Doug Vosler wrote:

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

I'm running into the same problem.  I've spent considerable time on a shoot and came up with half a dozen images that the client loved.  I'm trying to select one for my portfolio and posted in the critique section.  Think I get any responses?  One or two.  Someone else posts complete crap and the thread is eight pages long.... 

I don't get it...

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!!!!

For the most part, I agree.

It's not that people love the pictures that were taken with cellphones, they are just trying to encourage people that have potential.

If someone doesn't ask outright for a critique, it's generally not done on pic comments.

MsHeidi wrote:

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..

Don't know if Mike believes it or not.. But I believe you..

Reason it LOOKS fake is exactly what you described..  Artificial light that doesn't match the natural light of the surrounding..  See the highlight along the edge of your right side, and the shadow along the left..  That's the kind of thing you see more in studio lighting than naturally outdoors.. Nothing wrong with it.. As I think I said before it's probably the best exposed of any of your shots..

Back to the original issue.  I've had the pleasure and privilidge of hanging out (and working with) plenty of amateur photographers around my level, and some serious professionals.  While I focused on nitpicks in your port.  My point was meant to be in keeping with yours.  You may be laughing at some girl with myspace pics..  But someone else is going to be laughing their ass off at yours.  It's just how things work..

That in mind, I'd rather TRY (be lying if I said I didn't snark, too, from time to time.. Like.. Today, for instance..) to focus on my work.

If MM were a level playing field and everyone were working at the same level that'd be one thing.  But MM has 200,000+ members and growing.  I don't think there are 200,000 high caliber professionals out there.  So just because you can't understand why someone's getting compliments on pics you don't like..  I guarantee someone's asking the same question about you..

The point?

Let it go.

Paramour Productions wrote:

I'm running into the same problem.  I've spent considerable time on a shoot and came up with half a dozen images that the client loved.  I'm trying to select one for my portfolio and posted in the critique section.  Think I get any responses?  One or two.  Someone else posts complete crap and the thread is eight pages long.... 

I don't get it...

Link me. I'll tell my opinion for what it's worth.

MsHeidi wrote:

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..

I've gotten this before on image I've shot where I drag studio lighting outside.  It is a specific look and not everyone likes it, I happen to. 

But you certainly gave the right answer!

Ransom J wrote:

Link me. I'll tell my opinion for what it's worth.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=98776

Ransom J wrote:

Link me. I'll tell my opinion for what it's worth.

nice composition on the avatar shot, by the way... 

elisabeth eagle wrote:
looks real to me- i have had several photographers tell me that these pics weren't taken in a certain spot that i've said it was- what do they know they weren't there.???

Some photographers have insisted that this was a composite until I showed them the video of it being made....



The very same shooters asked me what the location was for this shot, which I DID composite (and obviously so, if you ask me)...

Paramour Productions wrote:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=98776

My opinion. It looks too busy in the images. Your lighting is ok, but I'd try shooting from another angle. What was your light setup?

Paramour Productions wrote:

elisabeth eagle wrote:
looks real to me- i have had several photographers tell me that these pics weren't taken in a certain spot that i've said it was- what do they know they weren't there.???

Some photographers have insisted that this was a composite until I showed them the video of it being made....


The very same shooters asked me what the location was for this shot, which I DID composite (and obviously so, if you ask me)...

Legacy:


No, just good depth of field. That's what you should've done with the other image because my eyes keeps bouncing around towards the background. either blur the back ground to a degree or focus solely on the model.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
what? your port kicks BUTT! Who cares what everyone else says about it? If you like it thats all that matters but now something like about my first post on page one- that i see a problem with

actually he can benefit from other point of views. sometimes photographers can be so caughtup on what they think is good, they limit their work.

Legacys 7 wrote:
My opinion. It looks too busy in the images. Your lighting is ok, but I'd try shooting from another angle. What was your light setup?

I experimented with various DOF and this was what I liked best as I wanted to maintain some definition of the torches...  Also, there was limited room.  I suppose I could increase the DOF in post, but I sort of like the look.

Glad you think the lighting is "ok", though...  Here's the setup:

elisabeth eagle wrote:
hmmm- like i just said? you like it who cares? apparently too many people care about other peoples work when they need to be looking at their own

We can all learn something.  I produce work for others, not for myself.  So it is important for me to understand how others see it.  Legacy made a perfectly valid point.  I made a decision which runs counter to his liking.  Maybe I made the wrong one?  Maybe not.  There is no black and white, it's all just grey.  We shot, we get feedback, we analyze and then we shoot some more...

Paramour Productions wrote:

I experimented with various DOF and this was what I liked best as I wanted to maintain some definition of the torches...  Also, there was limited room.  I suppose I could increase the DOF in post, but I sort of like the look.

Glad you think the lighting is "ok", though...  Here's the setup:

got it. If you want to keep the torch in your work, I'd try a different angle. Make it more visually interesting. Mayhaps try shooting her close up looking up with her standing between the torch. I say this because it is a bit too much activity going on in the image. It's a bit busy for my eyes. Somewhat flat in dimension. you do know how to light. Just try from another angle.

elisabeth eagle wrote:
hmmm- like i just said? you like it who cares? apparently too many people care about other peoples work when they need to be looking at their own

Well the man did ask. and that attitude will only get you so far. there are alot of people out there who are in this to make a living and if you think that you are the shit solely on what you believe in your mind, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. even the well knowns learn something new.

Legacys 7 wrote:

got it. If you want to keep the torch in your work, I'd try a different angle. Make it more visually interesting. Mayhaps try shooting her close up looking up with her standing between the torch. I say this because it is a bit too much activity going on in the image. It's a bit busy for my eyes. Somewhat flat in dimension. you do know how to light. Just try from another angle.

Next time.  Now to the original question (mine) of the six, which do you like best.  Feel free to take this to the other thread...

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Truth? Truth? You can't handle the truth. Ok Ok...truth. Why do I always feel like the English teacher? Honestly, I can't get past the merits of a post when the grammar and spelling are so poorly executed "How about so freakin' honesty for ones!!!" ??

In other words, you lost me at hello.

I don't think english is the OP's first language.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Glad you think the lighting is "ok", though...  Here's the setup:

I feel it is too technically correct. Something needs to be out of place to make a picture interesting.

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

Nice job bitching about people not being honest and then bitching at someone for being honest. You posted in the critique thread. What did you expect to get?

And it does look like you were superimposed into that shot. Maybe you weren't...but that's how it looks.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Nice job bitching about people not being honest and then bitching at someone for being honest. You posted in the critique thread. What did you expect to get?

And it does look like you were superimposed into that shot. Maybe you weren't...but that's how it looks.

Lets keep it civil now

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Well, now that the thread is no longer in critique.. I apologize for critiquing.

Why?  Your critique was to illistrate your point!  The intent was lost by some.  Some people love my work and others do not, I find the same when I look at others work (photographers and models) -  sometimes I comment just to let them know I liked it and to encourage them, many, many times I have just bit my bottom lip and moved on!

The models with the non-pro images, well they sometimes show potental and need that little push to get better shots!  Other - just move on, the number of views vs lack of comments speaks for itsself.

Frog516 wrote:

Lets keep it civil now

I'm not trying to be uncivil...sorry if my use of the word "bitching" made it seem that way. I just find "bitching" a better word for complaining about something silly. Either way, I'm just pointing out that she's kind of being a hypocrite here.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

I'm not trying to be uncivil...sorry if my use of the word "bitching" made it seem that way. I just find "bitching" a better word for complaining about something silly. Either way, I'm just pointing out that she's kind of being a hypocrite here.

I agree with your point 100%, sometimes its just the way it is written, online it is very hard to read tone.

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!!!!

whenever I see this sort of thread I wonder.  it's such a "glass half empty" way of looking at the world.  there's plenty of honesty and dishonesty in the comments, as in most things.

I'm *always* honest in my comments.  if I see something really bad I usually won't say anything.  to some that's dishonest in and of itself, but I have a little test.

I ask myself whether what I'm about to say or do is 1) kind,  2) necessary,  3) true.  it's gotta be at least 2 out of 3.  unkind, unnecessary truth ain't enough for me. 

ymmv.

Frog516 wrote:

I agree with your point 100%, sometimes its just the way it is written, online it is very hard to read tone.

Yeah...I forget that sometimes...I just hope that in general people realize that I'm not a malicious person or anything.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Yeah...I forget that sometimes...I just hope that in general people realize that I'm not a malicious person or anything.

I think most people that have been around a bit know that.

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

I checked out each comment he made while viewing each photo he commented on and I have to say that he's accurate in his honesty.  He could've used a lot less tact but he didn't.  You wanted honesty and there it was.  Careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.  In this case, the truth obviously hurt.  And he never said that any of the photographers you worked with "sucks" he just pointed out the technical mistakes in their photos.  Live and learn...

Paramour Productions wrote:

Some photographers have insisted that this was a composite until I showed them the video of it being made....



The very same shooters asked me what the location was for this shot, which I DID composite (and obviously so, if you ask me)...

It doesn't look like a composite to me but the shot with the model on the football field is retouched so much that she looks like woman made out of wax.  No pores, no flaws.  No way.  Of course, this is the standard for a lot of magazines these days.  Unfortunately...