# The Whole Series



## Alpha (Nov 8, 2007)

Hope you pros don't mind me being here.

These are some of the other photos from the same shoot as my current piece up for critique here for anyone who's interested. Any comments are welcome. I'll do my best to recall the details of the shots. 






Ilford SFX 200





Ilford SFX 200





Kodak Portra 160VC





Ilford PanF





Fuji Neopan Acros (I can never get this one to display properly online for some reason). 





Fuji Neopan Acros





Fuji Neopan Acros​


----------



## zendianah (Nov 8, 2007)

Ok so your not in the critque section so Im going to say F$%^&n amazing!


----------



## minkster (Nov 8, 2007)

Wow, I really admire your work. I love the reflection of the water in the third picture. Great job!


----------



## NJMAN (Nov 8, 2007)

The black and white tones are incredible on these!  My favorites are #2, #6, and #7.  The sun kind of blew out a few spots in #5 and #6, but it really doesnt take anything away from the image.  Very well done.  

NJ


----------



## heip (Nov 8, 2007)

Not a fan of #1. The highlights bother me and she just doesn't fit well in the frame IMO.
#3: The colours seem washed out especially for Portra VC.

The rest are very nicely done, especially the last three. If you hadn't cropped the feet in the second last you would have nailed it, but still a great shot because the focus, lighting and DOF are bang on!!
Nice work!!


----------



## Alpha (Nov 8, 2007)

heip said:


> Not a fan of #1. The highlights bother me and she just doesn't fit well in the frame IMO.
> #3: The colours seem washed out especially for Portra VC.
> 
> The rest are very nicely done, especially the last three. If you hadn't cropped the feet in the second last you would have nailed it, but still a great shot because the focus, lighting and DOF are bang on!!
> Nice work!!



As for #1, that tends to happen when you shoot IR in bright daylight. And as for #3, it's processed lightly in PS (a very light high pass overlay, a slight boost in saturation, and a little USM. The reflection was a little more reflective on the neg). It's the style these days....And I'm well aware of the the feet.

Thanks everyone for the positive comments.


----------



## eravedesigns (Nov 8, 2007)

I only like the 3rd to last one. The other ones dont do much for me and the images dont pop they seem a bit dull maybe more contrast or that could just be my style. I just dont like the lighting and the positioning of the model in the other photos.


----------



## craig (Nov 8, 2007)

Strong photos. A lot of style for sure. The composition is on point The dresses are amazing. Where did they come from? Again. Excellent camera and of course film work. 

Are you kidding me with the titles? What are you a film salesman? Jokingly of course.

Love & Bass


----------



## Alpha (Nov 8, 2007)

I am a film salesman for sure. None of them have titles b/c it was a TFP shoot. I like to mention the fact that all of my shots are on film. I think it helps demonstrate, at least for this particular purpose, that film and digital post processing aren't incompatible. And I just posted the names of the films in case anyone else who shoots it is curious. Think of it as EXIF


----------



## craig (Nov 9, 2007)

I am fully laughing out loud! I will consider it as exif data from here on out.

Love & Bass


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

Oh, and the dresses came from a vintage thrift shop that mostly specializes in formal and semi-formal clothing from about 1910-1950 or so.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 9, 2007)

1-4 seem too light for me... idk..
also number 3 her arms, face , hair seem awkward..

But over all good shots! I love the last 2.


----------



## craig (Nov 9, 2007)

Whoa! So you rented them? Or bought them? I mean to say that someone is an amazing stylist. Everything from the hair or to the costumes seems well thought out.

Love & Bass


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

ilyfel said:


> 1-4 seem too light for me... idk..
> also number 3 her arms, face , hair seem awkward..
> 
> But over all good shots! I love the last 2.



I'm curious as to what you mean by "too light" ?

As for #3, it's a stylistic thing as far as I'm concerned. In these kinds of shots, models always have this look of awkward stoicism. This is a very muted version of that, which is ordinarily accompanied by rather uncomfortable posture. I'm sure you're familiar with the classic (and very awkward) hands on hips pose (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7689/2016/1600/oct04_04.jpg)


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

craig said:


> Whoa! So you rented them? Or bought them? I mean to say that someone is an amazing stylist. Everything from the hair or to the costumes seems well thought out.
> 
> Love & Bass



Well we had looked around and then gone over wardrobe over the phone beforehand, but she wanted to hang onto the dresses, so she actually ended up purchasing them. When we met for the shoot, she showed up with this enormous, fabulous wardrobe, which I selected from. She did her own makeup, and I took care of hair throughout the shoot. She changed in the building behind my canvas dropcloth that I use as a backdrop. It turned out to be a great shoot as far as on-location work goes. We're very good friends these days.

Lately, she's been mixing up her style a lot, and has recently gotten into the SI (Sports Illustrated) sort of look:
http://modelmayhm-4.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/071015/15/4713c11cd43f3.jpg
http://modelmayhm-4.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/071016/15/47150e3a35264.jpg

If she keeps it up long enough, she'll probably eventually start charging. Fortunately, we're close enough that I'll get free shoots either way.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 9, 2007)

Let me fix what I said. I meant 2,3, kinda 4 not 1.

imho I think they would be better darker.

Also the model in the link and the model in your pics poses are NOTHING alike. It looks like she is stretching her shoulders back.. now if she would have done the pose in the link (less dramatic maybe) I would probably like it better..


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

ilyfel said:


> Let me fix what I said. I meant 2,3,4 not 1.
> 
> And I think the aperture is too high. imho I think they would be better darker.
> 
> Also the model in the link and the model in your pics poses are NOTHING alike. It looks like she is stretching her shoulders back.. now if she would have done the pose in the link (less dramatic maybe) I would probably like it better..



Well, I don't intend to start an argument here, but aperture has nothing to do with darkness or lightness. As for #2, shooting IR in bright daylight will always result in very white highlights. In fact, it is often used purposefully in order to make skin look like porcelain. In #3, I suppose I just disagree with you that it ought to be darker. I know what it looks like darker, and it puts her face in shadow. And as for #4, are you saying that the background ought to be darker?

Pertaining to the link I posted, I was referring to a style that I characterized as "awkward stoicism." I didn't intend to copy that photograph I linked to in any functional way, whether it be pose or lighting or what have you. And if I had copied that pose, I would hope you'd like it less...since I would have been outright copying it.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 9, 2007)

hence why I edited it out. I typed that and was like wait thats not right. It's too damn late for me to be talking about photog after the night I had.

1- I absolutely love. I love how her hair is flying, how her arm is posed, how the shadow falls perfectly across her breasts. its over all an amazing shot.

2- I love the shot. I love how shes sitting how the dress lays, everything. I also love how her body/dress is white as snow. BUT I think the background should be darker to help pop that out. When I look at this pic it reminds me of looking into the sun for a minute and then trying to look at a photo.

3- you already know. the awkward stance, how her head is tilted towards the sun. If she would have been doing semi the same pose but her whole body facing the sun but having her head tilted in a way to not cause her face to looked washed out I think it would of been perfect.

4- love her posing and everything. but I think, like you said, the background needs to be darker. like isaid in 2 so she pops out of the photo.

5-7-perfect wouldn't have it any other way..

And sorry I'm not trying to be rude.. I'm just stating what I like and dislike about the photo. Like you are welcome to do to mine..


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

eravedesigns said:


> I only like the 3rd to last one. The other ones dont do much for me and the images dont pop they seem a bit dull maybe more contrast or that could just be my style. I just dont like the lighting and the positioning of the model in the other photos.



Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps you can find solace in the fact that your glass is bigger.


----------



## nossie (Nov 9, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps you can find solace in the fact that your glass is bigger.


Max I like your brutal criticism so I hope you don't mind mine coz it looks like you don't like his.



MaxBloom said:


> Oh, and the dresses came from a vintage thrift shop that mostly specializes in formal and semi-formal clothing from about 1910-1950 or so.


First thing I though was 1920's. That's one for me (maybe I'm hanging around with too many women so that's one away (fek))

#1 is like one of those internet gags where you stare at it for ages and then she flys at you freaking you out on the way. It's a bit of Banshee look with that expression. But the Banshee look can work I suppose like the black eyed Addict look that was going around for a while.

#2 I like. It's like she's in a peaceful state yet inviting pleasent company.

#3 Sucks. It's like so many shots I take, technically correct but lacks anything worth looking at. Her hips are about 4 foot wide, no expression on her face. No information in the picture and as you said yourself the colours aren't working out well.

#4 "So will I just stand here?" I don't like it. It's like you were just getting your measurments ready.

#5 Luv it. Mr Conery is outside waiting in the DB5.

#6 Don't you know how important the heel of a woman's shoe is? (fek fek fek I really am hanging around to many women lately). A bit more light on dark side of her face?

#7 "So who do we kill next master?" It's ok. I don't like the pose entirely and I can't quite put my finger on it. Compared to the shot above is she slouchy or at ease. If you were a foot taller then maybe she'd have looked that extra ounce more submissive; big eyed little girl? The tiny bit of dress cropped at the bottom bugs me also as it is but I can't put my finger on it.


So that's the nitty-picky. All in all though a nice selection.

:thumbup:


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 9, 2007)

Very nice series. The only things that stand out negatively to me is I'd like to see the feet of #6, and #3 and 4 has her standing in a rather unfeminine way. The colors of your location look amazing. I would love to see some of the others in color with some increased saturation on the structural elements. 

Marian


----------



## jols (Nov 9, 2007)

i really like the pic but i think the model looks very uncomfortable in some of the pics like shes is not happy [3 4 5 6]


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

nossie said:


> #3 Sucks. It's like so many shots I take, technically correct but lacks anything worth looking at. Her hips are about 4 foot wide, no expression on her face. No information in the picture and as you said yourself the colours aren't working out well.



Sorry but I'd rather you not put words in my mouth. I never said that the colors aren't working out well. Quite the contrary...they are the result of my post-processing. I beg to differ that there most certainly _is_ something to look at. The contrast of the water's reflection with the grittiness of the backdrop I find visually interesting. As for her pose, I did not feel that this environment afforded a context for your typical "action model" shot. You're also forgetting about printing. The print is an Ilfochrome. The colors jump like hell.

I'm bothered (though not entirely surprised) that you would rule out any intentionality on my part pertaining to the critical aspects of the photos...perhaps un-"like so many shots [you] take." I don't really care about the juxtaposition of a woman in a gown standing in a falling-apart building. The world has enough photos to fill that niche. I _wanted_ her to come across as limp and expressionless, as if she were another one of those orange beams. This shot-- rather-- most of this series, is not about contrast. It is an experiment in trying to shoot the model receding into the environment. It's why most of the shots are on or in water, half of the poses appear limp, some of the facial expressions appear stagnant, and the ghostly (IR) shots are the ones in which she is in closest physical contact with the deteriorating structure. 

Nor is this about the fact that you underestimate me. Rather, I do not believe that my expounding here upon these photos is necessary. I worked hard for this to come across in the shots. If you look at these photos, and at first glance think "Here is a set of photos that are imitating the 'fashion' style, but don't quite pull it off," and stop there, then you aren't paying enough attention.

I'm well aware of what minor technical errors there are, such as the clipped heel and some minor overexposure.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 9, 2007)

Max, it might've been helpful if you had mentioned what kinds of comments you were looking for.  When you said "any comments are welcome", that could mean critiques, good or bad comments, the latest stock tips, whatever. We didn't know what your intentions were with these photos, if you were looking for technical comments or just overall impressions. Here in the Professional Gallery, as you know, most people expect technical critiques.  

Marian


----------



## lasershot (Nov 9, 2007)

VERY nice! Amazing model!

A+


----------



## Alpha (Nov 9, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> Max, it might've been helpful if you had mentioned what kinds of comments you were looking for.  When you said "any comments are welcome", that could mean critiques, good or bad comments, the latest stock tips, whatever. We didn't know what your intentions were with these photos, if you were looking for technical comments or just overall impressions. Here in the Professional Gallery, as you know, most people expect technical critiques.
> 
> Marian



Well I wasn't looking for any particular kind of comment. The points people have made about things like parts of her dress blowing out and the clipped heel and the like, are well taken. Those are obviously screw-ups. But a lot of responses were to the effect of the model looking bored or posed awkwardly. While that _could_ be the result of poor directing or a bad model, it certainly doesn't have to be. I was just a little surprised that so many people failed to consider that perhaps I intentionally posed her that way. Because if that's the case, then it makes a lot more sense. It doesn't necessarily need to qualify as a technical screw-up.

All I'm saying is that whenever I'm critiquing anyone's work (and this even goes for when I'm critiquing a beginner), if I see something that looks like it might be an error, I _always_ ask, "did they do that on purpose?" And if in doubt, I ask them when possible. For example, if you looked at a shot from some Tri-X pushed 3 stops to 3200, and you say "The tone range is poor, and the shadows and highlights are pretty blocked up," well yeah, that's true. But that's how it's supposed to look when you push it three stops.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Nov 11, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Well I wasn't looking for any particular kind of comment. The points people have made about things like parts of her dress blowing out and the clipped heel and the like, are well taken. Those are obviously screw-ups. But a lot of responses were to the effect of the model looking bored or posed awkwardly. While that _could_ be the result of poor directing or a bad model, it certainly doesn't have to be. I was just a little surprised that so many people failed to consider that perhaps I intentionally posed her that way. Because if that's the case, then it makes a lot more sense. It doesn't necessarily need to qualify as a technical screw-up.
> 
> .


 
But what I notice is that when that is done on purpose you don't have to ask... if it was done well.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

Bull****. The disconnect between conveyance and interpretation is integral to modern art itself. There is no such thing as "done well." Nobody's ever gotten anywhere by rolling their artwork into neat little easily decipherable packages. The world would be a very boring place were there no room for artistic subtlety; what you're arguing is that one ought to err on the side of caution, to deviate enough from the norm that there's no mistaking it.

I say if you _don't_ have to ask, then it's isn't "done well."


----------



## The Phototron (Nov 11, 2007)

Max's frustration isn't unfounded, most of the critiques are opinions about the style he's going for, not how successfully he achieved the look he intended.


----------



## jols (Nov 11, 2007)

if you told the model to look awkward bored and unproffessional then you did an excellent job well done.

if this was nt your intention then maybe your model was the wrong choice or you you didnt direct her properly.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

jols said:


> if you told the model to look awkward bored and unproffessional then you did an excellent job well done.



Quite the contrary. In this situation, it's the model's job to do whatever the hell I want. If she weren't looking awkward, then that would be unprofessional.


----------



## jols (Nov 11, 2007)

i dont understand that previous post.

and please do not swear at me 


if she indeed did what you wanted her to do then the pics look awkward and you need to rethink your style


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 11, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> It is an experiment in trying to shoot the model receding into the environment.


 
I guess, since most of the discussion has been about the model, she didn't recede far enough...  

All humor aside, I think two things are happening here in this thread. First, you are known to give harsh critiques, so this was a chance for others to do the same. Whether it is "pay back" or they thought "if he could give it, he must be able to take it", I can only guess. I certainly would be upset if someone said my photo "sucks." Second, it is very easy, when someone questions the mood of a piece, to take it personally. You were upset that your awkward/stoic pose wasn't understood and was questioned. That's understandable. But, the next time you see someone's photo, and the model looks bored, uncomfortable, etc., will you say to them, "did you tell her to look bored?"  I think this thread would've been off to a better start had you stated at the beginning, "I was trying for such and such feel...did I succeed," especially if you're trying for a theme that could be misinterpreted so greatly. 

Marian


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

My style is whatever I like, thank you very much.

My point was that the model's job, to a great extent, is to follow direction. As such, provided that I wanted her to be awkward, she was doing her job and was therefore being "professional." Were she to not follow direction, then she would not be doing her job and would therefore be "unprofessional."

So thank you for complementing me on "an excellent job."


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> I guess, since most of the discussion has been about the model, she didn't recede far enough...
> 
> All humor aside, I think two things are happening here in this thread. First, you are known to give harsh critiques, so this was a chance for others to do the same. Whether it is "pay back" or they thought "if he could give it, he must be able to take it", I can only guess. I certainly would be upset if someone said my photo "sucks." Second, it is very easy, when someone questions the mood of a piece, to take it personally. You were upset that your awkward/stoic pose wasn't understood and was questioned. That's understandable. But, the next time you see someone's photo, and the model looks bored, uncomfortable, etc., will you say to them, "did you tell her to look bored?"  I think this thread would've been off to a better start had you stated at the beginning, "I was trying for such and such feel...did I succeed," especially if you're trying for a theme that could be misinterpreted so greatly.
> 
> Marian



I was not necessarily asking for critique, though I was not closed to the idea, as this is a "gallery." 

If people want to be vengeful regarding my critique style, then that's okay. I don't particularly have a problem with that (as you can see by my posting the shots and therefore knowingly opening myself up to it in the first place). I'm also not upset that someone said my photo "sucks." If someone thinks it sucks, then that's their prerogative. Second, I don't really take the questioning of the mood personally. I feel that I did a perfectly fine job of setting the mood. And as I said before, I believe that people will have a tendency to look at some of these shots and at first glance think they are failed attempts at the pop fashion style. Perhaps that's a reasonable conclusion on face. But as I also mentioned, when I look at others work and see what appear to be errors, I do, in fact ask whether they did it on purpose. And when in doubt, I ask them wherever possible. But my point is that one's viewing of a piece ought to not be so superficial. It's all too common that we look at others' work, only to give it a quick judgment and move on. I'm right here to answer the question, "did you do that on purpose?" No one asked. The will to capture something is arguably the most conceptually important aspect of photography. If you're looking at a photograph and you're not asking some question about why they decided to trip the shutter when they did, then you're not really looking at it at all. To judge on face, based simply upon your personal aesthetics or your own abilities as a photographer is to do that intentionality a disservice. So no, I don't believe that I ought to have prefaced it. I am not saying that my work is perfect. But if every time you see something that's off, or different, or unnatural, and you immediately conclude that it's a technical error, then you're hardly being a critic at all. One shouldn't have to shoot such that it's so painfully obvious the work is out of the ordinary. That re-orients the impetus for the shot in the first place. I believe it's just as important that people utilize subtlety in their work as it is that people be open to it when examining it. As a viewer, you're not really critical at all if you're unable to be affected by anything in between ordinary and outrageously out of the ordinary.


----------



## nossie (Nov 11, 2007)

The Phototron said:


> Max's frustration isn't unfounded, most of the critiques are opinions about the style he's going for, not how successfully he achieved *the look he intended*.


 


jols said:


> if you told the model to look awkward bored and unproffessional then you did an excellent job well done.
> if this was nt your intention then maybe your model was the wrong choice or you you didnt direct her properly.


 


MaxBloom said:


> *Any comments are welcome.*
> 
> Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps you can find solace in the fact that your glass is bigger.
> 
> I'm bothered (though not entirely surprised) that you would rule out any intentionality on my part


 
Seems to me _any _comments aren't welcome. Only a certain point of view is welcome, if we don't appreciate it then it's obviously us that's not worthy of the work. I don't care what amount of effort or work goes into a shot. If it's not pleasing to the eye then it's not pleasing. There's all sorts of arty effects and ideas being put in to and added to shots, some work for some people in the audience and some don't.

I could train a monkey to beat a guitar with a hammer and record it and then argue when people don't want to listen to it that "oh you people have no appreciation for the effort I put into training that monkey to beat the guitar with the hammer and you just don't get the thinking behind it of bringing the fusion of Industry and Music together." That's a serious BS attitude.

I don't like 3. It's like her little 6 year old cousin took it with a 1 use plastic camera. She's standing there just humoring the kid. - Now what am I not missing there? I couldn't give a ratsass what you had to do to get that shot and I don't care if you spent a million bucks on the pefect set and a special effects unit or had fifty people consulting on how to do it. How many movies do you not like that had 6 months work put into the making? 
I don't want your opinion, you want mine! Or was it my praise?

Max I don't think you take criticism very well which is a loss to your advancement. If you ask me to comment I'll tell you what I see not what you want to hear. From all aspects of the photo but whatever aspect I chose to view it from it's my choosing as a critic. I'm not going to romanticise it in anyway to humor your ego. It's purely to give you my point of view for your benefit and not to hurt your feelings in any way.

Personally I like to hear from the people that don't like my shot and add a little something to explain why. Maybe it's a lighting issue, maybe it's the model, set, colour scheme - whatever but I find every time it's those people that make me think the most. I accept what they're saying, I don't get an attitude against them. I see them as an ally and I try to please them, which makes me think in all new directions, and possibly drop what weren't such good ideas after all.

;-)


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

nossie said:


> post



This is just a really non-substantive rant. What advice have you given?

This is not about effort.

You're right. I'm am only open to certain kinds of critique. If you want to give my work a superficial look and then dismiss it off-hand, then no, I don't really care what you have to say. And I'm well within my rights to do that. 

If, on the other hand, you want to actually look at a piece for what it is and then critique that, I will seriously take to heart any and all comments. But thus far, nearly everyone has simply said that it's not close enough to pop fashion or its not far enough away, and then stopped. If you don't believe that something in-between is possible or appropriate, or was pulled off, then say so. But at least say why.

I do not have any desire to run out right now and shoot pop fashion or a bastardization of it. That doesn't mean I'm not advancing. You're not really giving me any useful advice at all if all you have to say is that I ought to have done one of those instead.


----------



## The Phototron (Nov 11, 2007)

nossie said:


> Seems to me _any _comments aren't welcome. Only a certain point of view is welcome, if we don't appreciate it then it's obviously us that's not worthy of the work. I don't care what amount of effort or work goes into a shot. If it's not pleasing to the eye then it's not pleasing. There's all sorts of arty effects and ideas being put in to and added to shots, some work for some people in the audience and some don't.
> 
> I could train a monkey to beat a guitar with a hammer and record it and then argue when people don't want to listen to it that "oh you people have no appreciation for the effort I put into training that monkey to beat the guitar with the hammer and you just don't get the thinking behind it of bringing the fusion of Industry and Music together." That's a serious BS attitude.



It's not even about the effort in stake here. Max put it very clearly, people are pointing to the characteristics of his approach as something they don't like. How is that constructive?

"It's too light."
"Well it was shoot with IR in daylight."
"It's still too light."

"Pose look awkward."
"It's intended."
"It still look awkward to me."

See where this is going? Nowhere.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

The Phototron said:


> It's not even about the effort in stake here. Max put it very clearly, people are pointing to the characteristics of his approach as something they don't like. How is that constructive?
> 
> "It's too light."
> "Well it was shoot with IR in daylight."
> ...



Thank you. That's exactly what I meant when I said this:


> I do not have any desire to run out right now and shoot pop fashion or a bastardization of it. That doesn't mean I'm not advancing. You're not really giving me any useful advice at all if all you have to say is that I ought to have done one of those instead.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Nov 11, 2007)

Good lord people.  Here's what I see is happening here.  Max is happy with his pictures - wonderful.  Some poeple do not like them and state why. Max then defends why they are this way or that.  He will continue to do so because he defends his art - that is fine.  And if in the end he uses the 'who's to say what is art and what's not?' card,  then that is what he decides to do.  There is no arguing it.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

That's not true. I'd love for someone to give some really substantive advice. I'm just waiting. I'd rather not have any argument at all.

Hit me, baby.


----------



## nossie (Nov 11, 2007)

Re: Max & Phototron


> If you want to give my work a superficial look and then dismiss it off-hand, then no, I don't really care what you have to say.


 
Now you're putting words in everyone's mouth. 

I look at 3 and my mind goes blank. 
A few orange poles, right. 
Using water and reflection, right. 
Chick that looks like she's non impressed, right. 
Chick in strange choice of pose, right.
Chick in fancy dress standing in ruin, right.
Derelict building, right. 
Electricity wires in the view, right. 
Using shadows to control light, right. 
Nothing blown out, right.

Would it make me stop and read an article in a newspaper? no.
Would I respect the photographer if I was handed this portfolio? no.
Do I enjoy looking at this picture? no.
Putting it all together do I think the idea worked? no.



> This is just a really non-substantive rant. What advice have you given?


 
Again you chose to attack instead of listen to an opinion that differs from your own. You make me think of Heavy Metal fans that hate pop and insist that everything else is siht and we just don't understand what good music is because we don't like Metallica.

So what was I supposed to do exactly? Maybe you can teach me about your point of view. Enlighten me and everyone else in the cleverness of your work. Should I recommend that you use the new super dooper xjs mach50 28stop film? Or the Macro blaster zoom turbo III lens? Or tell the girl to imagine giving birth to a dead baby next time to achieve the ultimate miserable look on her face?

It's not for me to care how you make these pictures. I know nothing about film, for all I know you're using the free roll that you got at the 1 hour service. I know nothing about what ruins mean to you. Or what the expression on the girl's face is supposed to do for that photo. But I can tell you what it means to me after giving it considerable thought - Zilch, it does nothing for me, I can see no story in it nor anything technically brilliant. It's a bin shot.

Now if you'd said that you wanted to achieve a certain style in your shots that might have helped. I could have thought "I don't know anything about the bastardization of pop fashion" and left it for another such as Phototron who seems to have a better understanding of what you're doing.

That's my comment as you originally welcomed. This is my last post on the matter because I don't want to put any energy into any bad vibes. I'm obviously not helping you as I'd hoped.  I am not getting into another flame war.



> If people want to be vengeful regarding my critique style,


Who has the time for vengeful behaviour? People comment to give you something. I wish that you get more of what you are looking for.



JJMom it's good to have an open mind


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

Dude, I'm not asking anyone to like the photos. I'm just asking them to look.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 11, 2007)

Ok...I've just looked back at the photos, after reading all of this, and I'm still a bit confused as to your intentions. I know you wanted the awkward and stoic look, and you wanted it to make it seem as if the model was receding into the scene. Yet, in pictures 1 and 2, she's soft smiling. In 2, she's looking right into the lens. It's hard to recede when you're engaging the camera. In 5 and 6 she's "making a leg", a typical fashion pose. Your intentions, and her poses, don't go together. Maybe in 3, you could've placed your model between the 2 orange poles, had her put her leg like an extention of the pole, and reflected all 3 in the water. In 5, you could've placed her between those posts, had her stand tall and straight, and reflected all. In 1, you could've placed her all the way at the top of the steps, in the shadows, the wrinkles in her gown mirroring the cracked paint.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

Awesome. Thank you.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Nov 11, 2007)

The last 3 shots look interesting to me. Why I am not sure yet. 
The rest just dont have enough pop, contrast or sharpness to them to get me
going, but  that doesnt mean they are bad, who knows.. 

I think something about the last 3 give it a timeless classic feel. 
I expect her to drive off in james deans car...


----------



## Alpha (Nov 11, 2007)

I think it's the gloves.


----------



## Southerngal (Nov 13, 2007)

I have just read most of the posts and Im cracking up!!!!  For someone that doesnt mind leaving critiques, whether rude or constructive, you seem to have a problem taking them.  I have read several that you have left and they are not always "NICE OR CONSTRUCTIVE!"  I felt like I was in the girls bathroom at a high school.....lol!

That said, great series =)


----------



## nossie (Nov 13, 2007)




----------



## Chris of Arabia (Nov 13, 2007)

Is this still going on? :scratch:


----------



## kundalini (Nov 13, 2007)

My general approach to looking at a series is to view the photos first and read what the OP has to say about their post.  I do this before reading what others opinions are, if present. This is for two main reasons, 1) Id rather not have my initial assessment influenced and 2) I want to hone my skills at reviewing a photograph, by waiting to read further down in the thread and to see what others have noticed, particularly those that have a keen eye to detail.

Heres my nickels (inflation) worth.
For the entire series:  the wardrobe, hair styling and location are excellent.  The lighting is a very nice complement for these images except as noted.

#1  Everybody has their favorite, but this is mine.  The pose, lighting, puff of her hair (as if wind blown).  I like the way you caught the dark shadows from the bottom a literally forcing my eyes up and to the right to the models face.  The shadow that crosses her upper torso seems to force her against the wall (a little seductive).  You still have plenty of light on the shadow side of her face to see detail.  Then, the dress, the way it is sprawled across the entire width of the steps is appealing, but the sheerness of the fabric, where we can clearly see the outline of her leg is very seductive.

#2  This is out of character with the series by her smile.  Although it is light, details of her skin are visible.

#3  My least favorite of the lot.  Awkward and stoic are accomplished for the models pose, but IMO it does not let the dress fall in a flattering way.  The use of color in this series is useless and adds no value.  The power lines in the window on the left are distracting.

#4  Again, the pose is not pleasing to me.  I have seen the wide stance, full-on look by girls before, but it was generally used as a method to stabilize.  Adding some motion blur would a captured it completely.

#5  This is a great shot with one exception.  The lighting on the inside of her right leg is overexposed to the point that it appears she is standing on a toothpick.  Again, the sheerness of the dress is quite seductive.

#6  As above and of course, plus the crop.

#7  Other than the crop, this is very nice looking.

Now, with regard to the other parts of this thread, I have no idea how much work you had to go through to get these images.  After reading your explanations, I applaud you with your knowledge and craftsmanship with the media. 

But in all seriousness Max, you had to know there would be a big red bullseye on your back from certain posters.  While you can give some well seasoned advice to those that have not reached your level of expertise, you do have a tendency to be short, blunt and rude in your critique.  You seem to thrive on being provocative, controversial and waiting for the opportunity to counter with your quick tongue, shorter fuse and mastery of the English language.  I look forward to your first or second reply to a thread where you give solid comments and advice, guiding the photographer to stretch the abilities and imagination.  Much beyond those two it becomes a bitchfest and I get extremely bored.  You may not see this behavior in yourself, may not care if you do, but nonetheless, people skills fall short on your list of attributes.

Im not having a dig Max; I just want us all to get along.  Balance.



Chris of Arabia said:


> Is this still going on? :scratch:


One more please!


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 20, 2007)

I think the second view is a real stand-out.  I like that the clothing and background are in key.  I like too the low ratio lighting, affording detail in both highlights and shadow.  I wonder about a slightly different pose...  maybe her right placed beside her, allowing her arm to create a diagonal line, rather than vertical.  Nice image.

-Pete


----------



## Alpha (Nov 20, 2007)

Cool. Thank you.


----------



## dpolston (Nov 21, 2007)

nossie said:


>



omg... you beat me to it!!!!


----------



## forceofnature (Nov 24, 2007)

Sheesh with black gloves on in the last few she should at least have a weapon... otherwise white gloves.


----------

