Jhomel wrote:
Hey..I don't mind negative comments
I'm rdy for it.

Post a photo.

Jhomel wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32106267
Thank you

You're welcome. You're a model, so I'll be kind, since I tend to fault photographers more than models.

The skin color is too saturated and there are no details in the blacks; a sign of a mediocre photographer. Thus, this photog most probably does not know how to direct models beyond asking them to lie on the bed and look sexy.

Now you could have also done better. There's nothing to engage the viewer with. Instead of just doing the beefcake thing, you could have projected your personality on to the photo, which you don't. The model must be the source of emotion in the photograph, and this photograph is devoid of any emotion, and is therefore not convincing. Your "ecstasy" looks faked more than anything. I fault the photog mostly on this, since he probably did not request anything beyond "lie there and look sexy".

Not impressed, sorry.

Francisco Castro wrote:

Hola Francisco,

Let me guess, you only used one light for this.

Again, barely any detail on the blacks, and ugly skin tone. I would have preferred for you to go straight b&w or color.

Now, I'm not a fan of Photoshop. Personally I never used it because I never had the artistic need to put unicorns in the background. I prefer to see the work done in front of the lens through lighting, framing, and direction, than in post.

Now, I'm trying to figure out what you are wanting to say with this photo, and not much comes to mind, except to make this effect on the model's back. Since there are very little details on the black, it's hard to see the model's expression. Unless the model is just another nice shape in the frame, or a study in light and shadow, the expression is the focus of a photo: It's how emotion is transmitted, how the viewer is moved, especially if the model is the only element within the frame, as it is in this case.

Not impressed, sorry.

Barely StL wrote:
What say you, Jorge?

I say: Please post a photo.

DigitalWorldNY wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31988806

Snapshot.

DigitalWorldNY wrote:
you are absolutely right.. it is a snapshot. I was hoping for a little more than that to give me some insite to improve my skills....

Look at the work of photographers you admire, and attempt to copy them. Learn how light works, learn how shadows work. Keep your subject in focus.

Sorry, but you don't give me much to comment on.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
I am very picky and in a very grumpy mood.

Wow, you weren't kidding were you?

I'll have to start a thread like this next time I feel the need to take life out on strangers over the internet

Barely StL wrote:
18+
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31046398

Separation, separation, separation: learn to use a backlight. Your subjects blend into the background which is not good. Skin tones can be improved, and the image is dark. Also: What is this photo about?

When you have a single model in the photo, the image is about the subject (an illusion of psychology). When you have more than one, it is about the relationship between subjects (Or creating the illusion of a relationship). Here we see two models embracing because they were paid to. No illusion of a relationship exists.

Sorry but not impressed.

intense_puppy wrote:
Wow, you weren't kidding were you?

I'll have to start a thread like this next time I feel the need to take life out on strangers over the internet

Like I said, I want to be impressed, and yes, I feel grumpy today. You can't say that I did not give fair warning.

When I am impressed, people will know it.

Barely StL wrote:
18+
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31046398

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
Separation, separation, separation: learn to use a backlight. Your subjects blend into the background which is not good. Skin tones can be improved, and the image is dark. Also: What is this photo about?

When you have a single model in the photo, the image is about the subject (an illusion of psychology). When you have more than one, it is about the relationship between subjects (Or creating the illusion of a relationship). Here we see two models embracing because they were paid to. No illusion of a relationship exists.

Sorry but not impressed.

Actually neither model was paid. But thanks for your opinion.

Barely StL wrote:
Actually neither model was paid. But thanks for your opinion.

You're welcome. Whether the models were paid or not, is irrelevant. What is important is that the relationship between them is convincing.

Axioma wrote:
Okay, I am going to cheat a little, sorry .
You know I value your opinion lots so I wanted to see your reaction on (any of) these:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2507/setqq.jpg

Yes, you are cheating because you know very well how badly I want to work with you. I personally think we would make some very interesting and beautiful images together.

However, this is definitely not your best work. You have better photos in your port (My favorite is your avatar). Be that as it may, I think the most engaging one is #5, but it still falls short of being impressive. I will fault the tog on this one. Lighting, composition, and direction (considering the other photos as well) is below your standards. Don't slack: Work with good togs. You shouldn't work with anyone below the level of Neil Snape (who is always impressive), otherwise, you are exposing yourself to mediocre work.

Sorry, but not impressed.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:

Yes, you are cheating because you know very well how badly I want to work with you. I personally think we would make some very interesting and beautiful images together.

However, this is definitely not your best work. You have better photos in your port (My favorite is your avatar). Be that as it may, I think the most engaging one is #5, but it still falls short of being impressive. I will fault the tog on this one. Lighting, composition, and direction (considering the other photos as well) is below your standards. Don't slack: Work with good togs. You shouldn't work with anyone below the level of Neil Snape (who is always impressive), otherwise, you are exposing yourself to mediocre work.

Sorry, but not impressed.

okay thanks for your time Jorge, appreciated! they're not up yet and was trying to figure it out.
(hope you're feeling better soon btw )

Arts by Jayce wrote:
I like this thread, it is actually helpful to both parties my turn lol

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32092692

Indeed, I feel much better already.

Ah, the pensive shot! I was wondering when it was going to show up.

Pose is unnatural and stiff. Lighting is ok, but a bit flat, which makes the the subject look like a cutout against the white background.

Work with real models who can engage (yes, it is my favorite word, since photography is about engaging) the viewer, and learn how they do it, so you can work with non-professionals, and know how to direct them.

Sorry, but not impressed.

Axioma wrote:
okay thanks for your time Jorge, appreciated! they're not up yet and was trying to figure it out.
(hope you're feeling better soon btw )

No need to put them up. Like I said, you already have superior work in your port.

Thanks!

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
Indeed, I feel much better already.

Ah, the pensive shot! I was wondering when it was going to show up.

Pose is unnatural and stiff. Lighting is ok, but a bit flat, which makes the the subject look like a cutout against the white background.

Work with real llamas who can engage (yes, it is my favorite word, since photography is about engaging) the viewer, and learn how they do it, so you can work with non-professionals, and know how to direct them.

Sorry, but not impressed.

Thank you, glad you're feeling better. Thanks for the critique, everything you said is spot on. I'll work on it

beyond-the-surface wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32092295

"Ok model, stand there and look sexy in front of a school bus, a fence, and some dry branches."

My question is why? What is the context here besides what I wrote above?
The problem with these sort of photos is that the sexuality is not genuine. It's not the manifestation of the model's own sexuality for her own sake and satisfaction, but simply "looking sexy" to please the viewer. Therefore, her sexuality looks unnatural, superficial, and fake.

Even though this is not an erotic photograph, this is the main problem with most erotic photography. The sexuality is rarely convincing, though I have seen a couple of photographers here do some actual good erotic work (Chip Willis, for example who I may not always like, but I do respect. He knows his business).

Not impressed, sorry.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
No need to put them up. Like I said, you already have superior work in your port.

Thanks!

Yeah well people who know their stuff are rare on this site. You must let me know when you're in Paris or the area again!

Curiosity: wondering when you find an expression genuine/engaging? is it something you can explain, or only know it when you see it?

How about this one? https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31989282 (also recent)

TDSImages wrote:
This...?

Just your run of the mill glamour shot. Nothing impressive, and overly Photoshopped. Lighting is ok, model is ok, that's about it.

Axioma wrote:
Yeah well people who know their stuff are rare on this site. You must let me know when you're in Paris or the area again!

Curiosity: wondering when you find an expression genuine/engaging? is it something you can explain, or only know it when you see it?

How about this one? https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31989282 (also recent)

*Clears throat*

All arts, be it painting, sculpture, music, film, etc. are about engaging the recipient, be it a viewer or listener. Let's call the recipient a viewer for now, since we are dealing with photography. What I mean by engagement is that the viewer will see him or herself reflected in the work of art in some way. All good art is but a mirror, as well as a stone in the shoe: the viewer is not left indifferent. Something must be communicated, and that something must be truthful.

Now, in photography you are dealing with a capture of a subject or an object. The subject is human, the object is not. When the photographer captures truth from a model, the model is the subject of the photo. When truth is not captured (as in "look sexy" as opposed to a genuine expression of sexuality, for example) the model ceases to be a subject, and is relegated to the role of simply an object within the frame. A subject is engaging, an object is not.

Compare a painting of a tree by Van Gogh, and a simply capable painter (and mediocrity here has nothing to do with mastering the technique or not. A mediocre painter may or may not have good technique. An artist creates his own technique.). The not so good painter paints a tree. Van Gogh paints a self portrait. You can see his personality, his grief, his anguish, and his sadness. We even see this in his signature, which is a simple and melancholic "Vincent". Van Gogh makes a tree engaging to the viewer. The viewer can recognize himself in this tree and sees himself reflected in the personality of "Vincent".

Same goes with a good photograph. Take a Helmut Newton, for example and the icy sexuality that prevails in his work. His work is distinguishable from any other photographer, especially a lesser one (and I've seen many parodies of his work here, I dare not call them imitations). He captures something truthful about himself, by creating an illusion of psychology in the model, and by lighting and composition.

So basically it comes down to this: Truth = Engaging. Subject (as opposed to object) = engaging.

Check "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger. Here's the link to a pdf: http://engl101-f12-lombardy.wikispaces. … Seeing.pdf

Critical reading for anyone involved in the visual arts.

Hope this makes sense.

Regarding the photo you linked to. What do you think?

Summersbreeze wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32108438
I am very new to modeling. So even if your critique does stem from grumpiness I find the honesty very humbling and much appreciated. Thank you.

I don't mean to be mean, but don't ever do the pensive pose ever again. It's not beautiful, nor poetic: It's commonplace. Look at good magazines, study expressions, and posing.

Good luck!

sospix wrote:
Well, I don't know if I kin impress ya  .  .  .  but, yer welcome ta throw stones at this one if ya like  .  .  . 



SOS

Not impressed, and it's not about throwing stones.

Too much post for my taste. What is this photo about?
The model looks like she could be attractive, but her face is too tense, and not flattering at all.

_eMMe_ wrote:
I'll try with this one:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31951359

Sorry I skipped you.

Ok, I'm impressed.

Not so much by the photographers work, though I do like the composition and light, though a little soft and "poetic" for my taste. I am impressed by your courage to not look your best, in order to create an interesting and beautiful image.

Lovely work!

Jorge Kreimer wrote:

Not impressed, and it's not about throwing stones.

Too much post for my taste. What is this photo about?
The model looks like she could be attractive, but her face is too tense, and not flattering at all.

It's part of a series for a mag spread, showing different styled pool shot settings based on the 50's and 60's genre  .  .  .  not really about the model, more the overall mood  .  .  .  thanks for the look  .  .  .

SOS