I married a redhead forty one years ago and together we share ten "non redhead" grand children. Your set uses the "red" perfectly. Pat yourself on the back.
Lisa, it was a blessing to come across your images on Fred Miranda and I go to your website regularly when I'm looking for inspiration. Maybe some day I'll be able to repay you by photographing your family. I have beautiful country here on the coast in Humboldt County but I'm just kind of blown away by the locations you have available. l look forward to years of enjoying your portraits.
Unbelievable is the fact that 'splay' has like 30 posts on this entire forum yet has sought me out to harass me at least 3 times now. You're right, it IS unbelievable. And obviously, I'm not the only one who thought this as his post is GONE now.
Wow...just, wow. Exceptional work. I'd revise your title though: "Exceptional photographer+200/2.0L+beautiful redhead = magic." The first, fourth and last are simply phenomenal...they stand out even among the others, which are also extremely good.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
She didn't lose any freckles in my processing - I love freckles. Always has to be one in the bunch. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion anyhow - I have not posted any SOOC shots from this session here. Things I DID do: sculpt and enhance the lighting that was already there. Things I did NOT do: obliterate any freckles.
Lisa, you post "always has to be one in the bunch". That is a really interesting statement to make. It implies that you will only accept praise from other FMers and anyone with an alternate view is wrong (the one in the bunch). The "one in the bunch" this time happens to be a long standing member of FM (9300 posts since 2008) and an accomplished photographer in two industries (wedding and fashion). He offered a thoughtful critique and he gets "always has to be one in the bunch"? That statement really came off as insecure, rude, and dismissive.
I dont really have an opinion of whether the freckles were 'obliterated' or not as I am not an expert in that area...but Jeremy is. It is really clear that you are only interested in the opinions of others IF their opinion is that of praise. He gave you his opinion of how he saw it. Why dismiss it? Why be so defensive? You dont have to agree with the guy, but damn, 'always has to be one in the bunch'? I think a 'thank you for your feedback' would wear better on you.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Unbelievable is the fact that 'splay' has like 30 posts on this entire forum yet has sought me out to harass me at least 3 times now. You're right, it IS unbelievable. And obviously, I'm not the only one who thought this as his post is GONE now.
Some people need to actually shoot and not be so petty and jealous. I certainly don't photograph anything like you (you do it SO much better than I could) but that's cool. My work is so different but can I still admire your work and what you do. Keep up the good work Lisa and I to love the first one. Bet the mom loved'm all.
Lisa, Joel Meyerowitz did a book called Red Heads in the 1980s IIRC. He shot it with an 8X10 view camera and VPL for the long exposures he needed. Not a lot like your work but in some way your first image, in a very good way, kind of reminded me of those images.
Wrote a note indicating the post work is nice, but any lens at that f-stop would produce similar RAW results.
Also agree with the skin smoothing being obvious.
Realized my efforts to share would be in vain and met with crying, so i removed my comments immediately.
Thank you for the confirmation.
I sure miss reading the posts from those who can take crits like adults and don't cry when someone doesn't provide a glowing review.
I have this lens and there is nothing at f/2 like it short of the Leica 50 .95 noctilux and that would be at .95. But the first image stands on its own and is good.
Definitely pretty work as I stated earlier in the thread prior to the drama, but it makes me rethink about why people post and how these motivations differ. Lisa, if you don't want critique you may want to post such rather than having a comment lead to the annual meltdown thread. You are a wonderful contributor and it would detract from the forum as a whole if you didn't post as much. If you do want critique you may want to think about your tone in reply; I do recall that a previous critical post (on OCF) lead to seeming growth as a photographer and the folks here were genuinely glad that you branched out and produced more beautiful work.
I know it's stated as a cliche, but I've definitely learned tons more from critical comments than from the (seldom received) attaboys, and personally love it when a Jeremy or Chuck tears into something I've posted. As personal varies wildly, all c&c should be taken with a grain of salt as to how applicable it is to your photography, but unless there is intended malice I'm just happy to receive any and all advice.
I really didn't see much of a critique. I mean if someone wants to critique lets take say # 1 and discuss it. I can certainly explain why I think it's a strong image and will. I would love to hear another intelligent take on it. I have yet to read anything with any real meat to it other than a boarder line personal attack. Nothing about the actual work itself. Lets discuss #1. Splay would you like to start?
airfrogusmc wrote:
I really didn't see much of a critique. I mean if someone wants to critique lets take say # 1 and discuss it. I can certainly explain why I think it's a strong image and will. I would love to hear another intelligent take on it. I have yet to read anything with any real meat to it other than a boarder line personal attack. Nothing about the actual work itself. Lets discuss #1.
Have to go against the grain and praise and say that the PP on the skin is more then a little over the top, especially for a child who already has close to flawless skin. The loss of a defining feature such as freckles is just too much in my opinion.
The skin has been retouched, looking like a gaussian styled skin filtering system (such as Nik, DA's Beauty Box, etc - also achievable manually) with the layer altered in areas of the eyes/lips and then sharped on those areas. I'm not saying you went out of your way to remove her freckles; it's just that these filtering or gaussian methods for retouch remove detail and give a mushy skin look to photographs and in the process removes fine detail.
If you feel this is a borderline personal attack, then I might suggest your thoughts on this subject may be a bit skewed towards the poster or their work already and you are not ready to contirbute a objective opinion.
I can render an objective opinion. I've seen nothing actually discussing the visual language of the images or the intent of the images and whether they meet the intent of the photographer. Lets discuss #1.
Also I work in a world with art directors, graphic designers and other visual professionals and if you can't objectively defend your work as a photographer you had better not become a professional.
Postprocessing is a major part of modern photography, and you would be fooling yourself if you didn't think it was the defining feature that separates this image from anyone else shooting this subject matter with the same lens and camera set up. Discussing post processing On this shot is probably the most relevant thing to discuss about it.
PP is a just as important as shooting. Getting the image right in camera is only the first part of a larger more important whole. THe PP is the second part and just as important. Only the photographer knows exactly the way the finished piece is supposed to look. Did anyone bust Adams for the zone system? Just the opposite. So she punched in some saturation and contrast. So what, who cares? Its the final image and its visual validity we should be discussing. Would someone be busting Adams chops demanding to see his original negative of Moonrise? If they did I kinda know what he'd say. Just what i'd say if someone asked me for one of my raw files. I would say it doesn't matter. All that matters is the final image.
