Chris Keeling wrote:
How bout a Glamour guy's viewpoint on the entries.  While I'm as guilty as anyone about discussing thread issues, and I'm pretty sure from the OP's description that is one of the intended purposes of DT, this thread does need a little more critique to keep it worthwhile.

I'll do my best to give my top three each day and my thoughts on them, and the winner if it's not in my Top 3.


Sept. 7......

My third choice was Lily McClane

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8255253
18+

Very cool, I love the ghosting, great form also...she's beautifull.  I've really got no issues with it, but it just isn't quite Wow enough for a vote.


Second choice was csART

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=7838614
18+

I love Craig's stuff, and this is good as usual.  But I feel the dark water, dark bushes, and dark hair were just too over the top and distracting in comparison to the model.  The stood out too much and kept the image from flowing like Craig's usually do.


My vote went to Bellinger.....

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8291050
18+

Beautifull and romantic, everything flowed together perfectly.  This also had the Wow factor and made me go back for a second look.

yes this is what i'm talking about.
and while i dodn't agree wuth all your choices I have gone back and looked at them with a different eye.

Bellinger's i liked a lot but tries a little to hard to be different. I agree totally with your thoughts on Craig's. I'll comment on a few others tomorrow morning. When the drugs- legal and therapeutic-wear off

jandj studios wrote:

yes this is what i'm talking about.
and while i dodn't agree wuth all your choices I have gone back and looked at them with a different eye.

Bellinger's i liked a lot but tries a little to hard to be different. I agree totally with your thoughts on Craig's. I'll comment on a few others tomorrow morning. When the drugs- legal and therapeutic-wear off

I've got no problem with Bellinger trying too hard when he succeeds as well as he did.  Trying real hard is the difference between being great and simply good. 

jandj studios wrote:
i didn't get back in time to vote. if i had i would have voyed for this one

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8279781

I love it for probably all the reasons many don't. It is a wonderfully updating of a classic sclupture. All abouy line and shape and shade and not the model- love susie- or sex- but idea and grace of line. Probably that is the exact reason some didn't vote for it. but that's what makes the contest interesting.

more later
night all

Thanks for the comment .... I only got 2 shots doing the Pasinting with light technic with Susie.   I'll try the other one sometime soon (already submitted once sometime ago).   It's a great way to capture her and she did a phenominal job with the long exposure time.   Many thanks to her.

As always, I am in awe of the shots that get posted her and very impressed with spmepne that has just started posting (Can't discuss as they are not on the list though).   

It has been great to see all the new people submitting pics too.   Though it does make it more difficult to get noticed I think .... I am still spending a good 45 minutes or more at the end of the day going over submissions.

Scott

MC 2 wrote:
Aren't "shared copyrights" and "full rights" contradictory?

Yeah that was sort of my point.

Was curious what meaning "shared copyright" could have. Not much input from those who actually do share though.

Chris Keeling wrote:

I've got no problem with Bellinger trying too hard when he succeeds as well as he did.  Trying real hard is the difference between being great and simply good. 

i understand what you are saying. not sure i made my point well. sometimes a shot cab try do to too many things and forgets the simple things. i think simple is usually best.
i think it is the symantics of the phrase trying too hard. iwhay i mean is the technique shouldn't dranw attebtion to itself. one should always try very hard to get it right which i thinks is what you are saying.
and as i say i really liked belliger's piece. just trying - maybe to hard- to get some discussion going.

jandj studios wrote:

i understand what you are saying. not sure i made my point well. sometimes a shot cab try do to too many things and forgets the simple things. i think simple is usually best.
i think it is the symantics of the phrase trying too hard. iwhay i mean is the technique shouldn't dranw attebtion to itself. one should always try very hard to get it right which i thinks is what you are saying.
and as i say i really liked belliger's piece. just trying - maybe to hard- to get some discussion going.

I understand what you are saying, and have no argument with it.    There are many who share what I perceive your viewpoint to be, that a picture is best taken and laid on the table as is.

I see it the other way though.  I can be extremely impressed with a fantastic image right out of the camera, or I can be extremely impressed with an image that spent hours and hours in photoshop and graphic design.  I personally don't limit my viewpoint on any image and only judge it on whether it's good or not.

Neither of our way of thinking is right or wrong, it's simply our way. 

Chris Keeling wrote:
I understand what you are saying, and have no argument with it.    There are many who share what I perceive your viewpoint to be, that a picture is best taken and laid on the table as is.

I see it the other way though.  I can be extremely impressed with a fantastic image right out of the camera, or I can be extremely impressed with an image that spent hours and hours in photoshop and graphic design.  I personally don't limit my viewpoint on any image and only judge it on whether it's good or not.

Neither of our way of thinking is right or wrong, it's simply our way. 

well no that's not what i meant exactly. i just mean the techical aspect of the picture - whatever they are- photoshop, burning and dodging - color- compostion. none of that should draw attention to itself. when i look at an infrared picture my first thought should not be how or why but wow. in the case of the picture by bellinger i just didn't know where to look. too much in the frame. i love the blue and the moon and the figure but there is a lot going on in the other areas around the edges that confuses my eye.

jandj studios wrote:

well no that's not what i meant exactly. i just mean the techical aspect of the picture - whatever they are- photoshop, burning and dodging - color- compostion. none of that should draw attention to itself. when i look at an infrared picture my first thought should not be how or why but wow. in the case of the picture by bellinger i just didn't know where to look. too much in the frame. i love the blue and the moon and the figure but there is a lot going on in the other areas around the edges that confuses my eye.

Oh.  Got ya.     I'll go back and take a look at it again.  I just remember thinking it was cool. 

Tommy Dee wrote:

Yeah that was sort of my point.

Was curious what meaning "shared copyright" could have. Not much input from those who actually do share though.

Maybe they mean "joint" - maybe they shoot as a trade for part of the copyright.

MC 2 wrote:
Maybe they mean "joint"

When you grant "joint" rights, what exactly are you granting? In what way would that be different from "shared"?

MC 2 wrote:
- maybe they shoot as a trade for part of the copyright.

Which "part"? I would be interested in seeing your paperwork for this if you wouldn't mind sharing ... or even jointing.

Do you register your rights with the gummint? When you give "joint" rights what sorts of contracts do you use? What rights are you granting the other party? The right to sell the images? Does it matter if the other party decides to sell exclusive rights?

Tommy Dee wrote:

MC 2 wrote:
Maybe they mean "joint"

When you grant "joint" rights, what exactly are you granting? In what way would that be different from "shared"?


Which "part"? I would be interested in seeing your paperwork for this if you wouldn't mind sharing ... or even jointing.

Do you register your rights with the gummint? When you give "joint" rights what sorts of contracts do you use? What rights are you granting the other party? The right to sell the images? Does it matter if the other party decides to sell exclusive rights?

I don't do it so I have nothing to show you.

If it's something you want to do there are two things you need to determine, percentage of ownership and decision making control.  For intstance, you could set it up where both all parties need to agree to license terms or whether there's a controlling party who makes decision and both parties get paid.

Or you could agree that each party gets to take 100% of the income they can generate on their own. That would be an interesting deal.

In a lot of ways, it's just semantics because you can make a usage agreement that allows the same thing that you'd write in to a joint copyright agreement.

It's probably easier to sell a share of a copyright than it is to assign your usage license, but that's about it.

Mike Caffrey wrote:
I don't do it so I have nothing to show you.

So what was the point of your replies?

Tommy Dee wrote:

So what was the point of your replies?

You asked me a direct question, so I gave you my best answer.

Forgive me for taking your question at face value and not suggestion that you ask it someplace else or ask a lawyer or some other dismissive anti-social answer. I thought you had a genuine question on how or why to do it, so I'm a little surprised that you'd reply with a snarky answer when if you didn't like the response, you could have just ignored it.

LeDeux Art wrote:
are we bumping again?

Nope noooooooo Bumping

Elizabeth Claret wrote:
Maybe this is just me being nitpicky, but I feel I need to ask about this.

What's the deal with people putting NON 18+ images in the 18+PoTD contest? Implieds are implied! They're not nude! That's like putting a fully clothed model up and saying "Well she's naked under her clothes." ESPECIALLY when you look in the portfolio and it's not even marked M.

If it was marked M in the portfolio, then I could say, well, maybe there's something I'm not seeing, or this person feels that this image is in fact 18+. But when it's not even marked M, you KNOW it's not 18+ and yet you enter it anyway.

Can these be disqualified?

I'm sorry again if this is inappropriate, but I've seen it happen at least three times a week, and it drives me nuts. Kind of like when you enter a blond into a redhead competition.

If it's happening as often as 3 times per week you shouldn't have any trouble going back and finding us at least 2 examples of this happening without James disqualifying them.

Please supply the links because I haven't seen it happen.  James is very good and diligent about this rule.

Elizabeth Claret wrote:
Maybe this is just me being nitpicky, but I feel I need to ask about this.

What's the deal with people putting NON 18+ images in the 18+PoTD contest? Implieds are implied! They're not nude! That's like putting a fully clothed model up and saying "Well she's naked under her clothes." ESPECIALLY when you look in the portfolio and it's not even marked M.

If it was marked M in the portfolio, then I could say, well, maybe there's something I'm not seeing, or this person feels that this image is in fact 18+. But when it's not even marked M, you KNOW it's not 18+ and yet you enter it anyway.

Can these be disqualified?

I'm sorry again if this is inappropriate, but I've seen it happen at least three times a week, and it drives me nuts. Kind of like when you enter a blond into a redhead competition.

If you feel an image doesn't meet the criteria for the contest, PM me with the name of the person who entered it & I'll evaluate it.  I don't always catch every image & I DO disqualify some.

Keep in mind that some images qualify even if there's no nudity... for instance this image:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8111352
from my port was declared 18+ by the Mods.

Chris Keeling wrote:

If it's happening as often as 3 times per week you shouldn't have any trouble going back and finding us at least 2 examples of this happening without James disqualifying them.

Please supply the links because I haven't seen it happen.  James is very good and diligent about this rule.

I'll happily supply the links to James. As I don't want to be considered outing anyone, and really, he's the only one who needs to be concerned about it.

Elizabeth Claret wrote:
I'll happily supply the links to James. As I don't want to be considered outing anyone, and really, he's the only one who needs to be concerned about it.

Like I said, I can't catch everything & some days I don't get to view all the links before I do vote counts.

I DO have a life away from the computer LOL.

This's why I regularly ask for help, so send me anything you're concerned about.

SLE Photography wrote:

Like I said, I can't catch everything & some days I don't get to view all the links before I do vote counts.

I DO have a life away from the computer LOL.

This's why I regularly ask for help, so send me anything you're concerned about.

Who said you were allowed a life away from the computer?! What is this nonsense?!

Elizabeth Claret wrote:

I'll happily supply the links to James. As I don't want to be considered outing anyone, and really, he's the only one who needs to be concerned about it.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

In no way shape or form is supplying a link to an image in the Competition thread considered "outing", or any other violation.  What would you be outing them for?  Entering a competition?

I think you are grossly exagerating what you are seeing.

Chris Keeling wrote:

Yeah, that's what I thought.

In no way shape or form is supplying a link to an image in the Competition thread considered "outing", or any other violation.  What would you be outing them for?  Entering a competition?

I think you are grossly exagerating what you are seeing.

I think you're trying to start a fight. And I think it really is none of your business, as you have no control nor say in the competition other than your daily vote or contribution. Why are you concerning yourself with it?

Elizabeth Claret wrote:

I think you're trying to start a fight. And I think it really is none of your business, as you have no control nor say in the competition other than your daily vote or contribution. Why are you concerning yourself with it?

Why were you?  Most likely for the same reason.  If you are going to make accusations or have concerns, please be prepared to back up those accusations or concerns when you are questioned on authenticity.

Plus if it's truly a problem, why wouldn't you want to supply links so something can be done about it? 

I'm of the opinion that you came in here looking for a fight in the first place, and now you're upset when someone gave it to you.

Chris Keeling wrote:

Why were you?  Most likely for the same reason.  If you are going to make accusations or have concerns, please be prepared to back up those accusations or concerns when you are questioned on authenticity.

Plus if it's truly a problem, why wouldn't you want to supply links so something can be done about it? 

I'm of the opinion that you came in here looking for a fight in the first place, and now you're upset when someone gave it to you.

It's not your place to question the authenticity. James has been supplied links, agreed with me, and that was the end of it. I came in here asking if I was the only person who has noticed it, which apparently I am because you can't see it for yourself. I'm not going to sit here and continue to defend myself against you, Chris because there is no point to it. At this point you're acting no better than a common troll, arguing for the sake of argument because you haven't gotten your way. I have no need to defend my actions, nor should you be questioning them.

Elizabeth Claret wrote:

It's not your place to question the authenticity. James has been supplied links, agreed with me, and that was the end of it. I came in here asking if I was the only person who has noticed it, which apparently I am because you can't see it for yourself. I'm not going to sit here and continue to defend myself against you, Chris because there is no point to it. At this point you're acting no better than a common troll, arguing for the sake of argument because you haven't gotten your way. I have no need to defend my actions, nor should you be questioning them.

Baloney.  You supplied 3 instances per week to James where this is happening?  I've seen it twice since the thread started, and one of those times James caught it, the other time he didn't.

I stand by my statement that you are grossly over exxagerating the problem.

MC 2 wrote:
You asked me a direct question, so I gave you my best answer.

Tommy Dee wrote:
... Those of you who do: ...

Honestly I wasn't interested in random opions of what might be from someone who doesn't. I could provide those for myself.
***

A model sent me a photo of you that you had posted on the MM forums. It helped in my quest for understanding. Poor thing. But I am quite amused by your little Yosemite Sam dances. Perhaps I'll be able to trigger a few more as time goes on.

Thanks!
-Tom

MC 2 wrote:
I got the following message from Tommy Dee referencing you, but I don't really get what it has to do with you. Does it make and sense to you?


Message:


... with a public reply.

But what a complete and unrelenting cunt you are.

***
McCaffrey, meet Mr Keeling.


Honestly I wasn't interested in random opions of what might be from someone who doesn't. I could provide those for myself.
***

A model sent me a photo of you that you had posted on the MM forums. It helped in my quest for understanding. Poor thing. But I am quite amused by your little Yosemite Sam dances. Perhaps I'll be able to trigger a few more as time goes on.

Thanks!
-Tom

Tommy, why would you be referencing me in your private messages to him?  Me and you don't know each other, and I wasn't involved in the discussion on the topic that you took issue with MC2 about.

I've never discussed you with other people in private or public, and I'd be really curious as to why you would decide to do so with me, especially since it seems you have decided to do so in your presumed safety of a private message behind my back.

If you meant the reference to me as a compliment somehow I apologize, but it seems to me it's just the opposite.....and since you obviously aren't 12 years old and have no business going around gossiping about other photographers who are 2 states away from you, I'm very interested in your explanation.

Chris Keeling wrote:

Tommy, why would you be referencing me in your private messages to him?  Me and you don't know each other, and I wasn't involved in the discussion on the topic that you took issue with MC2 about.

I've never discussed you with other people in private or public, and I'd be really curious as to why you would decide to do so with me, especially since it seems you have decided to do so in your presumed safety of a private message behind my back.

If you meant the reference to me as a compliment somehow I apologize, but it seems to me it's just the opposite.....and since you obviously aren't 12 years old and have no business going around gossiping about other photographers who are 2 states away from you, I'm very interested in your explanation.

Actually, disregarding your reference to me......why would you send MC2 a private message calling him a cunt in the first place?  Forum matters stay in the Forums.  I'm extremely surprised that you would resort to childish name calling over a simple forum matter, especially when he wasn't even argueing with you.

This is a very telling insight into your true personality, one which has frankly caught me by surprise.  I had no idea you had something like this in you.  Everyone else can judge for themselves, but in my eyes you've lost all credibility in this thread, and definitely have lost all my respect for you as a person.

This was really childish behavior Tommy.

My apologies to the members of DT for the threadjack.

SLE Photography wrote:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

Let's please be civil.  I do not want to have to drag the site mods in here to close the thread & brig people for personal issues.

Brig away James.  Another photographer is calling one of us a cunt and bringing my name up in the same breath when I'm not even in the conversation.  I want an answer from Tommy.


Edit:  Oh hell, you're right James.  His answer will be just as childish as his actions, so I'll back down.  Again, my apologies to the thread.

MobiusFoto wrote:
Does anyone have any advice for me on the images I've posted this week?  Obviously, there's something missing in them, and I'd really like to know what it is.

And please don't take this as whining.  I really am here to improve.

Thanks
Jerry

I'll go take a look at them Jerry, but is there a specific image you're wondering about over the others?

Chris Keeling wrote:
I'll go take a look at them Jerry, but is there a specific image you're wondering about over the others?

I meant mostly my style in general....but I really thought this one would at least get a little attention:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8336889

MobiusFoto wrote:
Does anyone have any advice for me on the images I've posted this week?  Obviously, there's something missing in them, and I'd really like to know what it is.

And please don't take this as whining.  I really am here to improve.

Thanks
Jerry

Ok, starting with yesterday's image:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8363693
18+

I think it's fantastic!  Perfect use of window light with a very pleasing tone to the whole image.  Her expression is perfect and it's framed very well.  The only thing I see wrong is there's no seperation between her dark hair and the background.  I realize you used all natural light, and it looks like it might even be late afternoon natural light, but find a way to either pop a reflector at the back of her head, or even better position something behind her that is light and line it up with her hair.  Point the reflector at the background if you can.

All in all I like it though.  You can't judge quality by the number of votes you get here, because people have their own preferences and vote along those lines.  Also if there's a really standout image or two that day, they are going to suck votes away from otherwise good images.  Don't get discouraged by a lack of votes.