Forums > Critique > Feedback on this shot??

Photographer

RingoJ66

Posts: 246

Los Angeles, California, US

Apr 07 14 11:03 pm Link

Photographer

Good Egg Productions

Posts: 16713

Orlando, Florida, US

I think it needs to be labeled 'M' and can't be used as an avatar.

Apr 07 14 11:09 pm Link

Photographer

RingoJ66

Posts: 246

Los Angeles, California, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think it needs to be labeled 'M' and can't be used as an avatar.

no idea what you mean

Apr 07 14 11:24 pm Link

Photographer

LaMarco

Posts: 904

Berwick, Maine, US

It is tech a great shot. It has good color, nice lighting, nice lil touches like the posters on the wall. Its not super jazzy by far, but it is far from bad.

Apr 07 14 11:27 pm Link

Photographer

Stephen Roscoe

Posts: 150

Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

I don't like her hand position but other then that I like it, has grunge appeal.

Apr 08 14 12:18 am Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 33877

Arcata, California, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think it needs to be labeled 'M' and can't be used as an avatar.

RingoJ66 wrote:
no idea what you mean

Your model is not nude, but you've got a bunch of nude centerfolds in the picture. Granted, they're hardly visible and definitely not resolvable at the avatar scale, but it would save you some hassle in the future if you read up on the MM rules on avatars and on NSFW (not safe for work) images.

Apr 08 14 01:37 am Link

Photographer

RingoJ66

Posts: 246

Los Angeles, California, US

Orca Bay Images wrote:

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think it needs to be labeled 'M' and can't be used as an avatar.

Your model is not nude, but you've got a bunch of nude centerfolds in the picture. Granted, they're hardly visible and definitely not resolvable at the avatar scale, but it would save you some hassle in the future if you read up on the MM rules on avatars and on NSFW (not safe for work) images.

oh. I think I'm ok

Apr 08 14 04:40 am Link

Photographer

RingoJ66

Posts: 246

Los Angeles, California, US

Stephen Roscoe wrote:
I don't like her hand position but other then that I like it, has grunge appeal.

I didn't like her hand position either

Apr 08 14 04:41 am Link

Photographer

Don Garrett

Posts: 4984

Escondido, California, US

personally, I think we have more than one image here; The model, and the wall. It is hard to make either the dominant element in the image. I would rather see the model with a clean wall, this background is just too busy, and has too important of content for the model to be the central element, in my opinion. I'd also get a little closer to the model, in this case. Less background, more model !
-Don

Apr 08 14 04:51 am Link

Photographer

Dean Johnson Photo

Posts: 70925

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

RingoJ66 wrote:

oh. I think I'm ok

The image is mature (NSFW) and not suitable for avatar use.

Apr 08 14 04:54 am Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 4005

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

It's boring.

No mood, blasé lighting effort, very distracting bed cover, looks staged to me, nothing about this effort sells the story.

That's just my take on it.

Apr 08 14 05:05 am Link

Photographer

RingoJ66

Posts: 246

Los Angeles, California, US

Rik Williams wrote:
It's boring.

No mood, blasé lighting effort, very distracting bed cover, looks staged to me, nothing about this effort sells the story.

That's just my take on it.

ok thanks. What do you mean looks staged?

Apr 10 14 11:48 pm Link