Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
F R Pearce wrote:
Go for it! Not a GWC.
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
You never gave your description of what it is you consider a GWC. There are numerous definitions floating around. At any rate, I'm curious how I come across. 
Photographer
925 image
Posts: 284
Martinez, California, US
review please 
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
You never gave your description of what it is you consider a GWC. There are numerous definitions floating around.
At any rate, I'm curious how I come across. Not close to a GWC. Definition is vague, hence, the necessity of this very important thread.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
925 image wrote:
review please Not a GWC. Others may disagree.
Photographer
Oblique Foto
Posts: 201
Vancouver, Washington, US
Okay - let's hear it 
Photographer
TDSImages
Posts: 1032
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Oblique Foto wrote:
Okay - let's hear it 0% GWC.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
TDSImages wrote:
I'll play! 30% GWC.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Bluestill Photography wrote:
What does my port tell you? It tells me you are clearly trying, and are not a GWC.
Only around 5%.
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
Charles West wrote:
Not close to a GWC. Definition is vague, hence, the necessity of this very important thread. I agree to the importance of this thread. Now, how would I go about becoming one of these GWC types?
And thank you for the review.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Becoming a GWC is not something you wish to become.
Is it?
Poor lighting.
Bad composition.
No connection with model.
Bad background.
Bad or no post work where it's obviously necessary.
Poorly done cliche work. And I stress poorly. I love well done cliches.
Bad snapshots. And I stress bad, here, too. I love most snapshots. And, a well done snapshot portfolio is a thing of beauty. I can read between the lines, and so can everyone else. You can tell if it's a bad snapshot, or a work of snapshot "art."
Not so obvious answer is: Work that is well done, but looks as though the only reason the shot was taken was to get into the models pants, successfully or otherwise.
Conclusion. A portfolio of images that scream to the viewer, "I'm only here to shoot cuties who I plan on spanking to later. With or without clothes."
A poorly executed art or glamour shot does not qualify as GWC work. Implied intent of photographer, which is completely up to the viewer, since the photographer cannot explain themselves, is what we're critiquing here.
Photographer
Exile1
Posts: 138
Simi Valley, California, US
yea, Ive been kind of wondering.
Photographer
Erik_dphoto
Posts: 9
New York, New York, US
let me know
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
SimiStudio wrote:
yea, Ive been kind of wondering. 0% GWC.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
erik_dPhotography wrote:
let me know Only about 5% GWC work.
Nothing to worry about.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Attollo-Validus wrote:
I'm game.. Not a GWC.
I would cut out some average flack, though. Your work is better than several of the shots in your portfolio. Remember, comments are meaningless. Delete the average work.
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
Charles West wrote:
Becoming a GWC is not something you wish to become.
Is it?
Poor lighting.
Bad composition.
No connection with model.
Bad background.
Bad or no postwork where it's obviously necessary.
Poorly done cliche work. And I stress poorly. I love well done cliches.
Bad snapshots. And I stress bad, here, too. I love most snapshots. And, a well done snapshot portfolio is a thing of beauty. I can read between the lines, and so can everyone else. You can tell if it's a bad snapshot, or a work of snapshot "art."
Not so obvious answer is: Work that is well done, but looks as though the only reason the shot was taken was to get into the models pants, successfully or otherwise.
Conclusion. A portfolio of imags that scream to the viewer, "I'm only here to shoot cuties who I plan on spanking to later. With or without clothes." If there's spanking involved, I just might want to dip my toe in the water. Are there introductory courses for this?
And believe me, I can do the cliches with the worst of 'em...
![https://www.nunuvyer.biz/images/KlicheKitty.jpg]()
Photographer
Shawn Feile
Posts: 171
OTTO, New York, US
I'm trying to progress. Hopefully not in a bad direction, what do you think?
Photographer
Greener Grass
Posts: 208
Los Angeles, California, US
Hahaha.. I'm curious.. but then again, what if I don't check this thread and you tell me I'm a GWC.. will I be doomed to walk the Earth forever in ignorance?
Photographer
Dara Johnson
Posts: 30
Tallapoosa, Georgia, US
Let me know your opinion of my port. If you don't consider me a GWC please let me know what steps I should take to become one.
Photographer
Bluestill Photography
Posts: 1847
Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Charles West wrote:
It tells me you are clearly trying, and are not a GWC.
Only around 5%. 5% LOL!! thanks.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Dara Johnson wrote:
Let me know your opinion of my port. If you don't consider me a GWC please let me know what steps I should take to become one. Charles West wrote:
Becoming a GWC is not something you wish to become.
Is it?
Poor lighting.
Bad composition.
No connection with model.
Bad background.
Bad or no post work where post work is obviously necessary.
Poorly done cliche work. And I stress poorly. I love well done cliches.
Bad snapshots. And I stress bad, here, too. I love most snapshots. And, a well done snapshot portfolio is a thing of beauty. I can read between the lines, and so can everyone else. You can tell if it's a bad snapshot, or a work of snapshot "art."
Not so obvious answer is: Work that is well done, but looks as though the only reason the shot was taken was to get into the models pants, successfully or otherwise.
Conclusion. A portfolio of images that scream to the viewer, "I'm only here to shoot cuties who I plan on spanking to later. With or without clothes."
A poorly executed art or glamour shot does not qualify as GWC work. Implied intent of photographer, which is completely up to the viewer, since the photographer cannot explain themselves, is what we're critiquing here. ...and you're not a GWC.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
If there's spanking involved, I just might want to dip my toe in the water. Are there introductory courses for this?
And believe me, I can do the cliches with the worst of 'em...
![https://www.nunuvyer.biz/images/KlicheKitty.jpg]() Awesome cliche! Pussy in photo frame! LOL. A very tolerant model.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Shawn Feile wrote:
I'm trying to progress. Hopefully not in a bad direction, what do you think? It's also clear here, you're trying.
Not a GWC.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Greener Grass wrote:
Hahaha.. I'm curious.. but then again, what if I don't check this thread and you tell me I'm a GWC.. will I be doomed to walk the Earth forever in ignorance? LOL. 0% GWC. Nothing to worry about. Past, present, or future.
Photographer
Shawn Feile
Posts: 171
OTTO, New York, US
Thanks. I'd rather look like I'm trying than look like a gwc.
Photographer
Dara Johnson
Posts: 30
Tallapoosa, Georgia, US
No, I don't want to be considered a GWC. That was said tongue-in-cheek. Charles West wrote:
Dara Johnson wrote:
Let me know your opinion of my port. If you don't consider me a GWC please let me know what steps I should take to become one. ...and you're not a GWC.
Photographer
WH Photographic
Posts: 23
Jacksonville, Florida, US
If this thread is still going, I would love to know what you think.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
WH Photographic wrote:
If this thread is still going, I would love to know what you think. Still going as long as people want to know.
You're not a GWC.
Photographer
redd-eye II
Posts: 133
Orange, California, US
Photographer
H B P
Posts: 3592
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
I'm wondering myself. if you would be so kind.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
redd-eye II wrote:
I'm game. Have at it. Very nice glamour work! Not a GWC.
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
H B P wrote:
I'm wondering myself. if you would be so kind. Not a GWC.
Photographer
Redd Dyver
Posts: 573
Phoenix, Arizona, US
so, according to you're OP, anyone who post is subject to critique, huh?
|
