Archive 2021 · Gracie in The River
p.1 #1Gracie in The River
Congratulations to DanielScott for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 5 votes - View Previous Winners
natural light
Edited on Aug 04, 2021 at 04:54 AM · View previous versions
Jul 31, 2021 at 04:19 PM
p.1 #2Gracie in The River
Ohhh, Finally a lovely portrait which is not hit by a pesky silver reflector with a reverb on all your foreheads.
Natural light is the best light and the atmos conditions created for you a giant diffused soft box.
One observation is the protruding bit which might be her breast/chest which draws the eye unnecessarily.
Natural light is the best light and the atmos conditions created for you a giant diffused soft box.
One observation is the protruding bit which might be her breast/chest which draws the eye unnecessarily.
Aug 01, 2021 at 01:30 AM
p.1 #3Gracie in The River
Almass wrote:
Ohhh, Finally a lovely portrait which is not hit by a pesky silver reflector with a reverb on all your foreheads.
Natural light is the best light and the atmos conditions created for you a giant diffused soft box.
One observation is the protruding bit which might be her breast/chest which draws the eye unnecessarily.
Was the comment about the reflector necessary? You always seem to find a way to make your comments unnecessarily rude and backhanded whenever you make a comment on my posts, not sure why. Either way, thanks for looking. I really wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting on my threads though. As soon as I got the notification that you of all people responded to my thread I knew it would be condescending and backhanded, rather than helpful.
Ohhh, Finally a lovely portrait which is not hit by a pesky silver reflector with a reverb on all your foreheads.
Natural light is the best light and the atmos conditions created for you a giant diffused soft box.
One observation is the protruding bit which might be her breast/chest which draws the eye unnecessarily.
Was the comment about the reflector necessary? You always seem to find a way to make your comments unnecessarily rude and backhanded whenever you make a comment on my posts, not sure why. Either way, thanks for looking. I really wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting on my threads though. As soon as I got the notification that you of all people responded to my thread I knew it would be condescending and backhanded, rather than helpful.
Aug 01, 2021 at 01:33 AM
p.1 #4Gracie in The River
Putting that macro lens to good use, I see.
The lighting turned out well. Thanks for the story behind it.
The previous comment seems odd. Protruding bit? Really? If anything it would be better protruding a bit more.
And criticism of a reflector that wasn't used? Why?
The lighting turned out well. Thanks for the story behind it.
The previous comment seems odd. Protruding bit? Really? If anything it would be better protruding a bit more.
And criticism of a reflector that wasn't used? Why?
Aug 01, 2021 at 05:29 AM
p.1 #5Gracie in The River
Jim Rickards wrote:
Putting that macro lens to good use, I see.
The lighting turned out well. Thanks for the story behind it.
The previous comment seems odd. Protruding bit? Really? If anything it would be better protruding a bit more.
And criticism of a reflector that wasn't used? Why?
Thank you.
I almost always use a reflector in my work, so he was making a backhanded comment referencing previous posts of mine in this forum having nothing to do with this post. He also chooses not to reference the large number of images that I've shared here which I did not use a reflector, making his comment even more obviously an attempt to be condescending for no good reason at all.
Putting that macro lens to good use, I see.
The lighting turned out well. Thanks for the story behind it.
The previous comment seems odd. Protruding bit? Really? If anything it would be better protruding a bit more.
And criticism of a reflector that wasn't used? Why?
Thank you.
I almost always use a reflector in my work, so he was making a backhanded comment referencing previous posts of mine in this forum having nothing to do with this post. He also chooses not to reference the large number of images that I've shared here which I did not use a reflector, making his comment even more obviously an attempt to be condescending for no good reason at all.
Aug 01, 2021 at 05:42 AM
p.1 #6Gracie in The River
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.
Joshua
Joshua
Aug 01, 2021 at 11:30 AM
p.1 #7Gracie in The River
AGeoJO wrote:
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass@ feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.
Joshua
Thank you Joshua. If this were the first time that he has made similarly backhanded comments in one of my threads I may be more inclined to take that position on this being a misunderstanding, but it isn't, so I have a hard time believing that. And why would he criticize a reflector that wasn't being used? It has nothing to do with this and was an unnecessary and backhanded comment to make about my other work. As Almass said himself: "when you make erroneous comments, you will get sharp answers."
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass@ feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.
Joshua
Thank you Joshua. If this were the first time that he has made similarly backhanded comments in one of my threads I may be more inclined to take that position on this being a misunderstanding, but it isn't, so I have a hard time believing that. And why would he criticize a reflector that wasn't being used? It has nothing to do with this and was an unnecessary and backhanded comment to make about my other work. As Almass said himself: "when you make erroneous comments, you will get sharp answers."
Aug 01, 2021 at 03:51 PM
p.1 #9Gracie in The River
AGeoJO wrote:
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass@ feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.
Joshua
+1
This is a different look from your signature lighting / processing.
It is a rather stark difference actually.
If someone had listed three people who might have taken this shot, and you were one of them to choose from, I'd have immediately ruled you out. Again, not a negative on the image (per se), just acknowledging how strong a departure it is from your signature styling.
This image (imo) could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions. The lighting isn't a particularly skillful application (which is fine). That's not to be read as a negative, rather a left-handed observation of how different it is from the lighting that you do apply your signature hand to ... even with it being natural lighting also. In other words, this one doesn't showcase your command of light. Nice enough pic, but kinda "meh" for me ... compared to your body of work.
Technical points, the uber-soft light might be a candidate for a different sharpening approach, subject to your goals for the image. Looks like plenty of magenta in the shadow side of things. Again, subject to your goals for the image.
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass@ feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.
Joshua
+1
This is a different look from your signature lighting / processing.
It is a rather stark difference actually.
If someone had listed three people who might have taken this shot, and you were one of them to choose from, I'd have immediately ruled you out. Again, not a negative on the image (per se), just acknowledging how strong a departure it is from your signature styling.
This image (imo) could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions. The lighting isn't a particularly skillful application (which is fine). That's not to be read as a negative, rather a left-handed observation of how different it is from the lighting that you do apply your signature hand to ... even with it being natural lighting also. In other words, this one doesn't showcase your command of light. Nice enough pic, but kinda "meh" for me ... compared to your body of work.
Technical points, the uber-soft light might be a candidate for a different sharpening approach, subject to your goals for the image. Looks like plenty of magenta in the shadow side of things. Again, subject to your goals for the image.
Aug 01, 2021 at 08:07 PM
p.1 #10Gracie in The River
RustyBug wrote:
Joshua+1
This is a different look from your signature lighting / processing.
It is a rather stark difference actually.
If someone had listed three people who might have taken this shot, and you were one of them to choose from, I'd have immediately ruled you out. Again, not a negative on the image (per se), just acknowledging how strong a departure it is from your signature styling.
This image (imo) could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions. The lighting isn't a particularly skillful application (which is fine). That's not to...Show more →
I really don’t have much to say in response to this. Saying that anyone could have taken this photo simply because of the lighting conditions is not true, but nice try.
AGeoJO wrote
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass@@ feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.Joshua
This is a different look from your signature lighting / processing.
It is a rather stark difference actually.
If someone had listed three people who might have taken this shot, and you were one of them to choose from, I'd have immediately ruled you out. Again, not a negative on the image (per se), just acknowledging how strong a departure it is from your signature styling.
This image (imo) could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions. The lighting isn't a particularly skillful application (which is fine). That's not to...Show more →
I really don’t have much to say in response to this. Saying that anyone could have taken this photo simply because of the lighting conditions is not true, but nice try.
Aug 01, 2021 at 08:26 PM
p.1 #11Gracie in The River
Honestly I'm starting to think this forum is more toxic than helpful.
Aug 01, 2021 at 09:12 PM
p.1 #13Gracie in The River
I love this shot Daniel. Her expression and connection to the camera really come through!
Aug 01, 2021 at 10:20 PM
p.1 #14Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
Honestly I'm starting to think this forum is more toxic than helpful.
I think for everyone’s sake a “sticky” explaining the purpose of each board as Fred intends it to be would be most helpful.
As it stands now, it is not quite clear how the presentation boards vs. the “critique” forum (and other boards) are supposed to function. Add in cross-posting and it makes it even harder.
Personally I think it causes some of the issues we are experiencing…. Where I put an image and knowing *why* I put it up may help mitigate some of this.
Not sure where some people’s work falls honestly. Are you putting this up as a “this image is perfect to *me* and I do not want nor need critique I just want to share it.”? Or are you putting it up because “I *think* this shot works, I wonder what my fellow photographers think?” Do you want input from fellow PROS, friends, or everyone? And…depending on which of the above fits where should the picture go?
If the board is designed or intended to help fledgling amateur photogs…then why would a “pro” even post there unless providing an example to show someone a technique? If a “pro” wants to showcase their work-should they post in the “Pro” forum with a link to a personal website or an open board? If a “pro” posts in an open board and they receive negative or critical feedback on an image, should they get upset?
Honestly, the lines are kind of blurred in regard to a lot of this. It can make it difficult to know just how to respond to a post.
Honestly I'm starting to think this forum is more toxic than helpful.
I think for everyone’s sake a “sticky” explaining the purpose of each board as Fred intends it to be would be most helpful.
As it stands now, it is not quite clear how the presentation boards vs. the “critique” forum (and other boards) are supposed to function. Add in cross-posting and it makes it even harder.
Personally I think it causes some of the issues we are experiencing…. Where I put an image and knowing *why* I put it up may help mitigate some of this.
Not sure where some people’s work falls honestly. Are you putting this up as a “this image is perfect to *me* and I do not want nor need critique I just want to share it.”? Or are you putting it up because “I *think* this shot works, I wonder what my fellow photographers think?” Do you want input from fellow PROS, friends, or everyone? And…depending on which of the above fits where should the picture go?
If the board is designed or intended to help fledgling amateur photogs…then why would a “pro” even post there unless providing an example to show someone a technique? If a “pro” wants to showcase their work-should they post in the “Pro” forum with a link to a personal website or an open board? If a “pro” posts in an open board and they receive negative or critical feedback on an image, should they get upset?
Honestly, the lines are kind of blurred in regard to a lot of this. It can make it difficult to know just how to respond to a post.
Aug 02, 2021 at 05:02 AM
p.1 #15Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
Joshua+1
This is a different look from your signature lighting / processing.
It is a rather stark difference actually.
If someone had listed three people who might have taken this shot, and you were one of them to choose from, I'd have immediately ruled you out. Again, not a negative on the image (per se), just acknowledging how strong a departure it is from your signature styling.
This image (imo) could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions. The lighting isn't a particularly skillful application (which is fine). That's not to be read as a negative, rather a left-handed observation of how different it is from the lighting that you do apply your signature hand to ... even with it being natural lighting also. In other words, this one doesn't showcase your command of light. Nice enough pic, but kinda "meh" for me ... compared to your body of work.
Technical points, the uber-soft light might be a candidate for a different sharpening approach, subject to your goals for the image. Looks like plenty of magenta in the shadow side of things. Again, subject to your goals for the image.I really don’t have much to say in response to this. Saying that anyone could have taken this photo simply because of the lighting conditions is not true, but nice try.
That's not what I said ... or at least intended to convey. By "most anyone" ... that means it doesn't look like it has YOUR command and control of lighting being utilized. I could have shot that, just as well as a number of others. BUT, what "most anyone" can't do is replicate your style and command of lighting, that you harness in most of your work. The ambient lighting here simply doesn't afford / showcase your command of light.
You missed the point ... the lighting that this shot was taken in was uber-soft, and your talent and skill with your command and control of lighting isn't revealed in this image. Imo, there is nothing about the lighting (and your command of it) here that is exceptional ... compared to the command of lighting that you exhibit in your signature work. There is nothing wrong with the image, as you captured it.
It just doesn't reveal the exceptional command and control that I'm accustomed to seeing in your images. That's not a slight, just an observation of the lighting. That is a compliment to your command of light in your body of work. Imo, this image doesn't reveal your command of light the way most of your images do.
That's speaking to the matter of lighting, which you went to great lengths to mention it's significance on the image. Yet, I don't see the lighting as having the same level of significance ... except to render it rather mundane, compared to most of your work.
The glass is meant to be provided half-full. Try not to drink it half-empty.
RustyBug wrote
AGeoJO wrote
I like that image very much, Daniel! It is simple yet effective. It seems to me that you misunderstood @Almass@@@ feedback. My understanding is, he appreciated that a reflector was not used for that shot… I am not commenting on the protruding part though.Joshua
This is a different look from your signature lighting / processing.
It is a rather stark difference actually.
If someone had listed three people who might have taken this shot, and you were one of them to choose from, I'd have immediately ruled you out. Again, not a negative on the image (per se), just acknowledging how strong a departure it is from your signature styling.
This image (imo) could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions. The lighting isn't a particularly skillful application (which is fine). That's not to be read as a negative, rather a left-handed observation of how different it is from the lighting that you do apply your signature hand to ... even with it being natural lighting also. In other words, this one doesn't showcase your command of light. Nice enough pic, but kinda "meh" for me ... compared to your body of work.
Technical points, the uber-soft light might be a candidate for a different sharpening approach, subject to your goals for the image. Looks like plenty of magenta in the shadow side of things. Again, subject to your goals for the image.
That's not what I said ... or at least intended to convey. By "most anyone" ... that means it doesn't look like it has YOUR command and control of lighting being utilized. I could have shot that, just as well as a number of others. BUT, what "most anyone" can't do is replicate your style and command of lighting, that you harness in most of your work. The ambient lighting here simply doesn't afford / showcase your command of light.
You missed the point ... the lighting that this shot was taken in was uber-soft, and your talent and skill with your command and control of lighting isn't revealed in this image. Imo, there is nothing about the lighting (and your command of it) here that is exceptional ... compared to the command of lighting that you exhibit in your signature work. There is nothing wrong with the image, as you captured it.
It just doesn't reveal the exceptional command and control that I'm accustomed to seeing in your images. That's not a slight, just an observation of the lighting. That is a compliment to your command of light in your body of work. Imo, this image doesn't reveal your command of light the way most of your images do.
That's speaking to the matter of lighting, which you went to great lengths to mention it's significance on the image. Yet, I don't see the lighting as having the same level of significance ... except to render it rather mundane, compared to most of your work.
The glass is meant to be provided half-full. Try not to drink it half-empty.
Aug 02, 2021 at 06:09 AM
p.1 #16Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
Honestly I'm starting to think this forum is more toxic than helpful.
Depends what you want. "Groupies" that follow you around and praise every image you upload as the ultimate work of art, or people who are honest and tell you what you don't want to hear.
I for one believe that the image could use some color correction and a touch of additional contrast. The reds are too strong and the photo looks a little flat. Won't debate the pose or the model, though. Just this: I prefer women that smile. The eyes and mouth of the lady are screaming 'It's cold. Get me out of here.'
-Phil
Honestly I'm starting to think this forum is more toxic than helpful.
Depends what you want. "Groupies" that follow you around and praise every image you upload as the ultimate work of art, or people who are honest and tell you what you don't want to hear.
I for one believe that the image could use some color correction and a touch of additional contrast. The reds are too strong and the photo looks a little flat. Won't debate the pose or the model, though. Just this: I prefer women that smile. The eyes and mouth of the lady are screaming 'It's cold. Get me out of here.'
-Phil
Aug 02, 2021 at 08:24 AM
p.1 #17Gracie in The River
When it come to criticism subjective opinions are RARELY constructive Phil. I don't get the I'm cold thing at all. I see a lot of miisguided advice from forumland crits. Some of the responses can be just the opposite of helpful. I have and will say it again I don't find forum crits that helpful because most of the time people are trying to tell the creator to create what they would create instead of excepting what it is and moving on from there.
Thats not a jab at FM. My favorite thread on the world wide web is here on FM. I do think that on line crits on any forum are not very helpful. They are helpful if you want to make images like everyone else makes. I have clearly stated many times why I think this. I wont go into it again because its out there in this forum.
I'm going to post this again because it is on line forum crits.
This is part II I'll see if I can find part I and I'll post that as soon as I can find it. They are both very funny.
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html
Found a PDF that I converted to jpgs.
The comments are just priceless. The first time I read it I laughed so hard.
Thats not a jab at FM. My favorite thread on the world wide web is here on FM. I do think that on line crits on any forum are not very helpful. They are helpful if you want to make images like everyone else makes. I have clearly stated many times why I think this. I wont go into it again because its out there in this forum.
I'm going to post this again because it is on line forum crits.
This is part II I'll see if I can find part I and I'll post that as soon as I can find it. They are both very funny.
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html
Found a PDF that I converted to jpgs.
The comments are just priceless. The first time I read it I laughed so hard.
Aug 02, 2021 at 09:21 AM
p.1 #18Gracie in The River
airfrogusmc wrote:
I don't find forum crits that helpful
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a public forum where people communicate with each other. Criticism has to be expected. Why would anyone post a photo on FM if they can't live with even the politest negative reactions?
Simple solution: make sure you're telling people that you are not interested in criticism/ opinions/ interpretations when you post an image.
-Phil
I don't find forum crits that helpful
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a public forum where people communicate with each other. Criticism has to be expected. Why would anyone post a photo on FM if they can't live with even the politest negative reactions?
Simple solution: make sure you're telling people that you are not interested in criticism/ opinions/ interpretations when you post an image.
-Phil
Aug 02, 2021 at 10:15 AM
p.1 #19Gracie in The River
airfrogusmc wrote:
When it come to criticism subjective opinions are RARELY constructive Phil. I don't get the I'm cold thing at all. I see a lot of miisguided advice from forumland crits. Some of the responses can be just the opposite of helpful. I have and will say it again I don't find forum crits that helpful because most of the time people are trying to tell the creator to create what they would create instead of excepting what it is and moving on from there.
Thats not a jab at FM. My favorite thread on the world wide web is here...Show more →
Lol…definitely a belly laugh or two!
More to the point though….
Why are photographers putting their work out on a “forum” that is entirely based around commenting and interaction?
If Daniel, or any other photographer-at any level doesn’t want comments, at least critical ones, then get a Flickr or Smug-mug account and create your own protected space where comments are not allowed. The world can still view your work but you don’t need to waste time trying to justify your work and your treatment of the images.
If we are not open to critique, even well-Intended critique from people who actually like our work (see Kent’s over the top apology above, which was just sad to see) then what’s the point in posting on a public forum?
Just introduce yourself in the forum, maybe put up one pic as a sample and put a link to your work in the post….
Otherwise be very explicit in what you are looking for-help, praise, or critique, ‘whatever’.
Remember:
Fanboys gonna fan…haters gonna hate…
Aug 02, 2021 at 10:26 AM
p.1 #20Gracie in The River
Edited on Aug 07, 2021 at 06:28 AM · View previous versions
Aug 02, 2021 at 10:28 AM