The lighting on your subject is really good. I think her lower back is a little too hot on the first image. The real issue is that the environment isn't as stunning as your vibrant model. Do you have a carnival environment or amusement park that would better compliment her?
Aug 29, 2010 at 09:06 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Andre Labonte wrote:
Instead of using her beauty to creat a work of art, her posing, atire and facial expression make her look like a sex doll rather than a person.
With someone that attractive in that clothing, it's hard not to .
Andre Labonte wrote:
Instead of using her beauty to creat a work of art, her posing, atire and facial expression make her look like a sex doll rather than a person.
This impression says a lot more about you and how you choose to view the world, than it does about the model or the photographs.
There's nothing wrong with sex or being sexy, regardless of what you've been programmed to believe.
Great lighting, composition, tack sharp photos, I kinda agree, your model, completely overwhelms/overpowers her background, maybe if you used a larger f-stop, (not sure what f stop you used) would've have more bokeh, and hence a softer background.
Aug 29, 2010 at 07:50 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
charlesk wrote:
This impression says a lot more about you and how you choose to view the world, than it does about the model or the photographs.
There's nothing wrong with sex or being sexy, regardless of what you've been programmed to believe.
I never said there was anything wrong with the marital act (i.e. sex) or being sexy, did I? In fact, the human race would end rather quickly if not for sex. I have four children of my own.
But reducing a woman to nothing but a sex toy degrades her. The thread even strips her of her name and womanhood by caller her "Roller Girl". Kind of silly since we know this image has nothing to do with the roller blades she wares and she clearly is not a "girl" but a young woman. A woman can be sexy without degrading herself or being denegraded.
Also, I critiqued the picture and the impression the picture gave me, not the photographer or the young woman. I was not trying to be personal. I do not appreciate your personal attacks.
Take some time and go through my posts and you will find I have no issue with nudity or sex. I appreciate well done nude art.
Aug 29, 2010 at 08:05 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Andre Labonte wrote:
But reducing a woman to nothing but a sex toy degrades her.
Posing in a bathing suit with an alluring smile does not "degrade" someone.
It's just a fun picture of a pretty girl. The negative garbage is a residue of your religious moralizing.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Also, I critiqued the picture and the impression the picture gave me, not the photographer or the young woman. I was not trying to be personal. I do not appreciate your personal attacks.
Calling a woman a "sex doll" is pretty personal in my books -- especially towards the photographer.
Aug 29, 2010 at 08:30 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
charlesk wrote:
Posing in a bathing suit with an alluring smile does not "degrade" someone.
It's just a fun picture of a pretty girl. The negative garbage is a residue of your religious moralizing.
Calling a woman a "sex doll" is pretty personal in my books -- especially towards the photographer.
Who said anything about religon? Only people of faith have this view? Wow, talk about sterotyping.
As for the "sex toy" or "sex doll" comment, you are taking me completely out of context. I said it made her look like one and I do not like to see any woman so degraded. That's the point, she is a woman, not a sex toy. Nice try on twisting my words.
Enough of this ... why not go back to critiquing the OP's pictures. I have my opinions of the impression this image gave me and I stated it. Sorry you don't like it.
ta for all the feedback guys seriously good and negative all good
as for degrading - absolutely not, ally and iare actually great friends and get along it was her idea and we had a lot of fun doing it.
The glamy style i shoot is often cliche and i am too stoopid to think up original ideas espcially in the glam scene alot of it is very cliche and very over done but we still enjoy shooting it
Andre Labonte wrote:
Only people of faith have this view?
Only? No. But in my experience it is mostly religious people who say things like that.
Andre Labonte wrote:
I said it made her look like one and I do not like to see any woman so degraded.
She's just a young woman in a bathing suit on a set of roller skates. There's nothing "degrading" about that.
On the other hand, you projecting your moralistic judgments and saying she looks like a "sex doll" for no valid reason -- *that* is degrading.
Andre Labonte wrote:
I have my opinions of the impression this image gave me and I stated it. Sorry you don't like it.
And I have my opinions as to the reason you got that impression, and that it doesn't reflect anything about the images themselves. Sorry you don't like that.
ymmv greatly, but to me the only thing going for this series is that she has a nice body. unfortunately, it feels like there wasn't any planning beyond "hot-ish girl, check. lights, check. let's shoot, i guess."
the background/setting is strange, not in a good way; there are so many other settings that could have empowered this series and not felt so awkward. her "have i done something wrong, daddy" posing is cliche. the lighting is the most interesting in the behind-the-scenes shot. again, i don't get the feeling of depth of planning, or creative voyeuristic sponteneity. either would have been interesting.
sorry if that sounds harsh, because it does take some cajones to open yourself up to criticism, but those were my impressions.
abam cheers for the feedback - always happy to hear it.
we were actually going to shoot in a roller skating rink. but i have a very good friend who is also wanting to shoot the same theme and he is really trying to get published etc and i purposefully went another direction to hopefully give him the opportunity to get his work out there.
Andre Labonte wrote:
But reducing a woman to nothing but a sex toy degrades her. The thread even strips her of her name and womanhood by caller her "Roller Girl". Kind of silly since we know this image has nothing to do with the roller blades she wares and she clearly is not a "girl" but a young woman. A woman can be sexy without degrading herself or being denegraded.
Who are you to critique the purpose of this photo and deduce what is and was going on with the session and woman? The woman clearly knew what type of photo she was doing and where she was doing it. If she had any issue with it she could have walked away. She didn't and obviously enjoyed the shoot. Degrading herself? Maybe she loves people looking at her and appreciating her beauty?
I think your comments are more degrading to her than her outfit and posing could ever be. Your comments make it seem as if she's so weak and unintelligent that she was conned into this shoot, just dealt with it and was uncomfortable the entire time. Her expressions say otherwise. Stop degrading her with your comments alluding to the fact she was so weak and had zero say in the shoot. Please.
.