Finearts Photography wrote:
You need some better headshots. The one holding the cup is really two photos. 1. Your face and 2. Hands holding a cup. #2 dominates the shot. I like the expression in number 16.  Eric

I know I need better headshots...hard to find good photographers here in Norway, but thanks!

W.G. Rowland wrote:
So be it.. Well.. With that in mind.. Here goes some pure honesty in the form of my opinion only:

1: Blue cast doesn't hide blown highlights.. Expression and hard shadows make your face look mannish.
2: Selective desaturation for it's own sake.... WHY?
3: Snapshot
4: More blown highlights and overburned shadows..  You have the boob shadows of Dolly Parton in this pic.
5: No sky, bland expression, crooked world (even on purpose looks weird), more detail in dark clothing would be appreciated.
6: Prettier than usual, but still makes you look rather harsh..
7: Loss of detail in highlights and shadows.. And the background's more interesting than you are.
8: Chopped at knees & fingers, you look confused, but at least I can see the sweater now.
9: Tell the photogs to STOP shooting you midday in clothes and settings that go from pure black to pure white.. Once again.. No highlights.. Ruins anything else that might be good here.
10: Holy crap, batman.. Did they not notice the rest of your body when photoshopping your face into oblivion?
11: Exposure is good on you and background.. They just don't look like you and background ever met face to face?  Photoshop composite?
12: Blown background again (this guy should just start shooting on white seemless.. Why go through the trouble of getting settings and then obliterating them in the shots). Inconsistent photoshop (if you're going to blur a face.. Blur the body it's connected to.
13: The LEAST blown highlights so far..  The dress pops (almost scarily).. Now if he'd been kind enough to bump your contrast as you're barely even there, and it's one of your prettier expressions.
14: This image has a nice butt..  Once again not detail in the highlights, but.. Photographer has learned at least one of the simple rules: Start with a pretty girl, and end with a pretty girl, and people will let a lot of other issues slide.
15: Interesting, but inconsistent.  One of your better fashion poses.. Halo on one side of the composite (where you were added in), blur on other side.. Harshlight of the background doesn't really match your lighting.. But... Best shot so far..
16: Pretty bikini shot.. You're over softened, but that's standard.. You also look a tad stiff.. But background's mostly not blown (details in the rocks would be nice, but that's minor).. And once again.. Pretty girl in.. Pretty girl out..  Much gets a pass..
17: Another badly blown out snapshot.
18: Nice candid.. Bad makeup.. You look orange and there's banding around your face.. This could have been a nice pic with a little more care given.
19: Bad.. Blown highlights (major theme in your port).. Bad choice of background colors (hides the product you're holding), etc, etc, etc..
20: Not bad.. I don't get pastel girl in grey bathroom.. But at least the colors all show.. Nothing's blown out..  Angle makes your ankles look bigger than your neck..

Now.. There's any number of pics in there I might have liked an aspect or two.. Or how you looked (although you need to work on relaxing and engaging the camera.. Whether you're looking at it or not..) And sent a nice note.. But this is the honesty you claimed is needed for everyone.

One last bit of honesty.

Since your port needs work (as do many, including my own..)  Maybe it's best to focus on that instead of worrying what people you don't know are saying about ports that aren't yours..

I mean.. Does this really affect you?  Is it really a valuable use of your time?

Just an opinion.

Wow, that's a long of negativity all at once, didn't know that every single one of  the photographers I have worked with sucked..
But your comment on the #11..wow dude, I was there, I was not cut out and placed there..

And yeah dude, I care what other people say about others work, becuse when they are stait out lying that something looks good, it affects me..

Fortunatly I get work from these pictures, and people seem to like the work that I do. Thank you for you "feedback".

Heidi

MsHeidi wrote:
Wow, that's a long of negativity all at once, didn't know that every single one of  the photographers I have worked with sucked..
But your comment on the #11..wow dude, I was there, I was not cut out and placed there..

And yeah dude, I care what other people say about others work, becuse when they are stait out lying that something looks good, it affects me..

Fortunatly I get work from these pictures, and people seem to like the work that I do. Thank you for you "feedback".

Heidi

What I did, MsHeidi, is called making a point.

The opinions I gave you were honest, but I probably wouldn't have voiced them if you hadn't started this thread.

People have opinions.. They don't always match yours.  I said negative things about your work and you don't agree with that.

Others say positive things about work you don't like..  You call them liars.

That's... What's the word I'm looking for....? Dumb.

I'm glad the work you've done has gotten you work.  I would like to know how comments on other people's ports have kept you from work.

Am I saying I agree with every person who comments on a hands-over-boobs shot or a throwing-sexy-at-my-cell-phone shot?  No..

But I don't call someone a liar because I don't agree with them.

If it's directed at me.  I look at their work.. And decide if their opinion is coming from a place that applies to me.. (If you look at my work.. It's pretty much a different genre.  And therefore my opinion of your pics doesn't matter all that much..)

I still say focusing on improving your own work is a more valuable way to spend time than complaining about other's...

Michael Kirst wrote:


Waaa. It's called the interenet. We are not here to be honest with you, we are here to get in yer pants. Didn't ya know?

Good point;)

MsHeidi wrote:
Wow, that's a long of negativity all at once, didn't know that every single one of  the photographers I have worked with sucked..
But your comment on the #11..wow dude, I was there, I was not cut out and placed there..

And yeah dude, I care what other people say about others work, becuse when they are stait out lying that something looks good, it affects me..

Fortunatly I get work from these pictures, and people seem to like the work that I do. Thank you for you "feedback".

Heidi

The negative tone of your response is a good demonstration of why people aren't honest in making comments.  Why bring that on themselves?

W.G. Rowland wrote:
11: Exposure is good on you and background.. They just don't look like you and background ever met face to face?  Photoshop composite?

I'm calling bullshit on this one too. Studio lighting on the model. Obviously the outdoor marsh shot has natural lighting. Look at the shadows from the blades of grass on the water.... shot at midday would be my guess. Then how is it that the right shoulder of model is totally shaded??

There is a way to produce the picture the way the model says it happened but I want to hear from the model the exact photographers setup. (which I highly doubt he did).
?

Again... you might have been there but not when the picture was taken.

Jeff Marsh wrote:
two most overworked words on MM:
awesome
stunning
Generally applied to very weak images... just goes to show you the power of boobs.

Awesome, stunning post!  One question... are the powerful boobs in question the one's in the images, or the one's posting the comments.

To the op... I too wonder about some of the comments on images.  But everyone is allowed to have their own opinion.  Chances are those content to post cell phone pics, and the ones willing to gush all over them are a match made in heaven.  But it also has no impact on me (and if it bothers you, don't look).

As for W.G.'s opinion on your portfolio... He makes valid points (and you did make this post in the critique forum).  No picture is perfect, and some of his points may be hyper critical (still, you'd be surprised how some things jump out and "irk" some photographers).  But would you rather he post a "great job" comment when he really didn't mean it?  You have a good portfolio, but I'm not in love with every shot (I don't care for the wading in the surf one at all... pose is awkward, don't like the flash balance, and your hair is off).

Who are we to deny those people looking for complements.  We don't have to give them, but we have no right to argue them either.  Instead, save the honesty for those who are seriously looking to improve.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
So be it.. Well.. With that in mind.. Here goes some pure honesty in the form of my opinion only:

1: Blue cast doesn't hide blown highlights.. Expression and hard shadows make your face look mannish.
2: Selective desaturation for it's own sake.... WHY?
3: Snapshot
4: More blown highlights and overburned shadows..  You have the boob shadows of Dolly Parton in this pic.
5: No sky, bland expression, crooked world (even on purpose looks weird), more detail in dark clothing would be appreciated.
6: Prettier than usual, but still makes you look rather harsh..
7: Loss of detail in highlights and shadows.. And the background's more interesting than you are.
8: Chopped at knees & fingers, you look confused, but at least I can see the sweater now.
9: Tell the photogs to STOP shooting you midday in clothes and settings that go from pure black to pure white.. Once again.. No highlights.. Ruins anything else that might be good here.
10: Holy crap, batman.. Did they not notice the rest of your body when photoshopping your face into oblivion?
11: Exposure is good on you and background.. They just don't look like you and background ever met face to face?  Photoshop composite?
12: Blown background again (this guy should just start shooting on white seemless.. Why go through the trouble of getting settings and then obliterating them in the shots). Inconsistent photoshop (if you're going to blur a face.. Blur the body it's connected to.
13: The LEAST blown highlights so far..  The dress pops (almost scarily).. Now if he'd been kind enough to bump your contrast as you're barely even there, and it's one of your prettier expressions.
14: This image has a nice butt..  Once again not detail in the highlights, but.. Photographer has learned at least one of the simple rules: Start with a pretty girl, and end with a pretty girl, and people will let a lot of other issues slide.
15: Interesting, but inconsistent.  One of your better fashion poses.. Halo on one side of the composite (where you were added in), blur on other side.. Harshlight of the background doesn't really match your lighting.. But... Best shot so far..
16: Pretty bikini shot.. You're over softened, but that's standard.. You also look a tad stiff.. But background's mostly not blown (details in the rocks would be nice, but that's minor).. And once again.. Pretty girl in.. Pretty girl out..  Much gets a pass..
17: Another badly blown out snapshot.
18: Nice candid.. Bad makeup.. You look orange and there's banding around your face.. This could have been a nice pic with a little more care given.
19: Bad.. Blown highlights (major theme in your port).. Bad choice of background colors (hides the product you're holding), etc, etc, etc..
20: Not bad.. I don't get pastel girl in grey bathroom.. But at least the colors all show.. Nothing's blown out..  Angle makes your ankles look bigger than your neck..

Now.. There's any number of pics in there I might have liked an aspect or two.. Or how you looked (although you need to work on relaxing and engaging the camera.. Whether you're looking at it or not..) And sent a nice note.. But this is the honesty you claimed is needed for everyone.

One last bit of honesty.

Since your port needs work (as do many, including my own..)  Maybe it's best to focus on that instead of worrying what people you don't know are saying about ports that aren't yours..

I mean.. Does this really affect you?  Is it really a valuable use of your time?

Just an opinion.

I don't believe she ever asked for a critique of her port... She simply stated that she's tired of seeing the "Myspace" quality photos (Which none of her images could EVER be compared to) getting unrealistic praises from a variety of members...
Bad form.

T H Taylor wrote:

I don't believe she ever asked for a critique of her port... She simply stated that she's tired of seeing the "Myspace" quality photos (Which none of her images could EVER be compared to) getting unrealistic praises from a variety of members...
Bad form.

a) She posted in the critique forum.
b) She made a call for honesty. In fact demanded it. (I assumed her title was supposed to be "for ONCE" maybe she only did mean honesty for certain "ones"?)  My HONEST point was that opinions differ.  I did point out that it was only my opinion.. And even that my opinion is coming out of a different style of photography..

Either honesty is good.. Or it's not..

Make up your mind.

Doug Vosler wrote:

W.G.

Critique all mine.... ready.... go!

Boss, stop.. The whole point I was trying to make was that these were just opinions.. Mine aren't any more right or wrong than hers..

It's annoying when people declare themselves the final arbiters of taste..  You want valuable input.. Get MANY opinions.. Cull out the ones of people who's work you're not moved by..  Find out where the themes lie in the remaining opinions.. Figure out how to apply it to what you do..

If I ever start a "I will give you final judgement on your work threads" and I'm not joking... Please kick me in the nuts.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I still say focusing on improving your own work is a more valuable way to spend time than complaining about other's...

*Applause*

Doug Vosler wrote:

W.G.

Critique all mine.... ready.... go!

Now..... about my earlier question.... #11?

Heh... funny how the OP disappeared.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
a) She posted in the critique forum.
b) She made a call for honesty. In fact demanded it. (I assumed her title was supposed to be "for ONCE" maybe she only did mean honesty for certain "ones"?)  My HONEST point was that opinions differ.  I did point out that it was only my opinion.. And even that my opinion is coming out of a different style of photography..

Either honesty is good.. Or it's not..


Make up your mind.

Perhaps this thread was posted in the inappropriate forum but... Even if it is in the Critique fourm, she never stated "Critique me" or, "What's your honest opinion of my port" W.G...?  She was obviously venting and, looking for others who shared her same feelings and distaste for this sort of "gwc phone pic" thing...You offered, in response, a blazing, nitpicking critique arbitrarily and... that's bad form.
Even you stated that "opinions differ..."
That probably would have been enough said, don't you think?

I've seen many of your other post... they're usually pretty insightful and entertaining...

Doug Harvey wrote:
So I see that it's situation normal around here. Bad spelling, punctuation and a lot of complaining and no working on the ports.

I changed one of them teacher!

theedge wrote:
Heidi,

Your photos are great!  The Ones with the bad I mean bad photos are the ones who just go on forums to argue with people..

most of those imposters are gone I noticed..

I'm a fan of yours..

however if have

1. Hands On The Wall
2. Train Tracks
3. Corporate Emo or Gothic Photos
4. Charlie Angels..Hand As Gun Pose
5. Fairy Tale Or Wings Photos--I Will Get Upset..Unless It's Victoria Secrets..


I Will Come In Strong With Pointed Comments..

Your photos are class...

The Edge--GMX

T

I have seen a few train tracks shots that I liked. One from a model named Liz Ashley taked by Jarvis....that shot rocks! but I am confused by "hands on the wall" Can someone post a cliche shot of "hands on the wall"
Thanks
Thomas
PS....I see you work with Jaimie.....is she not the best model ever! That girl rocks!!! I like the B&w shot you did with her.

Miss Nicole wrote:
I only leave negative comments on a shot if the member has asked for a critique. Otherwise if the work is crap I leave no comment at all. However, any negative comments I leave are done in the most constructive way possible. We aren't here to tear each other apart.

exactly- thats why i say "nothing at all"

W.G. Rowland wrote:

Boss, stop.. The whole point I was trying to make was that these were just opinions.. Mine aren't any more right or wrong than hers..

It's annoying when people declare themselves the final arbiters of taste..  You want valuable input.. Get MANY opinions.. Cull out the ones of people who's work you're not moved by..  Find out where the themes lie in the remaining opinions.. Figure out how to apply it to what you do..

If I ever start a "I will give you final judgement on your work threads" and I'm not joking... Please kick me in the nuts.

unfortunately, when i have posted workl to get critiqued... I've recieved 1 or two responses.  so, the range of opinions recieved was not very.. varied.

I wasn't crowning you king or anything, you just seemed ready and willing to perform critiques

Michael Kirst wrote:



I'm calling bullshit on this one too. Studio lighting on the model. Obviously the outdoor marsh shot has natural lighting. Look at the shadows from the blades of grass on the water.... shot at midday would be my guess. Then how is it that the right shoulder of model is totally shaded??

There is a way to produce the picture the way the model says it happened but I want to hear from the model the exact photographers setup. (which I highly doubt he did).
?

Again... you might have been there but not when the picture was taken.

Ok, I can answer this, first of all go to my myspace and look at my blog, there is a picture that I took of the place before we started shooting. The picture was take on a dock at "makeovermajiks" house. The photographer Barry Vaught took the picture. He had me standing on the dock facing the water and had two lights with the white thing on it.. I don't get why you think it's a fake when it isn't...the only pic that I have that I have not been there when the background was shot is the picture of me and the Miami skyline..
Beleive it or not..up to you..

MsHeidi wrote:
What is the matter with people here??? When you see a picture that looks like it's taken with a diposable camera and over retouched in Photoshop to make it look even wors, you give a "oh my god what a great picture" comment, and you know that your telling a lie..WHY???
Why can't people be honest and tell these models and photographers that they need alot more practise??

DAMN!!!!

Those comments are most likely made the perverts who roam the streets of Model Mayhem