calexg
Established
Right. Keep your comments to yourself. This is a photography forum.
Krosya
Konicaze
And who gave the right to say things like that, to limit someone's opinion? Forum is all about comments! Dont like it - dont read! OP posted this thread should expect people to comment, good or bad.
Krosya
Konicaze
Actually, YES! I think all those things take away from what otherwise could have been nice pics. Maybe make-up and different light could hide things better and improve things IMO, but as they are - they dont work for me. Too distructive from overall image flow/composition.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Ah yes, the classic troll who complains about everyone else's pictures, but has absolutely nothing to show of his own work.
climbing_vine
Well-known
colker
Well-known
Yeah ... and I noticed one of the window frames needed a lick of paint.
Are you for real?
i immediately thought of redecorating the place.
NathanJD
Well-known
Come now children! play nice. it's nice to see that the subject matter provokes such passionate commentary - isn't that the point?
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
I thought it was ironic comment on male-pattern glamour photography but, hell, what do I know.
It brought to mind that line from a Leonard Cohen song? or poem maybe
"some girls blunder buy mistakes into the mess that scalpels make"
annoyingly I can only recall that scrap
It brought to mind that line from a Leonard Cohen song? or poem maybe
"some girls blunder buy mistakes into the mess that scalpels make"
annoyingly I can only recall that scrap
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I think you're reading a lot into his comment that just wasn't there. What he said had nothing to do with the quality of either the photos or the quality of the photography (which was pretty good, by the way). It didn't even have much to do with the lady's overall appearance. It did concern the quality of the surgeon's work. It is very obvious that the lady does care what her breasts look like, because she paid to have them enhanced. I doubt this is what she wanted.
Yes, and a forum is where people go to comment on things, discuss them, and etcetera. It is not where people go to shut up.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Okay, the quality of the printing was at least fairly good, although I would prefer to do it myself, and you've done a pretty good job too. What I am wondering is why you approached this in the way you did. Most photographers would try everything short of death itself to hide what are considered blemishes, or at least to show them in a way that almost makes them seem like ornaments. You've made them the center of attention. Was this deliberate? If so, why? Did the model know you were going to do this?
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Yep that's the one, thanks
eia41
Established
The photos are very nice and so is the mature model!
djonesii
Well-known
Dear all;
The OP here ... I don't know if there is a studio shooting "group" where you live, here in Houston, there is. It is run through meetup.com, Same for New York city. At the same time, there is a place called texasphotoforum.com that also will let you post figure work. I am involved in both. It's not too hard to find if you're interested.
As I clearly laid out in my original post, the vast majority of what I do is digital, and I hope is much more along the line's of classical fine nude figure work. I just don't care for some people's interpretation of glamor, like can be seen in some of the current crop of lingerie based mens magazines. Too much silicon and Photoshop liquify IMHO ( note the bold and underline )
As I am cheap, I shoot at the workshop based model provided events, they usually run under $200, you share space and strobes and models with up to 10 other photographers, it's luck of the draw if the model works out.
In this case, my digital is OK, and more or less, I have tried to use lighting and shadow to get what I think are some reasonable images. I have sent these to the model, and she was quite pleased. They will make my vanity book for this year.
Clearly, this is a film biased rangefinder forum. So, I don't really post the digital stuff here, except by way of comparison, and never the focus of a post. The Fuji Ga645 is just on the edge of what qualifies, but close enough. I shot the film, got it back, and made a suite of decisions in post processing that film than were very different than those made with the digital.
Good job or bad on the implants, that's what she got. For the film set, that's the way that I made active choices to represent them, quite honestly, I was the client in this case, and it does not much matter to me if she likes the film set or not, it shows a very different aspect of what I saw in the settings that I was given to work with. I like them, and in fact, feel that they make up some of my better work. Publishable? Social comment, definately not my intent, Art? (maybe ) Without qeustion, this is something that I enjoyed doing with my time, money and equipemnt. I am currently taking a photo class out at the local university, and I treat those assignements as if there were an AD, and honestly I think, most AD's never would have asked for the photos in that set.
I have heard the LC song, but it was not playing in my mind when I edited the negatives.
Thanks for all the lively comment, that is indeed why I post.
Dave
The OP here ... I don't know if there is a studio shooting "group" where you live, here in Houston, there is. It is run through meetup.com, Same for New York city. At the same time, there is a place called texasphotoforum.com that also will let you post figure work. I am involved in both. It's not too hard to find if you're interested.
As I clearly laid out in my original post, the vast majority of what I do is digital, and I hope is much more along the line's of classical fine nude figure work. I just don't care for some people's interpretation of glamor, like can be seen in some of the current crop of lingerie based mens magazines. Too much silicon and Photoshop liquify IMHO ( note the bold and underline )
As I am cheap, I shoot at the workshop based model provided events, they usually run under $200, you share space and strobes and models with up to 10 other photographers, it's luck of the draw if the model works out.
In this case, my digital is OK, and more or less, I have tried to use lighting and shadow to get what I think are some reasonable images. I have sent these to the model, and she was quite pleased. They will make my vanity book for this year.
Clearly, this is a film biased rangefinder forum. So, I don't really post the digital stuff here, except by way of comparison, and never the focus of a post. The Fuji Ga645 is just on the edge of what qualifies, but close enough. I shot the film, got it back, and made a suite of decisions in post processing that film than were very different than those made with the digital.
Good job or bad on the implants, that's what she got. For the film set, that's the way that I made active choices to represent them, quite honestly, I was the client in this case, and it does not much matter to me if she likes the film set or not, it shows a very different aspect of what I saw in the settings that I was given to work with. I like them, and in fact, feel that they make up some of my better work. Publishable? Social comment, definately not my intent, Art? (maybe ) Without qeustion, this is something that I enjoyed doing with my time, money and equipemnt. I am currently taking a photo class out at the local university, and I treat those assignements as if there were an AD, and honestly I think, most AD's never would have asked for the photos in that set.
I have heard the LC song, but it was not playing in my mind when I edited the negatives.
Thanks for all the lively comment, that is indeed why I post.
Dave
FrankS
Registered User
IMO, not all pictures need to be pretty, and not all women need to be perfect. It is usually those that aren't, that are the most interesting. This second set of pictures is an improvement on and more interesting than your first set.
Dave, a fine experience, and learning + experience leads to improvement. I was in a big photo club in Seattle years ago that put on an annual expo sort of event that also included nude model studio sessions. That took me by surprise and I wasn't exactly prepared, what with Tri-X loaded in both the Pentax+85mm and Leica M2 with 35mm, but it was an interesting and educational experience despite grainy results. I was impressed by my mental shift to "working mode" after an initial freeze.
I'm not a moderator here but I dare say RFF is neutral as to the film/digital issue. There are two digital RF cameras used by a significant number of members, plus some that would fit more into the "point 'n' shoot" category. There are of course different preferences, and also different views as to what constitutes a "rangefinder camera"... The Fuji GA645 is as much an RF as a Contax G1/G2 it seems to me, and others may think of them either way, but I would think inclusively.
Agreed, the interesting concept would be does she think she's "glamorous"?
Does the viewer? (Obviously some do)
Did the photographer?
It's an interesting Rorschach test which helps define social strata, caste, perception and ingrained perceptions.
Does the viewer? (Obviously some do)
Did the photographer?
It's an interesting Rorschach test which helps define social strata, caste, perception and ingrained perceptions.
newspaperguy
Well-known
Nicely done. #7 is my fave.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Sorry Dave, but if you have your own lights and studio, $200 isn't cheap. It is about average for a four hour shoot. For around $50 per hour, you can hire your own nude model and set up your own shoot, the way you like and you don't have 10 other photographers stumbling all over you and getting in the way.
djonesii
Well-known
I'd love to find $50/hr models ....
I'd love to find $50/hr models ....
Studio space and lights is a huge if. On a per shoot basis, it's simply cheaper to put up with the head aches.
I'd love to have the extra cash laying around for studio space, but a home studio is out of the question. One of the places I use has excellent Prophoto lights, the kit has to run close to 3K with softboxes and stands, the other is a mix of alien bees and hensel, more affordable, but still at least 1.5K. To me, thats a lot to have sitting in the closet, even though, I probably could have paid for a set over the last few years.
I suppose if I really searched MM I could find models in the $50/hr range, but thats a 4 hours minimum. Fashion or Glamor is cheaper, but not what I like. The class models never stand us up, and that is worth something.
An other aspect is the MUA, almost always they are included in the class, and thats an other $75. / shoot.
There may be a way to do it cheaper than I am, but not with a smaller out of pocket!
I agree 100%, I do have to put up with a load of cr...p when working in a group, but every shoot, I do learn something from one of the other photographers.
as we always say, YMMV
Thanks for the input
Dave
I'd love to find $50/hr models ....
Studio space and lights is a huge if. On a per shoot basis, it's simply cheaper to put up with the head aches.
I'd love to have the extra cash laying around for studio space, but a home studio is out of the question. One of the places I use has excellent Prophoto lights, the kit has to run close to 3K with softboxes and stands, the other is a mix of alien bees and hensel, more affordable, but still at least 1.5K. To me, thats a lot to have sitting in the closet, even though, I probably could have paid for a set over the last few years.
I suppose if I really searched MM I could find models in the $50/hr range, but thats a 4 hours minimum. Fashion or Glamor is cheaper, but not what I like. The class models never stand us up, and that is worth something.
An other aspect is the MUA, almost always they are included in the class, and thats an other $75. / shoot.
There may be a way to do it cheaper than I am, but not with a smaller out of pocket!
I agree 100%, I do have to put up with a load of cr...p when working in a group, but every shoot, I do learn something from one of the other photographers.
as we always say, YMMV
Thanks for the input
Dave
djonesii
Well-known
Dear all;
I did not go into the shoot with this type of photo in mind. As I shot the first few scenes, I was starting to get some ideas of how unusual a photos that I might get out of the film.
When we moved into the natural light room, I was even more sure that the film would produce some unusual images. A comment that was made in my last set about my PP giving sinister photos, and I often do things with an eye to harsh.
It was clear that this model what not really happy doing this type of modeling, and much of what she was doing was not at all pretty (to my eye), and I clearly saw that. As a personal preference, I did not find her that attractive, and that may have colored my work.
On the other hand, I never set out to make a social comment or a "ugly glamor" set from this shoot. It's safe to say it turned out that way.
thanks to all who have shared.
Dave
I did not go into the shoot with this type of photo in mind. As I shot the first few scenes, I was starting to get some ideas of how unusual a photos that I might get out of the film.
When we moved into the natural light room, I was even more sure that the film would produce some unusual images. A comment that was made in my last set about my PP giving sinister photos, and I often do things with an eye to harsh.
It was clear that this model what not really happy doing this type of modeling, and much of what she was doing was not at all pretty (to my eye), and I clearly saw that. As a personal preference, I did not find her that attractive, and that may have colored my work.
On the other hand, I never set out to make a social comment or a "ugly glamor" set from this shoot. It's safe to say it turned out that way.
thanks to all who have shared.
Dave