Trashy?

rbrown74

rbrown74

Messages
411
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
Yes
Someone has said these images look trashy so I thought I'd post them up for comments!

1.
11132132605_a1789f1379_b.jpg


2.
11132133705_3622c03b21_b.jpg


3.
11132319093_70bcac746b_b.jpg


4.
11132317783_81f70e809c_b.jpg


5.
11132164776_fcb3b5a8be_b.jpg
 
How rude of them Rick, really like the lighting, nice model, my fav being no 4.
 
Whoever told you that must be envious.

I'd lose the B&W though. I don't think it's just my hatred of B&W coming through ;) but for me the decision to use B&W has to add something to the image.

Mod Edit: Content removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say the white shirt shot was a classic, though the makeup and piercing jar a little with it. To me, the labret piercing, dark-eyed makeup, blond hair/dark roots, denim dungarees and shorts + crop top hint at garage calendar/US style trailer trash (foul expression for people) but it could go either way according the context the images were viewed in.

I can see what the person saying 'trashy' meant - if the first shot, a classic style, were the last then it would convey a very different feel to the set. Because of this my initial reaction was 'not at all' but then working up & down, reviewing them out of sequence makes me inclined to agree.
 
Mod Edit: Content removed

These were part of an arrangement were a beauty salon has offered to do free hair and make-up for any of my photoshoots - bit of a model make-over type experience. This girls had done glamour pics and originally asked did I do glamour - I said I didnt, being mainly a family orientated photographer, so she came up with more covered up ideas but still heard that theres been negative remarks about me shooting girls in 'that state'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mod Edit: Content removed

Other than that I don't like no 3. The hands are wrong for me. I'd also query the background lighting particularly the transition between the rear and the floor, but that's just a preference of mine.

1, 4, and 5 are my favourites. Strong poses, and there's nothing at all wrong with the lighting on the model :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mod Edit: Content removed

FWIW my faves are 1 and 5, because both poses are timeless, the lighting has modeled the subject well while leaving her skin smooth and they make a pretty girl look absolutely lovely (the objective, I believe).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Out of interest can I ask what focal length you used for no 2 and was it on FF or cropped body?
 
Mod Edit: Content removed

In any event our main concern (mine anyway) is to comment photographically. And for me this covers two angles:
  • the arrangements for taking the images
  • the images themselves

rbrown74 said:
............................... being mainly a family orientated photographer, so she came up with more covered up ideas but still heard that theres been negative remarks about me shooting girls in 'that state'.
Click to expand...

The person that made those comments was maybe complaining as much about the process as the output (the photographs). That might suggest that if you want to continue with this type of shot - and I see no reason why you shouldn't - then maybe you need to have arrangements in place to avoid any accusations etc.

Not something I know much about but obvious things that spring to mind include:

  • a third party present to act as 'chaperone'. You can ask for this when visiting the doctor so I don't see why it couldn't apply to a photography studio. This would give protection - if needed - to both the photographer and the model (male or female, old or young)

  • McCordall has a video on photographing an inexperienced model and in it he says something like - no touching of the model without the model's specific approval - so some kind of clear understanding by the photographer, the model and the chaperone of what is or is not allowed would seem to make sense too

As regards the actual images they look excellent to me: for example, good lighting, angles and poses. As with so much stuff on here, I would be really pleased if I could produce images of that quality. I like the fifth one the most - as no piercing visible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strange comment to call them trashy - ah well, perhaps they have a very narrow depth of field.
I like the set perhaps my least pick would be No.2, but do like No. 4 and 5, had the models head been not quite eyes vertical but at a slight angle it could have been a contender. The mono works for me.
 
I don't think trashy was referring to image quality, but the genre. You could imagine 2, 3 and 5 in a calendar for the local garage alongside Pirelli.
 
utter crap trashy, it all depends on what mind set you have, great photo's, great model, fantastic (y)
 
I really like them, No 1 is my fav, Then 5, I shot a girl with a lip piercing and posted it on here last week.
 
Trashy:shrug: Have you asked the said person/s to expand on their comment. Pictures to me(although far from an expert)are superb:clap: very pretty model and stunning photographs. Mod Edit: Content removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The images themselves aren't trashy.. assuming there's even a way to agree what that even means. The black and white image however, does look trashy to me. Clothing looks a little trashy, and the lighting is terrible... with one eye all but obliterated, and those deep shadows making look like hard spotlighting, street lighting etc... it does seem to be the weakest link here.

Whether you are a prude or not... some of these images do make the lady look.. err... available :) That could be seen as trashy by some people.

remember.. all images have meaning... and it's decided by the audience as much as it is you. Perhaps that's what they meant. I doubt it was anything to do with your photography technique itself. What were you trying to get across with the images? How did you want me to think of her?
 
Images are spot on for me and in NO WAY trashy, I also, do believe comments about models are against the rules of this forum

Les :whistle:
 
Thanks for all the replies guys, really appreciated. The images themselves I was very pleased with, but I had very little control over the clothes or make-up as it was down to her personal choice.

Pookeyhead said:
Whether you are a prude or not... some of these images do make the lady look.. err... available :) That could be seen as trashy by some people.

remember.. all images have meaning... and it's decided by the audience as much as it is you. Perhaps that's what they meant. I doubt it was anything to do with your photography technique itself. What were you trying to get across with the images? How did you want me to think of her?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments Pookey. The shoot was a paid shoot, so she led the ideas and I merely guided her based on her initial thoughts. I was trying to steer it from trashy but as you've laid out very well its the audience that decides the meaning as much as me!

Thanks again
 
I think it depends on your point of view. And you have to consider what 'trashy' means.

Trashy can mean of poor quality, I don't think that was the intent here. However trashy also means formulaic (i.e. 50 shades of grey was trashy) and in this case, these images are pretty formulaic. Trashy can also mean of objectionable taste. I'm going to focus on the formulaic and objectionable taste points of view here.

Lots of people think pictures of half naked ladies are pretty trashy. I have to admit, I also believe that most pictures of half naked ladies are pretty trashy. These are not particularly innovative pictures, they are pretty standard soft glamour. Glamour is by it's very nature, pretty trashy.

I'm not sure what reaction you expect when shooting glamour. Glamour is meant to be sexy, provocative, a light version of pornography designed to stimulate the (ahem) senses. It is shot conventionally to a formula (straying outside the formula ala Terry Richardson is frowned on in amateur circles). Trashy is what you should be looking for in such a picture, no?

In amateur glamour circles, if you get back to the roots of the word, then surely trashy is a compliment, no? You have managed to shoot a formulaic shot of objectionable taste. That is what amateur glamour is all about.
 
Additionally - shame on you guys for making specific comments about the model's choices. Not cool at all.
 
Thread tidied again!

In addition to the "Not commenting on the model" rule there is also the rule that moderator decisions should not be questioned publicly.

Use Contact Us at the foot of the page.
 
inkiboo said:
I said the model looked trashy, what is wrong with that? Should I assume going forward there will be no discussion about the content of photos, only the technical aspects?

I bet all the change in my pocket that if we all said the model looked stunning then the comments wouldn't have been removed. Complete double standards.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is wrong and against forum rules. Charlotte has already hit the nail on the head, commenting that a piercing or tat doesn't suit the theme or ambience the photographer has created with the photos is one thing, but calling a person trashy is insulting and in no way can be considered constructive critique. For the record, any comments that are positive about the model, but also phrased in a distasteful manner would also get deleted [assuming they were either seen by a mod or reported by a member]


edit: cross posted with Fabs, but both our points, as staff, stand. Thankyou
 
Last edited:
CharlotteM said:
You have managed to shoot a formulaic shot of objectionable taste.
Click to expand...

'Formulaic' I get Charlotte but can you clarify 'objectionable taste'? Which image(s) are of objectionable taste and to who? You?, everyone?, women in general (except the girl in the pictures of course)? It's such a sweeping statement to make about a set of innocuous images, I'd like to try to understand it.
 
DT01 said:
'Formulaic' I get Charlotte but can you clarify 'objectionable taste'? Which image(s) are of objectionable taste and to who? You?, everyone?, women in general (except the girl in the pictures of course)? It's such a sweeping statement to make about a set of innocuous images, I'd like to try to understand it.
Click to expand...

Innocuous... also such a sweeping generalisation.

Glamour is and always has been (no straw man arguments about Hollywood glamour here...) about the objectification of people. Women primarily. Innocuous means 'not harmful' or 'not offensive', but it is widely considered that glamour imagery damages all kinds of people more than we ever assumed it did. The pictures above are essentially presenting a young woman as being both a sexually attractive ideal and sexually available. Why else would she be provocatively wearing next to nothing and giving a 'come hither' look to the camera?

The problem is that women are so often presented as sexual objects in imagery. They are things to be has, to be possessed by the male gaze. They are objects to fulfil a purpose - in the case of glamour photography the purpose is... well... you know what the purpose is. When you compare them to the way that men are generally presented as sexual beings it's very different - men are presented as subjects, not objects. They have a story to tell in their images, whereas a woman is just generally an object with nothing to say.

But the real issue is that it doesn't stop at imagery. Many women (and men) rate glamour shots as 'trashy' or 'objectionable' or just plain 'tasteless' because to be frank, we have to put up with this kind of objectification every day of our lives. Treated as sexual objects constantly. Seeing yet another woman being objectified in an image just becomes tiresome and you do get fed up with it after a while. Sexual objects, always expected to be sexually available and glamour imagery reinforces the point. Actually no it doesn't reinforce the point it drives it him with a sledgehammer. We get it, we're supposed to live up to these fantasies.

Of course there is also the additional factor that although we are supposed to be these sexually available things, if we are actually sexual then we're called a slut. It we use our sexuality then that is wrong. Sexuality is for hookers, not nice girls. The guys that look at glamour mags... they're the same guys down the pub who are joking about 'the girl in admin who is a slut' because she happened to sleep with a male co-worker.

- Many in our society still believe that women shouldn't have a sexuality. That is why one camp will object to these images. (Usually an older generation, but not always sadly).

- The other camp object to glamour images because to be honest, we're sick of being told how we should present ourselves to the world. And when we do present ourselves that way, the world tells us we shouldn't.

I personally find most glamour trashy and unnecessary. I don't see that it has much place in the world. I think it's a shame that so many young women see it as a life goal to be presented this way and look to it to gain acceptance.

(N.B. The above images are nice. They're ok. But I don't see their purpose other than to be softcore glamour. There are a million more interesting 'people photos' to shoot.)
 
I say live a little, if you've got it flaunt it, (if that's what you want to do of course).;) I would say that nine out of ten women would love to look like this model if they are honest. its life, personally I'm not a page 3 kind of person but cant see anything wrong with a man or women taking their kit off to show their great body's which they are probably extremely proud of. :)
 
Nice pics, well taken you should be happy with them and take the confidence and experience you've gained from taking them.

The main thing is the model happy with them? If so then all other opinions become null and void.
 
Fatheadedlizard said:
Nice pics, well taken you should be happy with them and take the confidence and experience you've gained from taking them.

The main thing is the model happy with them? If so then all other opinions become null and void.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean :LOL::LOL::agree:
 
CharlotteM said:
I personally find most glamour trashy and unnecessary. I don't see that it has much place in the world. I think it's a shame that so many young women see it as a life goal to be presented this way and look to it to gain acceptance.

(N.B. The above images are nice. They're ok. But I don't see their purpose other than to be softcore glamour. There are a million more interesting 'people photos' to shoot.)
Click to expand...


So whats different to the half naked men on your site or the nude pictures you have posted on 500px ? how are they any more un trashy or unnecessary? bit of a contradiction you have going on there.

As for the images I think 1,4 and 5 are all great.

Im not keen on that style of head shot in 2 personally and 3 just doesn't work with the rest in my view.
 
pmac said:
So whats different to the half naked men on your site or the nude pictures you have posted on 500px ? how are they any more un trashy or unnecessary? bit of a contradiction you have going on there.
Click to expand...

I did say that men and women are presented differently in most sexy imagery - you conveniently didn't quote that bit of my post. Women are generally objects and men are generally subjects.

However I also did not say that I didn't produce work that I feel objectifies men. DT01 asked a question, I replied with an answer to his/her question.
 
CharlotteM said:
I did say that men and women are presented differently in most sexy imagery - you conveniently didn't quote that bit of my post. Women are generally objects and men are generally subjects.

However I also did not say that I didn't produce work that I feel objectifies men. DT01 asked a question, I replied with an answer to his/her question.
Click to expand...

Sorry but what twaddle. You've been exposed as a hypocrite, pure and simple. You can't bleat on about objectification and then produce work that does exactly that.
 
inkiboo said:
Sorry but what twaddle. You've been exposed as a hypocrite, pure and simple. You can't bleat on about objectification and then produce work that does exactly that.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because lets pretend that patriarchy didn't happen. /sarcasm

I am not a hypocrite. I said that I don't feel most glamour images are necessary. I didn't give an opinion on my own work and what I think of it.
 
CharlotteM said:
Yes. Because lets pretend that patriarchy didn't happen. /sarcasm

I am not a hypocrite. I said that I don't feel most glamour images are necessary. I didn't give an opinion on my own work and what I think of it.
Click to expand...

I don't feel most photographs, no matter what the subject matter, are necessary but what I think is necessary or not matters little.

You can't complain about objectification of one sex when you have taken photos that objectify another sex. And the sarcasm is rather unnecessary; I've just completed a thesis on pornography for women and I'm more than aware of the patriarchal view of sex presented to the world.
 
inkiboo said:
I don't feel most photographs, no matter what the subject matter, are necessary but what I think is necessary or not matters little.

You can't complain about objectification of one sex when you have taken photos that objectify another sex. And the sarcasm is rather unnecessary; I've just completed a thesis on pornography for women and I'm more than aware of the patriarchal view of sex presented to the world.
Click to expand...

Then you must surely be aware that the social constructs surrounding the view of male and female bodies in this context are different - which is what I said. You can't treat men and women identically when they are being gazed at, our social hierarchy does not allow us that privilege. We are a patriarchal society and men and women are gazed upon differently. It's film theory 101!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top