Marshall Arts wrote:
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...

Someone else who "knows" what the photographer did - LOL.  Yes it is the standard for many, and some of them even pay the freight.    I also get that comment on the headshot with the read background as well, if you look at the full rez shot you'll see pores - very tiny, flawless pores.  She's just old enough to shoot and has amazing skin, I hire great makeup artists who spend hours working on the model before shooting them (there are a couple of overshopped images in my port prior to this, but not this one).  This image also has clear pore structure.  If you want I'll post a high rez crop.  The last shoot I did (the one with the blue fog) also has the model looking flawless.  My makeup artist (who was the lead makeup artist for Playboy UK for three years) spent three hours working on her prior to the shoot.  You don't have to do a lot of post work on skin when they are airbrushed to perfection before you click the shutter.

I have no interest in shooting reality.  That is not what glamour is to me nor to those who ask me to shoot it.  But to each their own...

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)...

I don't care if they're composite or not and I can't imagine arguing the point or condemning because they are or aren't. These are both absolutely spectacular images...THAT is what they are.

Legacys 7 wrote:

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.

yes, but i don't do this to make a living- perhaps if i was 5'8 100lbs, blonde, with green eyes and not a big nose
I do this solely because I love it and believe me there is nothing that will disappoint me in this business that hasn't already done so. I was telling him what I thought about his portfolio through the eyes of a model- and I didn't even say I was talking about you... guilty conscience? And I don't think that other photographers who have really crappy work in their portfolio should be giving him advice- thats all I was even saying.

Frog516 wrote:

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

I hope so!

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Is it ok to admit I've totally lost track of what this thread is about now?

I think it is about football or blue stones.

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

I agree totally. When i did my critique thread which was in NO way superficial nor overly kind I picked up several Trolls who felt they had to bash everything I did. I must say that i too tire of the complaining on MM BUT i think adding good comments on bad pictures lowers the integrity of the entire site. I also will add that I too think W.G.'s comment on the #11 is accurate. Maybe it's to much fill flash but it looks more like greenscreen. But does that really matter? After all, the OP DIDN'T ask for our comments on her work so maybe that is off topic? I too am guilty of to much bad comments and to little good. that's the way i learned and that's the way I teach. Not good for all but if you suck it in and look at the comments constructively you may find some of it valid for you and you may advance more quickly than getting all the ego stroking fluff comments do much more prevalent here on MM.
Again, I think fluff comments lowers the credibility of the site AND the people making them. Because when i see comments I go look at the portfolio fo the person that made them. i weigh their comments against what I see in their ports. Now if i like their ports but they are complimenting an awful image..what am I to think? Are they just being nice? Trying to get the model to work with them (Most likely)? Or do they really like the crud and their post is some sort of visual mistake.

Mike Walker wrote:

I agree totally. When i did my critique thread which was in NO way superficial nor overly kind I picked up several Trolls who felt they had to bash everything I did. I must say that i too tire of the complaining on MM BUT i think adding good comments on bad pictures lowers the integrity of the entire site. I also will add that I too think W.G.'s comment on the #11 is accurate. Maybe it's to much fill flash but it looks more like greenscreen. But does that really matter? After all, the OP DIDN'T ask for our comments on her work so maybe that is off topic? I too am guilty of to much bad comments and to little good. that's the way i learned and that's the way I teach. Not good for all but if you suck it in and look at the comments constructively you may find some of it valid for you and you may advance more quickly than getting all the ego stroking fluff comments do much more prevalent here on MM.
Again, I think fluff comments lowers the credibility of the site AND the people making them. Because when i see comments I go look at the portfolio fo the person that made them. i weigh their comments against what I see in their ports. Now if i like their ports but they are complimenting an awful image..what am I to think? Are they just being nice? Trying to get the model to work with them (Most likely)? Or do they really like the crud and their post is some sort of visual mistake.

Oh, yeah.. Now I remember.. If you're guilty of the thing you're harping against.. It's probably best NOT to throw that first stone..  That's what this thread was about... For me, at least.  (Oh, and the fact that damn near everyone - me included - is usually guilty on some level of whatever it is they're harping about.)

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.

To be fair, the OP is Norwegian.
I cut people a break on spelling & grammar if they're posting in a second language.
On the other hand, I'd NEVER take anyone who posts a pic like her "blue" shot and then says "No nudes" seriously.

Mike Walker wrote:

I agree totally. When i did my critique thread which was in NO way superficial nor overly kind I picked up several Trolls who felt they had to bash everything I did. I must say that i too tire of the complaining on MM BUT i think adding good comments on bad pictures lowers the integrity of the entire site. I also will add that I too think W.G.'s comment on the #11 is accurate. Maybe it's to much fill flash but it looks more like greenscreen. But does that really matter? After all, the OP DIDN'T ask for our comments on her work so maybe that is off topic? I too am guilty of to much bad comments and to little good. that's the way i learned and that's the way I teach. Not good for all but if you suck it in and look at the comments constructively you may find some of it valid for you and you may advance more quickly than getting all the ego stroking fluff comments do much more prevalent here on MM.
Again, I think fluff comments lowers the credibility of the site AND the people making them. Because when i see comments I go look at the portfolio fo the person that made them. i weigh their comments against what I see in their ports. Now if i like their ports but they are complimenting an awful image..what am I to think? Are they just being nice? Trying to get the model to work with them (Most likely)? Or do they really like the crud and their post is some sort of visual mistake.

I totally agree with this. I get tired of seing fluffed coments, I dont give them unless I really mean it... I am one that believes in constructive critisism, if I wasn't I wouldn't be doing it anymore. Sometimes I want to say how bad the picture is but I can't because most people fall in love with there work and they can't take the critique. The way I see it if someone is leaving a negative coment as long as they know what they are talking about and have some technical or artistic reason behind it I'll take it as a lesson, and learn from it...

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Is it ok to admit I've totally lost track of what this thread is about now?

I thought it was about poor spelling.

Cecil Sharps wrote:

I thought it was about poor spelling.

I thought it was about telling the OP her port is perfect.