Nikki

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

To ignore the your attempted joke for a moment, take your comment seriously, and further torture this analogy a little bit, the herbs and spices in lighting would be gels and reflectors and gobos. You might ask the chef if he used tarragon or parsley (a 1/2 CTO or 3/4 CTO gel), but you probably wouldn't obsess over what brand.

Ah, but if you believe that the brand of lights affect color balance, then a 1/2 CTO isn't going to look the same on Brand A and Brand B. If you further argue that consistency is an issue with a particular brand that has sliders instead of a clicky dial, then the brand inconsistency will show up in the shot...I'm not sure what would equal that randomness in the kitchen...luck maybe?

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by PhotosbyChuck

If you further argue that consistency is an issue with a particular brand

The problem with analogies is of course that none are perfect, otherwise they wouldn't be analogies. But to torture this one some more...

Sometimes brands matter. If you were a chef and a particular supplier had consistency issues with the quality of the produce that they delivered to your kitchen and it impacted the quality of your results, then you would certainly have reason to talk to other chefs in the area about other alternative suppliers.

But to switch back to photography and be honest with ourselves: Most of the time when someone says something like "Here is a photo I took. I used a camera and a strobe." and the viewer responds with "What brand?" it is usually a situation where the brand is irrelevant. The technique and experience is what made the shot (or ruined it), not some equipment characteristic unique to a particular brand.

One of the things I have found amazing about so many photographers over the years is the inherent contradiction in insisting that photography is all about the photographer, not the gear, and then turning around and insisting on learning about the exact brand and model number of every piece of gear that every other photographer in the room owns.

Yes, some brands use analogue control, and some use digital control. Some brands have a better reputation for consistency and reliability. Some are within our budgets and some are not. But for all of the effort that has gone into the brand war discussions (and I use the politest word I can think of) I think that some of that effort could be better spent on things that would actually result in improved images. For example, it would be great if more photographers would step up and admit that ultimately, they are responsible for the image and everything that happens in the frame, and if something about the image doesn't work, they needed to do something about it at the time, not pass the blame. Yes, Artforms, I'm looking at you.

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

One of the things I have found amazing about so many photographers over the years is the inherent contradiction in insisting that photography is all about the photographer, not the gear, and then turning around and insisting on learning about the exact brand and model number of every piece of gear that every other photographer in the room owns.

That's so true...and I'm definitely guilty!

[ARTFORMS]

For example, it would be great if more photographers would step up and admit that ultimately, they are responsible for the image and everything that happens in the frame, and if something about the image doesn't work, they needed to do something about it at the time, not pass the blame. Yes, Artforms, I'm looking at you.[/quote]

Then it would be your fault that the girl you shot has a bad complexion and my fault that the woman I shot is fat. On the other side of this thinking, it is a photographers credit and praise for the model that he or she shot, is 5 foot 8 inches tall, 120 pounds and absolutely georgeous and without a single flaw. If this is how people cast blame or give credit towards things that are not in their control, I better make sure that I only shoot with top notch models, because I know the moment that a fat woman gets posted on an image that there will be remarks on her appearance rather than the quality or lack of it in the actual photograph. The other thing that comes into play sometimes is the opinion given by some occasional lurkers who only want to irritate others with their dishonesty. I could give a critique based solely on wanting to be a jerk about it. I've seen it happen enough on various websites.

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by ARTFORMS

Then it would be your fault that the girl you shot has a bad complexion and my fault that the woman I shot is fat. On the other side of this thinking, it is a photographers credit and praise for the model that he or she shot, is 5 foot 8 inches tall, 120 pounds and absolutely georgeous and without a single flaw. If this is how people cast blame or give credit towards things that are not in their control, I better make sure that I only shoot with top notch models, because I know the moment that a fat woman gets posted on an image that there will be remarks on her appearance rather than the quality or lack of it in the actual photograph.

It is impossible, of course, for any photographer to control the actual physical attributes of our subjects. What we can control is how they appear in our shots.

Here is a shot of Quincy from another thread that you started. Your responses to the comments there are what triggered my comment here.



And here is part of the the first comment:

Gorgeous lady but I don't like the way her breasts seem so totally different from one another. Her left breast looks huge while the right one looks much smaller. Maybe its the way the top fits

The commenter did not accuse her of actually being freakishly deformed or ugly, just that the shot in questioned made some things have an unfortunate appearance, possibly due to wardrobe issues. You replied with:

Originally Posted by ARTFORMS

I can neither take credit or blame for her boobs or her tattoo. Those things are just anotomy and her personal taste on appearance. All I can do as a photographer is make sure the lighting works, help with the pose, check to see if her makeup is decent, shoot the image and process the picture for print and internet use. It might be that her top was slipping on one side to make one look bigger than the other.
Thanks,
Jim


I try not to critique a photograph based on the size of the model or her choices in asthetics, unless it's just a bad makeup application.

Well, why didn't you help with the pose? Why didn't you stop to ask her if it was slipping? Why didn't you stop to consider that the combination of that model's build and enhancements might not work for every pose with that outfit? You were the one looking through the viewfinder at the time. No one was criticizing the photograph based on the size of the model or her aesthetic choices. They were criticizing the photograph based on the generally perceived role of the photographer, who is supposed to make sure that the pose and the angles and the lighting make everything look at least as good as they really are, if not better, not worse. The shot that unintentionally proves it is in another post in this thread:



Same model, same outfit, same aesthetic choices on her part, but everything looks balanced and even. What's different besides the pose? Oh, the photographer.

[ARTFORMS]

With Quincy being new at this, she was in need of help with most of her poses, not just from me but also the other photographer and her friend Nikki.
Just because this pose was not liked by a particular photographer giving a critique does not automatically make it bad. It happens to be one of Quincy's choices that she wanted me to edit for her so I used it in the post. That would make Quincy the customer in this case.
After talking to the other photographer recently I ask him how he managed to get Quincy's skin color to look pink. He admited that she isn't really pink. She had a slight tan. You may like the pose better on the image he posted. The lighting on both images was identical to each other.
The reply given about her tattoo on her foot was based on the person not liking it which is a personal thing on his part and not in my control at least not unless I were to edit it out but she was the customer and did not request that. So the comment was about her asthetic appearance in that case. The tattoo is seen in both images so we might think that if he were to comment on that image that the same dislike of that would be there but he did not do so.

[RobArtLyn]

This will be my last post on this particular topic.

Originally Posted by ARTFORMS

Just because this pose was not liked by a particular photographer giving a critique does not automatically make it bad.

In general, technically, this is a true statement. But a pose that makes one breast look twice the size of the other is not a stellar achievement to be proud of. When a photographer's reponsibility in this matter's was pointed out:

It is up to the photographer to notice the dissimilar breast size and correct for it whether it is wardrobe or a posing function. She can't see it from her point of view and is counting on the photographer's eyes to help her look her best.

You responded by going into denial:

Originally Posted by ARTFORMS

if it is her anotomy there isn't anything that any photographer can do about it

Despite just having gotten suggestions on what to do about it.

Originally Posted by ARTFORMS

After talking to the other photographer recently I ask him how he managed to get Quincy's skin color to look pink. He admited that she isn't really pink. She had a slight tan. You may like the pose better on the image he posted. The lighting on both images was identical to each other.

It was obvious that the two of you either had different white balance settings or simply post processed differently, due to the large differences in her skin tones, the bow and the seamless, but that is not the topic here. Why are you trying to deflect the issue?

Originally Posted by ARTFORMS

The reply given about her tattoo on her foot was based on the person not liking it which is a personal thing on his part and not in my control at least not unless I were to edit it out but she was the customer and did not request that. So the comment was about her asthetic appearance in that case. The tattoo is seen in both images so we might think that if he were to comment on that image that the same dislike of that would be there but he did not do so.

You need to be less defensive when you read negative comments about the pictures that you post. You are imagining things. Here is the full text of the one and only comment that mentions the tattoo:

Originally Posted by Soujrnr

Hi Jim. Gorgeous lady but I don't like the way her breasts seem so totally different from one another. Her left breast looks huge while the right one looks much smaller. Maybe its the way the top fits but the effect really doesn't do much for me personally. Other than that, nice shot and an interesting tat on her right foot. That HAD to hurt having that tattoed right on top of the foot bone. OUCH.

Good day sir!

Mike

Please point out the part where he says he doesn't like it. Perhaps this is something that you can admit to making a mistake about? But then your whole defense of people criticizing aesthetic choices that are beyond your control would fall apart.

[Marty_McBride]

gorgeous model....nice shot!

[ARTFORMS]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

This will be my last post on this particular topic.



In general, technically, this is a true statement. But a pose that makes one breast look twice the size of the other is not a stellar achievement to be proud of. When a photographer's reponsibility in this matter's was pointed out:



You responded by going into denial:



Despite just having gotten suggestions on what to do about it.



It was obvious that the two of you either had different white balance settings or simply post processed differently, due to the large differences in her skin tones, the bow and the seamless, but that is not the topic here. Why are you trying to deflect the issue?



You need to be less defensive when you read negative comments about the pictures that you post. You are imagining things. Here is the full text of the one and only comment that mentions the tattoo:



Please point out the part where he says he doesn't like it. Perhaps this is something that you can admit to making a mistake about? But then your whole defense of people criticizing aesthetic choices that are beyond your control would fall apart.

How or why did all of this get attached to what started out as a model wearing a bikini on a fur rug, shot with a ring flash get turned into this other mess? You're the expert so leave it alone already.

[rolandogomez]

Jim,

Nice shot. Like the pose, it forms a great imaginary diagonal that starts from the lower right of the image to the upper left. Your use of lighting is great, whether it's yours or not, regardless of the brand. As I've said before, it's the photographer that makes the difference and since folks are talking analogies, even a horse can get you from point A to point B, though I'm from Texas, I still prefer my truck--for the record, we have ranches in South Texas so I've ridden horses and feel qualified to make that statement (grin)

Now, if I were a photo editor, which I've done over the years, here's a critique. First, the hair, on my monitor, looks like you "dodged" a part of the image and I can really see it on this Apple Cinema display. Again, the pose, skin tone all draw a great effect in the image overall. But at closer look, I don't like (on her lower right) how the stomach appears next to her right hand (viewer left). I don't like that the fingers are cropped, this is a glamour image, not fashion. The bikini strings over her buried left hand could have been avoided if she'd placed her hand over them, showing the full hand on the side.

Now as a photo editor, could I live with that, yeah sure, give you a B+ (no pun intended) but I'd also tell you now go make it better. In my recent blog post I talk about how Susan Sontag once told Annie Leibovitz, “You’re good, but you could be better.” Same applies here.

Now since that statement was taken out of context, here's the full post, http://www.rolandogomez.net/wordpress/?p=57.

On another note, I'll take a gas stove, as I love to cook, over an electric stove, it's all about control (grin) just like there is a reason a cook uses aluminum over copper and copper over cast iron and cast iron over teflon coated aluminum. Oh, and I have two convection ovens, they are electric but my stove is gas. (grin)

All the best, rg sends!

(My kitchen w/Playboy Playmate Holley Dorrough making brownies, notice it's a non-stick pan)

Re: Nikki