Michelle - in a happy mood

[TECH]

No problem to have done B&W faster than me. Except that it is now far too contrasty such that half the face is black. I will see if I can do a little better using the original jpeg file.

purposely had half the face black ... to have more mood to it ... await for your post

 

[smallaperture]

The flash was set on the floor? The shadows on her face are too harsh for the "sensual" look. Usually for women, the lighting ratio is 2:1 between the main light and fill light.

Slave flash was place on a stool - should be better at chest level.

Agree that the fill light should have been a little stronger. Well, hope to do better next time. Thanks for the critique.

 

[smallaperture]

OK, here you go, the pic converted to B&W. Looks to me less attractive in a way. Maybe, got to introduce some grains or noise to make it look more classy-arty like. Got to learn how to do it.

 

[semota]

BTW, Michelle chose this particular dress she wished to pose with. And most of the poses were her ideas, mostly seen from pictures in magazines. I just arranged the lights and compose and shoot.

So i guess you shouldnt be called a photographer, but a camera operator...

 

[zekai]

i think this is a terrible portrait. I have no idea why you post it up.

 

[Spectrum]

i think this is a terrible portrait. I have no idea why you post it up.

Have the same thought with you dude. Model look so so to me. No offence dude. Just speaking from my heart.

 

[glensky]

So i guess you shouldnt be called a photographer, but a camera operator...

common ......:thumbsd:

 

[rz67]

common ......:thumbsd:

Don understand why you all like that??? He dare to pose here, than we give him a chance to learn more lor! Can you all take the pic. in the hotel or at home with only one flash light? This is not short in a studio correct?
May be he should learn how to shoot in hotel or at home with one flash light only or make fully use of light available at that time:lovegrin:
But HI! Up 4 U!
Never stop learning in photography, it happen to me like you also :sweat: ( In Thai ).

 

[mattlock]

Thanks bwilly for the constructive critique. IMO, talking about bosom, cleavage or offensiveness is at the threshold of OT already.

Well, just the same, at least, I realise that we are still so very conservative or at least one sector of us here. Although Playboy and Penthouse haven't arrived here, we still have the likes of FHM and Maxim whose pictures are there to tantalise as their primary objective. And lately, I have been seeing huge poster of a topless woman in an advert for Triumph in departmental stores. Maybe, our society is very diversified, but sure and certainly we are tending towards more liberal as we are seeing movies and even theatres having less cut by the censors.

the reason it is offensive is not really because it is sexual, but because it is such a badly taken picture.
I like looking at american Stuff magazine and FHM because the standard of photography is really high for some of the shots (take a look at this month's Stuff magazine cover)

Singapore Maxim (esp this month's!!!) make women look really cheap.
Your photo might be able to go in there.
the cleavage showing plus the meaningless expression and the seemingly random placement of light plus the garish red of the makeup and the dress make for a terrible combination, and it cheapens her.

I think a good test is to show the picture to some women and see what they say. my female friends love seeing beautifully taken pictures of naked women but badly taken pictures of naked women or even non-naked women are just plain offensive.

ok hope you can take this! I actually think it's great you managed to take such an offensive shot, because if you're gonna take photos you might as well make it something that garners huge reactions.

 

[Jemapela]

I would say/agree that to discuss or hint about this woman's bosom or cleavage (as it was very early in this thread) is surely going off-topic. If anything, the discussion should be more about composition, lighting, mood, expression, styling, but shouldn't have hinted anything about bosom.

Come on guys, while it's plainly obviously visible, there's no need to make :bigeyes: or whatever exclamation about her chest. Without having to study biology, we all know what grows on the female chest (and mind you, we have a pair ourselves for goodness sake), so there's no need to draw anymore attention to hers. It does nothing more than to indicate your depravity and it simply puts the women viewers off.

I'm sure the intent of the photographer/poster wasn't to offend. He just wanted comments on his skill.

This image has already been described as "offensive" or "in poor taste" by some CS members, and by at least 1 female CS member. At least 1 CS member also commented that her ambiguous/blank facial expression adds to its "poor taste". I won't readily agree to it since she does have a somewhat cheeky expression (and I don't find it offensive). If I was to rate the image, I would just say it's PG, not M, and surely not R or X. For crying out loud, it's just an image of a woman showing cleavage. You haven't seen the Triumph or Wacoal billboards around S'pore? Or you haven't seen cleavage-exposed bikini girls at Sentosa?

Anyway, cheeky, ambiguous or blank, if this image can be considered downright offensive, then I'm sure many CS members have images in bikinis or lingerie that could similarly be branded as "poor taste" for showing deep cleavage or having that cheeky/ambiguous/blank expression. With all the busty Caucasian women I have shot, my images not only offend tight-a*sed Asian women; I've been labelled negatively as well.

You (and I don't care if you're a photographer or a model) could either open your mind about how Michelle was posed (by herself or by the photographer) and how the image was shot, or close your mind like some tightly wrapped-up dim sim (siew mai) and stifle your own progress.

In a previous issue of PhotoI, Kath Cosgrove wrote an article saying that women are the harshest critics of their own images. I would tend to agree with that. Harsh lighting aside (yes I agree it's fairly harsh for use on women generally), if Michelle was happy with her expression, happy with her low-cut dress, happy with her ample bosom revealed (to the lucky man who operated the camera), in that image, we can cut out much on the criticism.

Enough of the boob-talk. ;p

 

[smallaperture]

There is a Big Fat difference between my pic and those published in Maxim or FHM. I shoot for fun, just play-play. Those shooting for mags are pros who make a living out of it, so they jolly well make it perfect or almost. For me, just from time to time, get the opportunity to arrange for a shoot for fun. No studio, just a plain wall as background, using slave flash and a amateur camera.

Like fine art, photo is a very subjective matter. Just look at the kind of comments here - there is a wide range. Different strokes for different folks. We get very different views.

BTW, din expect so much comments, critiques over this pic.

Another point - I only take coments by well respected members like Astin, etc seriously, while I am not bordered by the rest. .....:nono: :bsmilie: