# Julia Roberts MUCH younger twin!



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

I ADORE this picture I took yesterday. I thought I would share. She looks so much like Julia Roberts in this shot. This girl is stunning.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Without question, she's beautiful.

She looks nothing like Julia Roberts, though, young or otherwise.

Very nice image, by the way...


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Nice shot, but I agree with the above. Beautiful hair, nice detail.

I hate to say it, but I see more a Kristen Stewart kinda thing going on. 

Why the forehead crop?


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> Nice shot, but I agree with the above. Beautiful hair, nice detail.
> 
> I hate to say it, but I see more a Kristen Stewart kinda thing going on.
> 
> Why the forehead crop?


Ii forehead crop a lot. I like the candid nature of it. This is a very candid shot. Nothing posed about it.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Yeah, I don't see the resemblance, but it's a beautiful shot! :sillysmi:


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I ADORE this picture I took yesterday. I thought I would share. She looks so much like Julia Roberts in this shot. This girl is stunning.
> View attachment 40604



The sticks poking at her the on the left are a bit jarring to me. She looks like Julia Roberts? I don't see that at all. I'm not sure why you ADORE this shot; one eyelid appears to be open significantly more than the other, and there's out of focus hair in front of her nose, and in general, much of her hair is actually out of focus when seen at only 1400 pixels wide. The shadows on her hair are pretty plugged up and detail-free, and there appears to be a deep,dark band on her shirt, part of a diagonal "shadow line" that seems to indicate a radically-lifted ,strong shadow that was "lifted" in post, except on the hair, which is still plugged up and detail-free.

She's placed off to the right hand side,forehead lopped off at mid-forehead, and shown squinty-eyed and sort of sideways-glancing out of the frame. Her hand appears very bright, very high in intensity, almost as if that patch of skin was significantly over-exposed, so much so that the shot was converted to B&W to try to alleviate that flaw's impact. Perhaps her personal magnetism and personality are coloring your evaluation of this shot? I mean this in the nicest possible way, but photographically, I don't see anything to ADORE in this shot. Again, I am wondering if maybe there was something about the session, or her personality, that might have unduly influenced you to the point of adoration if a shot with a number of technical/artistic issues. She might very well be stunning, but this shot does not show that to "me"...a disinterested third party who has never seen her.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

To me, a photo which is technically "correct" can also be technically "boring".

Do I "adore" the photo above? No, I don't. Then again, I didn't take it. Being the creator of an image, I think, affects the way we see something.

Of all the concert photos I've taken; hundreds of thousands, this is one of my favorites. It's definitely in the top three:






The photo is an absolute technical trainwreck.

And I "adore" it. 

I used it on my business cards for years. I used it on my website and postcards, and the guitarist pictured has used the photo, as well. House Of Blues purchased the rights to the photo, so they thought it was pretty good, too.

It's a horrible photo, though. Had it been in focus, and had the guitarist frozen in mid-air with no blown highlights, without some dude's fat melon in the bottom of the frame and the guitar headstock not cut off, it's doubtful I'd have taken any particular notice of it. Do I care what another photograper thinks about it? Not in the least.

The OP was merely sharing her excitement about an image she captured that, for whatever reason, has an impact on her. 

I've read her post a dozen times, and nowhere do I see where she asked "Don't you adore it, too?"


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 31, 2013)

I'm not really into people pictures, but as an outsider I can see there are two clans. The studio, high priced model clan, then the candid, capture life on a whimp clan. While the perfect studio shots are without a doubt beautiful, in my opinion, they are also boring as watching paint dry. I might as well just pick up a magazine and page through the ads. 
In a candid shot, I could care less about sticks onto arms, one eye open slightly more then the other or slightly off center. The only thing I'm not real crazy about in this shot is the crop. It just seems a little low to me. But hey, it's your shot and you only have to please yourself unless of course you're on the payroll.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

Thank you Steve. Once again,* I *adore this image. It is my work, so I choose the outcome. She has a softness about her that I find so real and rare. Derrel, your personal attacks can stop *NOW*. The last thread is over and closed. You hit below the belt, and that is where I draw the line. You do not intimidate me in the least, so please go find a thread where your "services" are needed. They are not needed by me.


----------



## SCraig (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Thank you Steve. Once again,* I *adore this image. It is my work, so I choose the outcome. She has a softness about her that I find so real and rare. Derrel, your personal attacks can stop *NOW*. The last thread is over and closed. You hit below the belt, and that is where I draw the line. You do not intimidate me in the least, so please go find a thread where your "services" are needed. They are not needed by me.



Honest critique is welcome as long as it agrees with what you like?  I saw nothing in his post to indicate a personal attack, and personally agree with everything he said.  Derrell and I don't see eye to eye most of the time, but in this instance I think his critique was dead on the money.

That said, as long as you like the results that's what counts.  However as far as proper technique goes it leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Thank you Steve. Once again,* I *adore this image. It is my work, so I choose the outcome. She has a softness about her that I find so real and rare. Derrel, your personal attacks can stop *NOW*. The last thread is over and closed. You hit below the belt, and that is where I draw the line. You do not intimidate me in the least, so please go find a thread where your "services" are needed. They are not needed by me.



To be fair, I don't see Derrel's post as a personal attack, at all.

Rather, it seems as though he goes out of his way to address what he sees as issues with the technical criteria of the photo...


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2013)

Can't we all get along on this day of colored eggs?


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

SCraig said:


> However as far as proper technique goes it leaves a lot to be desired.



This could be an interesting topic for a separate thread; that being whether artisic expression can or should trump proper technique.

Be right back...


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

Just close the thread.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Thank you Steve. Once again,* I *adore this image. It is my work, so I choose the outcome. She has a softness about her that I find so real and rare. Derrel, your personal attacks can stop *NOW*. The last thread is over and closed. You hit below the belt, and that is where I draw the line. You do not intimidate me in the least, so please go find a thread where your "services" are needed. They are not needed by me.



easy there ...
firstly, i dont see very much of anything in Derrels post that is a PERSONAL attack. was he critical of your photo? sure. maybe even REALLY critical.  however, you posted that photo where? in the professional gallery. and what did you get? a professional critique. sorry, but I could see your case here if you had posted this in the just for fun section. maybe you and Derrel have a little history, im not sure if there is something i have missed there, but personal feelings aside, his critique appeared to me to be mostly in a technical sense. what very little he DID seem to get personal with, was simply asking you what it was about this photo that you adored. 

I saw nothing overtly rude or inflammatory in Derrels post, so please try not to take negative critique personally. not everyone will love a photograph just because you do, and Derrel simply explained why he didnt. thats part of how this forum works. remember, if you arent looking for critique, of ALL sorts, just post in the "just for fun" section and state you dont want C&C. lets ALL try to keep this thread on topic please.

(also, there is no need to drag prior incidents into this thread. you can PM them if you wish, but there is no need for a public rehashing. thank you)


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Not to derail the thread but, since its closure has now been called for, here ya' go: Take the poll...


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 31, 2013)

TBH, I didn't even note this was in the Professional Gallery. As a casual candid, as it was originally labeled, I think it's fine. As a marketable image, I honestly do feel it's lacking in several areas. Again, it's your image, so if you and your client are happy, that's all the matters.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 31, 2013)

It seems that this thread indicates one of the really difficult obstacles for any photographer - the identification with the image.
The struggle is to be objective enough to recognize where a specific image might have 'defects' as others see it but that you as the maker embrace.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> TBH, I didn't even note this was in the Professional Gallery. As a casual candid, as it was originally labeled, I think it's fine. As a marketable image, I honestly do feel it's lacking in several areas. Again, it's your image, so if you and your client are happy, that's all the matters.



90% of the work that I do is candid. That is why my clients come to me vs. Susie Shootsalot. My clients could care less if it is 100% technically correct vs. expressive. As a marketable image? I did not ask, "Who would like to purchase a 30x40 print of this image?" Once again, I stated *I *adore this image, and I wanted to share it. I didn't say this is the most technically correct image that I have ever taken. I didn't say this is going on the cover of Popular Photography magazine either. Yes, I am happy with this shot because this is MY style. This is MY work. I have made it this far in my photography career, because I have decided to stay true to that. If I had taken the advice of every Tom, Dick, and Derrel, I would not be were I am today. The great thing about critique, disregard this thread, is that I have always taken bites out of all that has been shared with me, and then applied that knowledge with my own style and vision. Derrel was questioning why I could possibly like this image. Well.....I just do.


----------



## Rgollar (Mar 31, 2013)

Your photos are great. I hope to get as good as this someday. Always enjoy seeing your photos.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > TBH, I didn't even note this was in the Professional Gallery. As a casual candid, as it was originally labeled, I think it's fine. As a marketable image, I honestly do feel it's lacking in several areas. Again, it's your image, so if you and your client are happy, that's all the matters.
> ...



My comment was in no way intended as an attack on you or your photo. It was simply my opinion.
You're right. My comment regarding "marketable image" was probably not fair. After all, your cleints feel differently and have proven that statement false. That's all that matters.


----------



## nonamexx (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > TBH, I didn't even note this was in the Professional Gallery. As a casual candid, as it was originally labeled, I think it's fine. As a marketable image, I honestly do feel it's lacking in several areas. Again, it's your image, so if you and your client are happy, that's all the matters.
> ...



Hi, I understand your frustration, but that was a technical critique and not a personal attack. If you want everybody to say "wow. great photo" post on Flickr and share with your friends. Sorry to say, but you're taking it the wrong way.

P.S. Derrel's review did come across as a bit nitpicky, but then that's what must be accepted as part of a critique.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > TBH, I didn't even note this was in the Professional Gallery. As a casual candid, as it was originally labeled, I think it's fine. As a marketable image, I honestly do feel it's lacking in several areas. Again, it's your image, so if you and your client are happy, that's all the matters.
> ...



the much simpler answer would have been...

"hey Derrel, thanks for taking time out of your busy day to look at and critique a photo I posted on a photography forums critique thread. I understand your technical issues with this picture, and to answer your question, I adore this photo because it has sentimental value to me for "X" reason, and was shot in a style that I (and my clients) personally like. I will certainly take your critique into consideration for future shoots where I am more concerned with technical accuracy."

see? graceful and elegant. and it doesn't make you sound all hurt over getting accurate critique you weren't happy with. 
there is just as much a need for gracefully RECEIVING critique as there is for accurately GIVING it.


----------



## nonamexx (Mar 31, 2013)

To be honest, my artwork (drawings) have often been criticized worse than this when I posted for review, thinking I had something good, I've been near tears and almost abandoned my hobby, but then I came to realize that it was all honest feedback. 

And remember, I do it as a hobby and not as a profession. I do it for my enjoyment and having people come down like a ton of bricks is painful. I know it can be very demotivating...


----------



## OLaA (Mar 31, 2013)

I think this image is awesome. I immediately felt something when i saw it. I do tend to favor the artsy stuff. But i didn't get into photography to sell $8 "technically perfect" middle school portraits.

Since it seems no one else will i'm going to call a spade a spade in saying it was painfully obvious Derrel was intentionally trying to he a (insert favorite adjective here). Nothing personal but i just call it how I see it.  

And for the record questioning someone on  why THEY adore a photo after they've already clearly stated they do, seems like a personal attack. There are no technical merits about how you should feel about a photo and was the underlying question of the rant. And to be honest there is a million other "elegant" ways to deliver critique even if not positive.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



Pixmedic, can we please drop this aspect of the thread? You already addressed this, but you are continuing to bring it back up. Clearly, I feel this is not about the critique as I mentioned earlier.  If you look through my 1,182 other posts, I have no problem recieving critique gracefully, and ask for it quite frequently.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 31, 2013)

Closing per OP request.


----------

