-- mike dogue (w2705@aol.com), September 12, 1999

Answers

I like it generally, but the chair detracts from the subject. It still would be possible to "remove" the chair with Photoshop; or could the chair be burned-in during printing....Nice diffusion.

-- Mark (markphoto@xoommail.com), September 12, 1999.

not being remotely sarcastic, I find the tan lines distracting for this kind of shot. Agree with the chair comment, but nicely done overall.

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), September 12, 1999.

What's the point? Nice tan? Nice chair? The form of a well shaped body is interupted by the external lines of the chair and the internal lines of the tan. The tan lines could work in a really superficial way to accentuate the body but neither are allowed to flow in any symmetrical or lyric sense. There's no visual/physical or emotional/symbolic focal point. Fall back and punt...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 12, 1999.

It is interesting how different critical comments are about a nude, vs any other subject...Have you ever heard anyone ask "Whats the point" about a close-up of a baby, or a train, or a flower, or any other interesting subject..? Perhaps its because the nude is an over-done subject - but so are flowers....or perhaps its because of our attitudes towards the nude body...Should we be any more critical simply because its a nude?

-- Mark (markphoto@xoommail.com), September 12, 1999.

yes, because of the range of effect. I'm sure you understand the difference between the potentials in each of the subjects you describe. We all know how to respond to a picture of a baby or a flower. My comments, however were about this particular image which is seriously flawed objectively regardless of subjective issues.

Follow the link Mike offers in another thread and you'll see what I mean about subjective issues:

http://www.glamourmodels.com/

...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 13, 1999.

It's a pic of a female sitting in a chair. Why do you have a problm with the chair? People do sit in them from time to time. If anything, perhaps more of the chair should be included. I don't really care for where it is cropped. If the whole chair and body were included it would be better. If you want to shop something, do it to those damn tanlines. Or better, shop out the tan and leave the lines!

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), September 14, 1999.

Or better yet, make another photograph that's better.

p.s. I have no problem with chairs, some of my best friends use chairs. It's this photograph of a chair that presents a problem...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 16, 1999.

and that's not a photograph of a female... it's a photograph of a woman, not a tissue sample. If it was an eyeball or a bird, describing it as "female" or "male" would be an appropriate modifier providing us with something we might not get from a photograph. But to descibe a human as "female" or "male" seems limited thinking. Do you call babies "females" and "males"? What's the problem with "man" and "woman"? "girl" and "boy"? Many people have them, some of my best friends are men and women, and they photograph wonderfully when nude...

Even if you are making abstract images of human form, such distinctions are irrelevant and usually redundant.

Perhaps you have a reason for deliberately limiting your observations/definitions of humans to sexual genitalia, that would certainly make them easier to "shop", which sounds appropriately like "chop"..."If you want to Chop something, do it to those damn tanlines. Or better, chop out the tan and leave the lines!" Sounds like a butcher taking apart a "female"...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 16, 1999.

Maybe Tom should present us with a url to his idea of nude photography. Tom has over 300 entries to the greenspun.com forums, he must have a lot of time for his hobby. Im sure he would be glad to share his images as well as his opinions!

-- Mark (markphoto@xoommail.com), September 17, 1999.

Good one Mark! Ok,t (if that is your real name) time to put up or shut up. Let's see your "nude woman without chair" images! By the way, how do you feel about the word nude? Is that ok to use or would naked be better?

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), September 18, 1999.

I enjoy the photo. Beautiful breasts. Her gaze seems whistful. I would much rather look at the photo than read the likes of TM's self- professed photographic genius. Especially the deprecating nonsense. Thanks for your photo, Mike. Anyone can be a critic.

-- GeorgeS (grs@by-george.net), September 18, 1999.

Gosh, Steve Vancosin, you found me out... no, my real name's not "t"... it's really TOM MEYER. I've signed it on over 300 entries, Wake UP.

(Mark... you counted! I'm flattered).

When I get an url I'll let you know. And when did I deprecate myself? I usually have more control than that.

And GeorgeS, I thought the point of this forum was that anyone can be a critic, isn't that what "General Photo Critique" means? My comments initially were criticism of the posted photograph. And if you'd rather look at the "photos" why don't you just lurk at glamourmodels.com., you'd probably find that more satisfying than listening to my drivel.

Mark, my comments were about this particular image until you brought up the politics of nakedness: "Have you ever heard anyone ask "Whats the point" about a close-up of a baby, or a train, or a flower, or any other interesting subject..? Perhaps its because the nude is an over-done subject - but so are flowers....or perhaps its because of our attitudes towards the nude body...Should we be any more critical simply because its a nude?" If you don't want someone to respond to your questions, don't ask them.

I thought this was a discussion forum, my mistake...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

<>

Can you really be this dense? It was a joke man! Wake up yourself! Oh wait, was this a joke about my joke? Hmmmmm, you are soooo deep! But in any case, we are still waiting to experience some examples of your work. To paraphrase GeorgeS, I would much rather read the likes of TM's self-professed photographic genius AFTER seeing how he applies the same genius to his own images.

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

<>

Hey Tom ever hear of a rhetorical question??

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

Wow! Seems like somebody has some issues involving women to work through! Lighten up, t. You seem to have a huge problem with where the image is posted (glamourmodels.com). I simply took the photo, the model put it on the site! Thanks to everyone that commented on the picture.

-- mike dogue (w2705@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

Criticism: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature

Discussion:consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

Retorical: asked merely for effect with no answer expected...

Trifle: to talk in a jesting or mocking manner or with intent to delude or mislead

It's not that I have "issues" with women, it's that I have issues with photographs and how they are understood by my contemporaries. I hang at these sites to engage in discussion and learn how people respond to images, the making and observing of them. You guys seem to think this portrait is a good one because her tits are "nice". So what if that chair back looks like the Torah unrolled behind her, so what if the tans lines are at the tonal extreme,so what if the symmetry of her body is chaotically broken by a director's chair, so what if her right knee just needs a slight burn. Are the photographic issues just an excuse to legitimize your interests in hot babes? Maybe the forum name should be changed to "General Photo Compliments" so you'd continue to get more photographically useful responses like "nice breasts".

As far as my own images are concerned, must one be a photographer to criticise photographs? My initial comments were not a personal attack on the photographer, but critical comments on the posted image. I brought up subjective issues upon invitation to do so.

I'm sure your desire to see my work will produce remarks about it as objective as your comments concerning my character.

I stand by my initial (photographic) problems with this particular image :The form of a well shaped body is interupted by the external lines of the chair and the internal lines of the tan. The tan lines could work in a really superficial way to accentuate the body but neither are allowed to flow in any symmetrical or lyric sense. There's no visual/physical or emotional/symbolic focal point. I do understand that a nice set of breasts seems to be focal point enough for some people. It certainly seems to override any compositional or technical concerns on this site.

If you're going to indulge in this type of photography (classic and very worth while) you've got to expect to be challenged when you present it for criticism. I haven't said anything here about political and social issues that hasn't been said to my face when I present photographs of nude women for critique. If you can't stand the heat, don't post on the internet. There's plenty more people out here like me.

And how did I proclaim myself to be a genius? too many 3 syllable words?..t

Mr. Dogue, are you saying the model posted this image here? or on glamormodels.com.? ("All I did was take the picture") I noticed you appended no text whatsoever to the image. Why did you (or she) put it here?

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Excuse me, the quote should be "I simply took the photo"...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Got your panties all in a bunch now, haven't you t? (do you put a question mark after a rhetorical question?)

-- mike dogue (w2705@aol.com), September 20, 1999.

Tom,

I agree, this photo doesn't do much for me either. Although I generally agree with your comments and criticisms of the photos submitted on these forums, you sometimes write in such a caustic manner that it's impossible to care what your opinions are. Do you talk to strangers like this in person? I doubt it. Most people get pretty fired up sitting at a keyboard and end up writing things they would never say face-to-face.

-- Colm Boran (cboran@mich.com), September 20, 1999.

Just havin' fun, Colm, why be boring and droll? The caustic manner is fully deliberate and called for (don't invite the devil in)... and you're right, this is over the top, but I rarely get such an easy (and worthy) target.

I just can't resist such witty and relevant repartee' as "got your panties all in a bunch". Mike, you're as good with words as you are with a camera...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

better check that dictionary t. Boring and droll???

-- steve v (steve1chsn@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

<< Mike, you're as good with words as you are with a camera...t >> Thanks, t. But I guess we can't make the same evaluation with you since you have nothing to show. Just a wannabe windbag!

-- mike (w2705@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

Hey, is this a private fight, or can anyone join in? Am I allowed to criticise? Feel free to look at my pictures first, if you like, but you won't see any remotely like this one.

I find it rather strange. The position of the arms, the look on the face, the slightly arched back, the placement of the right leg, these all say "this is a glamour pose" (i.e. soft pornography). But that is contradicted by the harsh lighting, and the chair. Yes, the chair is quite obtrusive. Is this a photograph of a real person just sitting in a chair, or a piece of available female flesh? Not that I would object to either, I just don't know what it is. I think the subject is rather beautiful, but the photograph isn't. Of course, it doesn't have to be, but I suspect that was the intention.

[Please note that I mean all this in total honesty, and I'm not being personal. I will happily ignore any personal retaliation.]

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), September 26, 1999.

Tom and I have disagreed on many things in the past on other forums, but I agree with him on this image. It looks to me that those of you who attack him are the ones who are hung up on nudes, can't you see past the breasts to see the bad lighting,distracting chair, bad posing, on and on and on?

Tom tells you why its a bad photo and you tell him why he is a bad photographer, whats wrong, can't you defend the photo any better than that?

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 12, 1999.

Besides the tan lines and the chair, has anybody looked at her lips?

I have on my wall in front of me two portraits by George Hurrel. The lips are not the same color as the surrounding skin. The model's lips are very close to the same color as her skin, if not lighter. Was a red filter used?

I can't see any crop which would save this photo.

Honestly, for this model I would leave her fully clothed. I must agree with other posters, the tan lines are too distracting, the chair isn't suitable, and the pose of the arms distracts from her face.

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), October 12, 1999.

Nice tits, dull photo for the following reasons: her bored & distracted expression, corny use of a dffusion filter for that "arty" David Hamilton look; a contrived bad pose for modesty sake (oh please, I think most of us know what pubic hair or lack thereof on an adult woman looks like); the downward angle of her chin makes it look like she has the beginnings of a double chin; the fabric color on the chair should have been switched so the chair doesn't compete with the subjects of interest; the angle of her face from the camera exaggerates her nose and then there if the tan line problem: some body makeup would have helped smooth that out.

-- Ellis Vener (evphoto@insync.net), October 12, 1999.

Interesting discussion about a very dull and uninteresting photograph...

-- Andreas Carl (andreas@physio.unr.edu), October 30, 1999.