledge your skill.


Derrel's comment was unnecessarily catty, when he could have just given useful critique if he saw flaws in the photograph.

I would also like to say that I disagree with any notion that the photograph lacks skill or artistry. The lighting is on point, the exposure is good, the composition is creative, and the photographer succeeded in capturing an evocative moment and feeling with the model they were working with. A lovely subject is not the only merit that makes this an "agreeable image".


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 16, 2019)

xc222 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


While I agree that the remark was reductive to the skill and vision behind the image, don't let this person make you feel insulted or feel that your abilities are lacking in any way. You are light years above the level of skill and artistry that  was insinuated, and even the photograph we're discussing showcases that.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 16, 2019)

I will preface my remarks with the statement that, "I don't get it."  That's not intended as a negative remark towards the OP, rather an admission that our views of portraiture are [apparently] significantly different, and that's not a bad thing.  It's not a good thing either, it's.... just a thing.

I think the assertion by @Derrel that it's easy(ier) to make great images with attractive people is accurate.  Human nature is such that we are hard-wired by millions of years of evolution to find certain people attractive, and others less so.  When someone is attractive to us, we tend not to see what others might perceive as flaws, and this is true too, of photography and other art forms.  An image (be it painted, photographed, sculpted or made of macaroni) of an attractive person is always going to garner more positive attention than one un-attractive person.  As we are looking at that image of an attractive person we are MUCH more focused on the person than the image as a whole, and are much more likely to gloss over lighting, posing, etc, and to give less weight in critique to those attributes because the model is attractive.

This does not in any way negate the work and skill applied by the artist to the creation of the image.  It's analogous to wood working...  a cabinet maker can make a beautiful piece of furniture from a piece of fine, clear or wood or a piece of knotty, checked wood.  They will both look nice at the end, but the piece made of clear wood will have been easier because the materials were "better"* to start with and people will look at the finished product, whereas the item made of the less desirable material will more clearly show the skill needed to craft it.

When I look at this image, I see what I believe to be an attractive young lady, but to be frank, the image doesn't hold my attention because I find it hard to see her.  There is only a small amount of face and chest, and a suggestion of cleavage, with a lot of deep shadow obscuring details.  The overall tone of the image feels 'muddy' to me and lacking in tonal sharpness.  As a photographer, I can look at the image more objectively and interpret what the artist has done, but that doesn't make it more appealing.  Now, that said, had this been an image, of someone who was less conventionally attractive, I suspect that I would have had even less interest in the image. 

*nb:  I am comparing the fine, clear wood to how attractive a person is based on generally accepted societal norms, nothing more.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 16, 2019)

tirediron said:


> I will preface my remarks with the statement that, "I don't get it."  That's not intended as a negative remark towards the OP, rather an admission that our views of portraiture are [apparently] significantly different, and that's not a bad thing.  It's not a good thing either, it's.... just a thing.
> 
> I think the assertion by @Derrel that it's easy(ier) to make great images with attractive people is accurate.  Human nature is such that we are hard-wired by millions of years of evolution to find certain people attractive, and others less so.  When someone is attractive to us, we tend not to see what others might perceive as flaws, and this is true too, of photography and other art forms.  An image (be it painted, photographed, sculpted or made of macaroni) of an attractive person is always going to garner more positive attention than one un-attractive person.  As we are looking at that image of an attractive person we are MUCH more focused on the person than the image as a whole, and are much more likely to gloss over lighting, posing, etc, and to give less weight in critique to those attributes because the model is attractive.
> 
> ...



While I agree that a beautiful subject indeed enhances a photograph, I think that in itself merits it's own separate topic, but I also think it's an unnecessary thing to say as a singular response to this person's photo. On it's own with no additional reasoning or critique, it's catty and reductive and there's nothing constructive about it.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jan 16, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> I would also like to say that I disagree with any notion that the photograph lacks skill or artistry. The lighting is on point, the exposure is good, the composition is creative, and the photographer succeeded in capturing an evocative moment and feeling with the model they were working with. A lovely subject is not the only merit that makes this an "agreeable image".



Dan, I agree with you 100%. I was just making the point that it was the subject that evoked emotion and not the photographer. If I took an image of a woman and others remarked how evocative *she* was I would would be jumping with joy as that would be my entire aim in such an image. If I wanted to say "look what I did" then I would have to  demonstrate that the beauty didn't exist before the photograph. It's a bit of a dichotomy as for an image to resonate you have to believe that it's the subject rather than the photographer. The better this is done then the less the photographer's hand will be visible.

Robert Adams said something along the lines of; the only way beauty is convincing is if we make it seem effortless because that's when we are convinced that it exists around us. I don't want people to say, "you're a great photographer/you must have a good camera." I would rather they said, "wow, she's beautiful..."

If it were as easy as we want to believe it is then the forum would be flooded with evocative images.


----------



## otherprof (Jan 16, 2019)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


I can't understand why this was seen as controversial. I love dogs, particularly beagles. Show me a picture of a beagle and I'll like it - the "it" being the dog, the subject - not necessarily the photo. It's easy to push emotional buttons with the right subject - an execution, sex, kittens - but not every picture of a kitten is a good photograph. Your comment seemed not-at-all controversial to me. (Now back to looking at the "squirrel" thread . . .)


----------



## Derrel (Jan 16, 2019)

xc222 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



Sorry, but my initial comment in this post was brief, and deliberately avoided mentioning what I see as poor composition The original photo's excessively cramped top margin, with her head placed way too far to the top? Don't like it. My initial comment in this post was made brief, to avoid telling you what I think of _your contribution_ to the photo, and your compositional skill, overall. I saw your last post of a beautiful woman, with multiple images; some were well-composed, a couple had very poor composition. In this shot, I see poor composition; lots of visual tension, due to the high placement of her face within the frame, and a facial expression that is the exact opposite of the tension created by the placement of her within the frame. "Creative composition" is one way to describe the original photo...I myself disagree with that description.

I am sorry that you, the OP, feel insulted by my comment, which was a true comment. Lovely ladies do make for agreeable images. Those looking ONLY for favorable, fawning, positive, enthusiastic comments, will not receive such from me on a regular basis, unless the work itself meets high standards for compositional and artistic achievement. While the photo is "agreeable", I do not think it is especially good, nor compelling. Others may hold differing opinions, and that's perfectly fine.

There was nothing "catty" about my comment, Dan Ostergren.Yesterday was my 56th birthday, and I have been away most of the time since then. I started photographing at age 12, over four decades ago, so I'm pretty familiar with C&C of all types. And "catty"...love that feminized put-down word. What do we say to work that we really do not like? Nothing whatsoever? THE OP is new here; I was trying to treat him with kid gloves.  

I've worked in the past as a professional, five-days-week portrait photographer; I have photographed somewhere over 10,000 people.  The initial post in this thread has a number of artistic,and technical, issues that, I think, make it less-than-compelling. The post-processing that Dan Ostergren mentioned as being necessary for an excellent photo? Muddy, gray, flat. I feel no need to continue, except to apologize to anybody who feels hurt, or who feels a sense of third-party-hurt-for-the-OP.

The referred-to *artistic content* within the photo is not engaging me. The low-contrast post processing and the odd placement of the subject within the frame, and the visual tension and imbalance, all those issues lead me to avoid making  any comment, except a brief one. If the artistic message of the original photo is so strong, I'd love to see it transferred to a homely subject next time. Or to a vase and flowers. Or to a kitten.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 17, 2019)

Derrel said:


> xc222 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


No matter how you explain it, I have a bad opinion of you.
You're giving yourself cover by criticizing so much.
A man who is afraid to admit his mistake and can't apologize is not responsible.
There is a good irony: the body of a man, the heart of a woman.
I despise hypocrites.
Thank you for your message.
I am no longer interested in you, please do not reply, thank you!


----------



## xc222 (Jan 17, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> xc222 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Thank you！

I am sorry that this has affected your mood.

Nice to meet you. Thanks again!

Have a nice day!


----------



## gusandgloria (Jan 17, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> xc222 said:
> 
> 
> > Art comes from life above life.
> ...



DANG -- well said.


----------



## gusandgloria (Jan 17, 2019)

I've written some books on photographic composition and design and I have some input on this photograph. I know I'm new here but not at all to the world of image-building. I have about 40 years under my belt.

Yes this composition misses, IMHO. I completely get what the artist was trying to do with this unusual, tight (and striking) composition, and it was a beautiful attempt, but it misses, regardless of the beauty or lack of beauty in the model. The eye is way too close to the top edge and she looks stuffed in the frame. This is a little unsettling and in direct opposition to the peaceful, at-ease expression on her face. She looks very serene, but she's all cramped in there. Awkward, IMO.

Color may have improved this somewhat. The value range is narrow ... why b/w? You would usually choose b/w if you want low-key, or if you have a lot of values (lights/darks) or textures to show off. The only textures in this image are the wrinkles in her shirt and her hair, and the lack of color does nothing for either. Her skin looks beautiful, and with that cleavage 'a little sexy' was clearly the intent. So why grey skin? Again, I see no reason for b/w because of the lack of value range and lack of textures. It almost looks a low-key effort --  but then her face is really light so it's not *really* a low-key image. I just don't get the b/w choice is all.

As a painter I like the title of this. It's perfect. I'm sorry if this isn't the feedback you were looking for. Try it again in color with a better blouse and a little bit lower in the frame and you have a gorgeous shot. Photography is about the journey .....


----------



## tirediron (Jan 17, 2019)

xc222 said:


> No matter how you explain it, I have a bad opinion of you.
> You're giving yourself cover by criticizing so much.
> A man who is afraid to admit his mistake and can't apologize is not responsible.
> There is a good irony: the body of a man, the heart of a woman.
> ...


First and foremost:  All threads are open for anyone to post in.  If you don't like or agree with a particular member, please make use of the 'Ignore' feature, but irrespective of your wishes, anyone is free to post in this thread if they desire.

You may also want to look at your own responses.  @Derrel has made a number of posts regarding your WORK; he has made these from the position of someone with a great deal of experience in the craft.  You don't have to like or agree with them, but he has knowledge and experience behind him.  Many of your replies however have been directed at him personally.  I would suggest that rather nicely fits the definition of 'hypocrite' that you have made liberal use of.  Please bear in mind that respectful critique and discussion is encouraged, even if it gets passionate.  Attacks on individuals *ARE NOT!
*
As a personal (as opposed to moderator) response, my feeling is that you need to relax a little and learn how to accept critique.  You may not like what someone has to say about your work, but if you put the effort in, you can almost always gain something useful from every comment, especially comments from someone with so much experience.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 17, 2019)

gusandgloria said:


> I've written some books on photographic composition and design and I have some input on this photograph. I know I'm new here but not at all to the world of image-building. I have about 40 years under my belt.
> 
> Yes this composition misses, IMHO. I completely get what the artist was trying to do with this unusual, tight (and striking) composition, and it was a beautiful attempt, but it misses, regardless of the beauty or lack of beauty in the model. The eye is way too close to the top edge and she looks stuffed in the frame. This is a little unsettling and in direct opposition to the peaceful, at-ease expression on her face. She looks very serene, but she's all cramped in there. Awkward, IMO.
> 
> ...





tirediron said:


> xc222 said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how you explain it, I have a bad opinion of you.
> ...


First of all, I think the focus of this debate is wrong.

Because I'm a photographer who can take criticism.

No one can casually succeed, accept criticism is the road to success!

I've been a photographer for 21 years.

If someone doesn't appreciate this picture, I'm perfectly fine with it. This is not difficult, even very happy to accept!

Because no one can make every picture perfect.


It escalates into an argument because there are different points of view, even moral ones, involved.

As I said before about photographic criticism, it can be expressed in 10,000 different ways!

At that time, I thought Derrel's comment was too indirect and not direct, which led to a lot of misunderstanding!

I believe that there are some problems caused by the differences in understanding between eastern and western cultures.

My understanding and explanation are also biased, which is the reason why things are bad


In fact, we are only talking about this picture.

But after leaving this picture, we can still have a new discussion about the new works. (praise or criticism)

I think it's good to have a discussion.


There is a famous Chinese saying: when something is over, don't hold grudges.


So I'm very happy to see your comments on my new work.


Thanks for your participation in the discussion. It's the best friendship for Derrel and me.

Thank you!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 17, 2019)

xc222 said:
			
		

> No matter how you explain it, I have a bad opinion of you.
> You're giving yourself cover by criticizing so much.
> A man who is afraid to admit his mistake and can't apologize is not responsible.
> There is a good irony: the body of a man, the heart of a woman.
> ...


----------



## xc222 (Jan 18, 2019)

Derrel said:


> xc222 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just stating the facts, but I'm not going to explain them or apologize to you.
I hope you won't reply in the future, because it is so boring.

I don't want to waste any more time on you!
Thank you very much!


----------



## xc222 (Jan 18, 2019)

Dear friends,

There is no need to discuss the matter any further.

What a waste of time!Now let's get started and stop talking.


----------



## xc222 (Jan 20, 2019)

Susan Smitha said:


> Fabulous and gorgeous & great shot.



Thanks a lot.

Photography is visual communication art, not mathematical formulas, not rigid dogmatism.

Photography needs inspiration, relaxation, improvisation and feeling.

Breaking the rules is the best rule!


----------

