Leah

rossomck said:
I like the effect here, but at the moment it is more about the background, than about the subject. I have tried to reverse that by brightening the subject, and changing the hue/saturation of the background slightly.

View attachment 51028
Click to expand...

Thankyou, i understand what you mean about the background, maybe thats also why camera club judges have not liked it that much.

I do like your version though.
 
Very nice.Different than we normaly see on the site.

Gaz
 
•
The lighter version is a proper one!
You did well and succeeded your bokeh.
The model is very pretty but I HATE TATOOS!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

The model is very pretty but I HATE TATOOS!
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and against Forum rules as far as I recall from previous discussions.
 
BRASH said:
Irrelevant and against Forum rules as far as I recall from previous discussions.
Click to expand...
•
What, to find a model very pretty or to hate tattoos!
 
Tattoos, evidently.
 
BRASH said:
Tattoos, evidently.
Click to expand...
•
Really!?!?!
Some hate the sight of scorpions, spider, snakes…
don't appreciate hight, darkness…
they nevertheless comment and recognize the quality of a shot
with elements like these!
 
Uh, yeh, really!!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Really!?!?!
Some hate the sight of scorpions, spider, snakes…
don't appreciate hight, darkness…
they nevertheless comment and recognize the quality of a shot
with elements like these!
Click to expand...
I think the problem is, it came across as making negative or critical comments about the model herself ie. physical appearance... which is a no-no. Feedback should be about the photo and the photographer, bad form to comment about the model's appearance. Whilst you may dislike tattoos in general, it was not really relevant to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Could you point me to the relevant page? …please!
Click to expand...

Speak to the Mods about it. I was pulled up for it before and as detailed by Bethy above. It's just not cricket.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Could you point me to the relevant rule page? …please!
Click to expand...

To be fair I don't know/think it's written.... It could be, you'll have to search the rules at the top of the section and see....
I think it's because there ends up being too much negative about looks, poses etc fair enough but not physical appearance...

To be fair I like the tattoos and wish we'd see more on here...but this is why it's a no go subject as someone else will come out either harsh negative words like disgusting hideous etc and ends up a words war ;)
 
•
Thank you Simon!

— Comments on photographs
  • Don't comment on the model unless it's strictly to do with the photograph —
If I reconsider may comment, It does have to do with the photograph as it occupies
almost the same real-estate in pixels than her face (pretty btw) giving it a big part
to play in the composition.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Thank you Simon!

— Comments on photographs
  • Don't comment on the model unless it's strictly to do with the photograph —
If I reconsider may comment, It does have to do with the photograph as it occupies
almost the same real-estate in pixels than her face (pretty btw) giving it a big part
to play in the composition.
Click to expand...

No its not the same because it's the models personal appearance not a technical aspect...
 
Cg_Girl said:
No its not the same because it's the models personal appearance not a technical aspect...
Click to expand...
•
So, if the model, male or female, has the bad habit of biting his/her nails
and it is visible on the picture as he/she has his/her hands close to his/
her face, I should not say anything about finding a way to hide them
discretely but just say bluntly: "…great portrait but its an ugly picture?"
or "…great picture but its an ugly portrait?"
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
So, if the model, male or female, has the bad habit of biting his/her nails
and it is visible on the picture as he/she has his/her hands close to his/
her face, I should not say anything about finding a way to hide them
discretely but just say bluntly: "…great portrait but its an ugly picture?"
or "…great picture but its an ugly portrait?"
Click to expand...

To be fair I really don't know, I'm not a pro and not a portrait shooter so rarely speak in here, I only came in because, one the bokeh caught my eye and then the mention of tattoos.

I can see where you are coming from totally regarding nails and stuff, it's a fine line I'm guessing to what is allowed and isn't, what's personal choice etc.

Edit...re reading what you said, I think you'll find the blunt latter will not be favoured but suggesting ways to hide would be :)
 
Last edited:
•
Thanks for the though full reaction.

About the "blunt", I am not on that side. I like to say what I mean but I never
fell the need to aggravate anyone as it is not my chosen way to communicate
(except in my clumsy translation sometime!).

To be as fair as you are, I hate tattoos is a strong statement. Yes, most of them
but an actor/wrestler has a large one that is well done and I like it. Another one
that I liked was the facial tattoo the first officer in Star Trek Voyager (forgot the
name!).

Cg_Girl said:
it's a fine line I'm guessing to what is allowed and isn't, what's personal choice
Click to expand...
…difficult to make a rule with that… not to say follow it!
 
Cg_Girl said:
No its not the same because it's the models personal appearance not a technical aspect...
Click to expand...

I reckon there's a grey area here. For fashion and beauty photography selection of the model is part of the image creation process, and tattoos have a bearing. If I chose a tattooed bearded skinhead for a suited city-slickers themed fashion shoot then I'd have chosen the wrong model for the job.

If however I was creating a portrait of said skinhead with the same styling then the tattoos are only of indirect relevance. You could argue instead that the styling didn't suit the model.

What you can't do - for instance - is say that you hate a particular model's tattoos or that they make him look ugly.
Simply saying 'I hate tattoos' serves no purpose; it doesn't help the OP improve the image.
 
juggler said:
I reckon there's a grey area here. For fashion and beauty photography selection of the model is part of the image creation process, and tattoos have a bearing. If I chose a tattooed bearded skinhead for a suited city-slickers themed fashion shoot then I'd have chosen the wrong model for the job.

If however I was creating a portrait of said skinhead with the same styling then the tattoos are only of indirect relevance. You could argue instead that the styling didn't suit the model.

What you can't do - for instance - is say that you hate a particular model's tattoos or that they make him look ugly.
Simply saying 'I hate tattoos' serves no purpose; it doesn't help the OP improve the image.
Click to expand...

Thank you...I knew I was getting a little out of my depth, your explanation makes perfect sense :)
 
juggler said:
I reckon there's a grey area here. For fashion and beauty photography selection of the model is part of the image creation process, and tattoos have a bearing. If I chose a tattooed bearded skinhead for a suited city-slickers themed fashion shoot then I'd have chosen the wrong model for the job.
Click to expand...
… unless one makes a statement as it was seen here on TP recently.

juggler said:
Simply saying 'I hate tattoos' serves no purpose; it doesn't help the OP improve the image.
Click to expand...
I differ here. Maybe the OP did not consider the possibility to shoot
from the other shoulder if it would be free, if not, it could be covered
with a jacket or else.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
… unless one makes a statement as it was seen here on TP recently.


I differ here. Maybe the OP did not consider the possibility to shoot
from the other shoulder if it would be free, if not, it could be covered
with a jacket or else.
Click to expand...

The fact that the tattoos are on display probably means that the OP intended them to be part of the photo. I would be very surprised if it was an 'oops, I didn't notice those there' kind of thing...

And in my opinion... Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of tattoos on women in places where they are very visual, although I do have one myself (a tiny little Canada flag with a saying 'Made in Canada - May Contain Nuts) in a place that only my husband sees, But in the context of this image, I would have actually had her wear a tank top and show that arm off a bit more as it's one of the dominating components of the photo.
 
juggler said:
If I chose a tattooed bearded skinhead for a suited city-slickers themed fashion shoot then I'd have chosen the wrong model for the job.
Click to expand...

Proper Skinheads don't have beards. Mess!!:)
 
I've seen Leah's work before and this is a really nice use of the sun coming through the trees. My initial thought was that I wouldn't mind it a little brighter but it's your take and it's still lovely, just a little dark for my taste. I don't think anyone can say that either is the correct one, it all depends what you are trying to make.

As for the whole tattoo debate that seems to have developed, the model has tattoos, she's had her portrait taken and you can see her tattoos, her artwork that she has paid a substantial sum of money for because she loves them. I am sure they were considered in both the booking of the model and the taking of the shot. Other models without tattoos are available.

sunnyside_up said:
although I do have one myself (a tiny little Canada flag with a saying 'Made in Canada - May Contain Nuts)
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO: Canada, ey!
 
juggler said:
I had a suspicion that someone would pick me up on that :facepalm:. I just wanted to make it abundantly clear my example wasn't referring to the model in the original shot.
Click to expand...

Yeh, I know;)
 
sunnyside_up said:
Made in Canada - May Contain Nuts
Click to expand...
I like that! Where from? I'm from Montréal!

sunnyside_up said:
I would be very surprised if it was an 'oops, I didn't notice those there' kind of thing...
Click to expand...
More probably, less advanced shooters ignore/don't want to see details as it is not in the moment's scope but it will be recorded…
sunnyside_up said:
in the context of this image, I would have actually had her wear a tank top and show that arm off a bit more as it's one of the dominating components of the photo.
Click to expand...
…or hide/cover it.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I've seen Leah's work before and this is a really nice use of the sun coming through the trees. My initial thought was that I wouldn't mind it a little brighter but it's your take and it's still lovely, just a little dark for my taste. I don't think anyone can say that either is the correct one, it all depends what you are trying to make.

As for the whole tattoo debate that seems to have developed, the model has tattoos, she's had her portrait taken and you can see her tattoos, her artwork that she has paid a substantial sum of money for because she loves them. I am sure they were considered in both the booking of the model and the taking of the shot. Other models without tattoos are available.



:ROFLMAO: Canada, ey!
Click to expand...

That's 'eh'... :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top