well, I think the outfit looks better on him/her than it would on me-
I think it's a good shot-
It is a nice capture. The background looks just a little too lit, drawing attention away fromt he central subject. If it was a stop or so below the subject lighting, it would be dead on.
I think it's absolutely wonderful to be seeing a variety of portrait and model types here. The pose is classic and very flattering. The background could be more minimal or even cropped down to bring the attention more to the model. I'd also like to see the light coming from a slightly less straight-on angle but I still think this is a great shot of a lovely person. Great job, the two of you!
Giselle, if you put it in Whipping Post I would gladly whip it! Is that sort of thing also part of the subject's credentials?
Giselle didn't put it in WP, she put it here and you're welcome to comment on the effectiveness of her photograph without unwarranted snipes on the subject.
I too think you did a rather nice job of capturing the subject (albeit the light is a tad harsh) but the background elements are too numerous and distracting.
Considering the subject's poise, I would have tried for a juxtaposition of him against the interesting mix of raw brick and classic woodwork casing at the windows if it were possible to isolate them in that manner.
They used a different pic in the mag...too overdone in my opinion but more about the subject like yall said, I guess I was digging the cool loft too much!
Thanks for all your comments, and feel free to whip anything I post, I am here to learn and hopefully improve.
Both pics are really good and with your eye I am a little surprised that you did not shoot a tad lowere in the 1st shot...but I also at times do the slightly down shot like this.......my true concern was for the flash relection in the window.......I think I might have show a stop or two lower to darken the bg...but over all I like them both as I do all of your work I have seen.
Giselle didn't put it in WP, she put it here and you're welcome to comment on the effectiveness of her photograph without unwarranted snipes on the subject.
I didn't comment on the photograph because I would have needed to say more than I like it or I don't. I don't think it works and I think it is not flattering to the subject. To say just that would be to say nothing much. To say more than that here would not be appropriate, that is my understanding. But for Giselle to have more comment might be valuable. My suggestion to her was meant to be constructive. I think if she placed it in the Whipping Post forum she would receive frank but supportive, careful and skilled comments as are typically to be found there, sometimes with a dash of mischievous humor.
I know nothing about the subject in a personal sense. Giselle describes her as a drag queen. A drag queen is an entertainer, by definition. It is a public persona, not a private life. A drag queen is a potent political/social/moral stance, which exists to arouse responses. The drag queen's normal fare is caricature, hyperbole, irony, innuendo, bawdy, pathos. It was in that spirit that I wrote as I did.
I was going to let it go, I hate when things get itchy here, but I just had to add...
I have met some of the nicest people working for his magazine, they don't judge you, so try returning the favor.
Giselle, I think the photo they used for the article is nice too but I agree that it's a little over-processed for my taste!
I forgot to mention in my initial comment that I really dig the loft, too. I think there is a way to get her posed in there and include the really swank BG too but that might take more skill with posing models and setting up lights than I have.
I hope you get to work more with this magazine and with her!
I was going to let it go, I hate when things get itchy here, but I just had to add...
I have met some of the nicest people working for his magazine, they don't judge you, so try returning the favor.
Giselle, hope you have read my earlier post, just above this one of yours.
I didn't comment on the photograph because I would have needed to say more than I like it or I don't. I don't think it works and I think it is not flattering to the subject. To say just that would be to say nothing much. To say more than that here would not be appropriate, that is my understanding. But for Giselle to have more comment might be valuable. My suggestion to her was meant to be constructive. I think if she placed it in the Whipping Post forum she would receive supportive, careful and skilled comments as are typically to be found there, sometimes with a dash of mischievous humor.
I know nothing about the subject in a personal sense. Giselle describes her as a drag queen. A drag queen is an entertainer, by definition. It is a public persona, not a private life. A drag queen is a potent political/social/moral stance, which exists to arouse responses. The drag queen's normal fare is caricature , hyperbole, irony, innuendo, bawdy, pathos. It was in that spirit that I wrote as I did.
Hope this relieves any angst...
I didn't put it in the whipping post because if I understand the rules, it should be our best work, which I don't think this is. But I did post it because I usually get good c/c here too.
I also described her as a drag queen because that was what the article was about, maybe I should have explained more.
OK, with that said lets start talking religion or politics, something light like that!:D
I didn't put it in the whipping post because if I understand the rules, it should be our best work, which I don't think this is. But I did post it because I usually get good c/c here too.
I also described her as a drag queen because that was what the article was about, maybe I should have explained more.
OK, with that said lets start talking religion or politics, something light like that!:D
Ha ha!
Understand.
These things can get "technical"! A drag queen is not a transvestite or transgender. It does help to be clear on such points!
Why not try it in Whipping Post? That you were submitting it to a magazine for pay makes it pretty much a "best work", it would seem to me.
These things can get "technical"! A drag queen is not a transvestite. It does help to be clear on such points!
Tell me about it, a friend was transgender but just got snipped, so now a female? I don't think I want to be a woman that bad!
Here is a edited version, maybe next time I will do it right in the camera, I hate "fixing" stuff after the fact. Does i look any better? There is still too much light in the center huh?
For me the subject is awkwardly posed. And what she is posed on and with distracts and detracts from her presentation. She is suggesting glamor, slightly perverse, with faint associations with high class bordello, but the ambiance is "loft", as you yourself describe it.
Are we to see her as offering herself to a possible client in this unlikely setting, or as a bored "housewife" at home, all dressed up with no particular place to go? Why doesn't she look at us, as she does in the photo the mag chose? And I think of the two images, they made the right choice. Maybe you could get some feedback from them as to why they chose that way?
I feel that you need to take a much stronger directorial role in the construction of the shot, which means that you need to know what your purpose is and what you want the shot to be.
I would like to see your position be closer to her feet, and slightly below the level of her face, looking up her body. Or the other way, above her left shoulder. Either way, foreshortening her body a little. Her legs are attractive and have a nice texture, so they could carry more of the image. Plus change of color/setting scheme as mentioned, to fit with your vision.
Can the almighty Photoshop do all that? Not YET, I think!
Sorry, Moderator
I go back and forth on occasion between DGrin and Adventure Rider. Sometimes I forget where I am. My lame attempt at humor was out of line for this forum.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I go back and forth on occasion between DGrin and Adventure Rider. Sometimes I forget where I am. My lame attempt at humor was out of line for this forum.
I think it's cool that you take part of both communities so avidly. Just trying to keep the comments focused on the photo and the input related to it!
For me the subject is awkwardly posed. And what she is posed on and with distracts and detracts from her presentation. She is suggesting glamor, slightly perverse, with faint associations with high class bordello, but the ambiance is "loft", as you yourself describe it.
Are we to see her as offering herself to a possible client in this unlikely setting, or as a bored "housewife" at home, all dressed up with no particular place to go? Why doesn't she look at us, as she does in the photo the mag chose? And I think of the two images, they made the right choice. Maybe you could get some feedback from them as to why they chose that way?
I feel that you need to take a much stronger directorial role in the construction of the shot, which means that you need to know what your purpose is and what you want the shot to be.
I would like to see your position be closer to her feet, and slightly below the level of her face, looking up her body. Or the other way, above her left shoulder. Either way, foreshortening her body a little. Her legs are attractive and have a nice texture, so they could carry more of the image. Plus change of color/setting scheme as mentioned, to fit with your vision.
Can the almighty Photoshop do all that? Not YET, I think!
This comes to mind...
The magazines budget is little to none. The original location was an old theater that didn't happen the last minute. This was were they sent me and the editor told me to try for glamorous. Beside the damn tree (sometimes I wonder what I was thinking when I dont notice that stuff) is this more of the position you are talking about? I have such a hard time with posing, I can see it in my mind but can't seem to get them to look right doing it. Like this bad chin shot.
But, actually, in the right setting/ambiance, I think the chin would MAKE the pic, together with the legs, of course. You would really have a telling image there.
Yes, I like this pose for the pictorial and narrative potential is has. The face is fascinating. However, as well as the infamous loft, the jacket (why is she wearing that indoors?) is not draped well (there needs to be more flesh on view where the "cleavage" might be). Nor are the arms/hands.
Before you shoot perhaps it would help to do research. Look at things like the Manet, for example. Really good stuff always has pedigree.
... And just another thought. This (potential) image begs for much more intimate treatment. Your camera is too detached. Put your camera where Angels fear to tread!!!!
... And just another thought. This (potential) image begs for much more intimate treatment. Your camera is too detached. Put your camera where Angels fear to tread!!!!
Thank for all your c/c, NeiL, and everyone else too!
I didn't comment on the photograph because I would have needed to say more than I like it or I don't. I don't think it works and I think it is not flattering to the subject. To say just that would be to say nothing much. To say more than that here would not be appropriate, that is my understanding. But for Giselle to have more comment might be valuable. My suggestion to her was meant to be constructive. I think if she placed it in the Whipping Post forum she would receive frank but supportive, careful and skilled comments as are typically to be found there, sometimes with a dash of mischievous humor.
I know nothing about the subject in a personal sense. Giselle describes her as a drag queen. A drag queen is an entertainer, by definition. It is a public persona, not a private life. A drag queen is a potent political/social/moral stance, which exists to arouse responses. The drag queen's normal fare is caricature, hyperbole, irony, innuendo, bawdy, pathos. It was in that spirit that I wrote as I did.
Hope this relieves any angst...
Thank you for taking time to respond in this manner. I'm glad you've demonstated an understanding of a drag queen being an entertainer.
My earlier response was directed to what appeared to be your veiled joke equating his choice of performance / persona genre with "whipping" as in "S&M" sexual deviance.
I'm glad we can agree one has nothing to do with the other.
Comments
I think it's a good shot-
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
Giselle didn't put it in WP, she put it here and you're welcome to comment on the effectiveness of her photograph without unwarranted snipes on the subject.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I too think you did a rather nice job of capturing the subject (albeit the light is a tad harsh) but the background elements are too numerous and distracting.
Considering the subject's poise, I would have tried for a juxtaposition of him against the interesting mix of raw brick and classic woodwork casing at the windows if it were possible to isolate them in that manner.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
http://outsmartmagazine.com/cms-this_issue/200712--Play+Misty+for+Us.html?PHPSESSID=2a2d2f541af837e6b4e7817e3c318d4f
They used a different pic in the mag...too overdone in my opinion but more about the subject like yall said, I guess I was digging the cool loft too much!
Thanks for all your comments, and feel free to whip anything I post, I am here to learn and hopefully improve.
I didn't comment on the photograph because I would have needed to say more than I like it or I don't. I don't think it works and I think it is not flattering to the subject. To say just that would be to say nothing much. To say more than that here would not be appropriate, that is my understanding. But for Giselle to have more comment might be valuable. My suggestion to her was meant to be constructive. I think if she placed it in the Whipping Post forum she would receive frank but supportive, careful and skilled comments as are typically to be found there, sometimes with a dash of mischievous humor.
I know nothing about the subject in a personal sense. Giselle describes her as a drag queen. A drag queen is an entertainer, by definition. It is a public persona, not a private life. A drag queen is a potent political/social/moral stance, which exists to arouse responses. The drag queen's normal fare is caricature, hyperbole, irony, innuendo, bawdy, pathos. It was in that spirit that I wrote as I did.
Hope this relieves any angst...
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I have met some of the nicest people working for his magazine, they don't judge you, so try returning the favor.
I forgot to mention in my initial comment that I really dig the loft, too. I think there is a way to get her posed in there and include the really swank BG too but that might take more skill with posing models and setting up lights than I have.
I hope you get to work more with this magazine and with her!
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
Giselle, hope you have read my earlier post, just above this one of yours.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I didn't put it in the whipping post because if I understand the rules, it should be our best work, which I don't think this is. But I did post it because I usually get good c/c here too.
I also described her as a drag queen because that was what the article was about, maybe I should have explained more.
OK, with that said lets start talking religion or politics, something light like that!:D
Ha ha!
Understand.
These things can get "technical"! A drag queen is not a transvestite or transgender. It does help to be clear on such points!
Why not try it in Whipping Post? That you were submitting it to a magazine for pay makes it pretty much a "best work", it would seem to me.
Best wishes to all concerned!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Tell me about it, a friend was transgender but just got snipped, so now a female? I don't think I want to be a woman that bad!
Here is a edited version, maybe next time I will do it right in the camera, I hate "fixing" stuff after the fact. Does i look any better? There is still too much light in the center huh?
For me the subject is awkwardly posed. And what she is posed on and with distracts and detracts from her presentation. She is suggesting glamor, slightly perverse, with faint associations with high class bordello, but the ambiance is "loft", as you yourself describe it.
Are we to see her as offering herself to a possible client in this unlikely setting, or as a bored "housewife" at home, all dressed up with no particular place to go? Why doesn't she look at us, as she does in the photo the mag chose? And I think of the two images, they made the right choice. Maybe you could get some feedback from them as to why they chose that way?
I feel that you need to take a much stronger directorial role in the construction of the shot, which means that you need to know what your purpose is and what you want the shot to be.
I would like to see your position be closer to her feet, and slightly below the level of her face, looking up her body. Or the other way, above her left shoulder. Either way, foreshortening her body a little. Her legs are attractive and have a nice texture, so they could carry more of the image. Plus change of color/setting scheme as mentioned, to fit with your vision.
Can the almighty Photoshop do all that? Not YET, I think!
This comes to mind...
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I go back and forth on occasion between DGrin and Adventure Rider. Sometimes I forget where I am. My lame attempt at humor was out of line for this forum.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I think it's cool that you take part of both communities so avidly.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
The magazines budget is little to none. The original location was an old theater that didn't happen the last minute. This was were they sent me and the editor told me to try for glamorous. Beside the damn tree (sometimes I wonder what I was thinking when I dont notice that stuff) is this more of the position you are talking about? I have such a hard time with posing, I can see it in my mind but can't seem to get them to look right doing it. Like this bad chin shot.
But, actually, in the right setting/ambiance, I think the chin would MAKE the pic, together with the legs, of course. You would really have a telling image there.
Yes, I like this pose for the pictorial and narrative potential is has. The face is fascinating. However, as well as the infamous loft, the jacket (why is she wearing that indoors?) is not draped well (there needs to be more flesh on view where the "cleavage" might be). Nor are the arms/hands.
Before you shoot perhaps it would help to do research. Look at things like the Manet, for example. Really good stuff always has pedigree.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thank you for taking time to respond in this manner. I'm glad you've demonstated an understanding of a drag queen being an entertainer.
My earlier response was directed to what appeared to be your veiled joke equating his choice of performance / persona genre with "whipping" as in "S&M" sexual deviance.
I'm glad we can agree one has nothing to do with the other.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots