 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / January 20063x Wendy
Three portraits of Wendy on: http://www.fotogregoir.dds.nl/portret/index5.html Your comments are highly appreciated ! Gregoir > Three portraits of Wendy on: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Gregoir Teeth are too yellow.....see minimal correction: http://www.flashworth.com/allnude/untitled.jpg >> Three portraits of Wendy on: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Teeth are too yellow.....see minimal correction: >http://www.flashworth.com/allnude/untitled.jpg Teeth are too white for me, distracting from the picture. John H >> Three portraits of Wendy on: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Teeth are too yellow.....see minimal correction: >http://www.flashworth.com/allnude/untitled.jpg Was the goal here to take a well-composed photograph of Wendy, or to take a picture of Wendy and improve her looks? If the former, there's no need to correct the color of her teeth. The photographer has done a good job. Especially on the middle shot. With Photoshop, we can whiten teeth, erase wrinkles, and eliminate eye-bags. When this is done, though, the results are no longer photographs. They are artistic creations based on manipulated images.  SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> Three portraits of Wendy on: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > eye-bags. When this is done, though, the results are no longer > photographs. They are artistic creations based on manipulated images. I agree, especially the middle shot is good......however a good photographer will make his client/model look good. I was distracted by something that took away from the photograph--it immediately caught my eye--it doesn't necessarily become an "artistic creation" to make the photograph a better photograph. Yes, you can eliminate eye-bags, wrinkles and change the personna of the model by doing so, and make a photograph an artistic creation, but correcting color to make a photograph better is an obligation. (And there are many who would argue that great photography is an artistic creation in and of itself, without manipulation.) Mark >>>> Three portraits of Wendy on: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >are many who would argue that great photography is an artistic creation in >and of itself, without manipulation.) There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the picture to sell a product. If the image of Wendy is just a well-composed photograph of Wendy, then no alteration should be performed. To whiten her teeth would be akin to adding wrinkles and nicotine-stains on the fingers to an aged person photographed as a character shot. Should Karsh have added some worry-wrinkles to http://www.acepilots.com/ww2/churchill_portrait.jpg to make a "better" shot? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the > photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the picture to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > akin to adding wrinkles and nicotine-stains on the fingers to an aged > person photographed as a character shot. Thanks, Tony, for your definitive views on what photography is and isn't. Have you any particular credentials to expound majestically about photography? SignatureJohn McWilliams I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. >> There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the >> photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the picture to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Have you any particular credentials to expound majestically about >photography? I'm working on them right now in Photoshop. I have an old subscription offer from "Modern Photography", and with a little cutting and pasting I'll soon have a fine set of credentials. Your comments on my comments are always appreciated. You have no idea how much importance I attach to them. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the >>> photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the picture to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Your comments on my comments are always appreciated. You have no idea >how much importance I attach to them. LOL :-) As an undirected comment in general I recall someone once offering that "Opinions are like (*) holes - everyone has one and the other fellows stinks". Dogs have their own outlook and perhaps there is a whiff of wisdom to it. To them no "opinion" stinks. They're just different. ;-) John H >>>> There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the >>>> photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the picture to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >is a whiff of wisdom to it. To them no "opinion" stinks. They're >just different. ;-) It seems to me that when someone posts some images and says "What do you think of these?", that the poster is soliciting opinions. Not opinions from credentialed experts, but opinions. Mr McWilliams obviously has some other criterion in mind. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > It seems to me that when someone posts some images and says "What do > you think of these?", that the poster is soliciting opinions. Not > opinions from credentialed experts, but opinions. Mr McWilliams > obviously has some other criterion in mind. I doubt that in asking "What do you think of these" the OP was looking for your opinions about what constitutes photography vs crossing a line. >> It seems to me that when someone posts some images and says "What do >> you think of these?", that the poster is soliciting opinions. Not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I doubt that in asking "What do you think of these" the OP was looking >for your opinions about what constitutes photography vs crossing a line. I'm sorry that you fail to understand what a newsgroup is all about. Unsolicited opinions and extensions of the topic are the very heart of newsgroupery. While I wasn't asking for your opinion of my opinion, your offering of that opinion is well within the expectations anyone should have when reading a newsgroup. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > I'm sorry that you fail to understand what a newsgroup is all about. Good try, but a quick Google should clear up any misconceptions. I've been playing on Usenet for a long time indeed. I grok its fullness. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the > photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the > picture to sell a product. Nonsense. Even if one accepts that there is such a line, the only person who should decide if and when to cross it is the photographer (or their employer), for whatever reasons he or she decides. >> There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the >> photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >person who should decide if and when to cross it is the photographer >(or their employer), for whatever reasons he or she decides. You've snipped a bit of context here, and in doing so you've overlooked the basis for the comment. The photographer, Gregoir, stated that he didn't think the alternation was an improvement. The alteration was suggested and provided by another poster. It seems to me that Gregoir was trying to present an image of Wendy - as Wendy is - and not an image of Wendy as she should be. He set the line. The "improvement" crossed the photographer's line. I don't see a problem with suggesting that Wendy's look can be improved by whitening the teeth. What I do see as a problem is suggesting that it's not a good picture unless the teeth are whitened. (Not that the poster suggested that without the whitening the picture was not good.) SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > You've snipped a bit of context here, and in doing so you've > overlooked the basis for the comment. The photographer, Gregoir, > stated that he didn't think the alternation was an improvement. The > alteration was suggested and provided by another poster. Clearly, I should not have snipped the context. Perhaps had I not, you would have better remembered that your "shouldn't cross the line" comment was in response not to the OP, but to Mark's "correcting color to make a photograph better is an obligation." Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com >> You've snipped a bit of context here, and in doing so you've >> overlooked the basis for the comment. The photographer, Gregoir, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >comment was in response not to the OP, but to Mark's "correcting color >to make a photograph better is an obligation." You might want to read the exchange again in context. You have indicated that you are quoting me, but you have not quoted me. You have not even represented my comment. There's a line in appearing to quote, too, that should not be crossed. The photographer, in my opinion, has no obligation whatsoever to correct color, when "correct color" means "to change color", to present a false image anymore than he has an obligation to correct a blemish. He may choose to, but he has no obligation. A false image is not a better image unless the photographer's intent is to present what he or the subject would like the subject to look like. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > You might want to read the exchange again in context. You have > indicated that you are quoting me, but you have not quoted me. You mean to say that you did not write: "There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the picture to sell a product." Because, if that's what you're saying, you might want to take better care to lock your doors at night, because someone using your IP address and your screen name did, in fact, say that very thing. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com >> You might want to read the exchange again in context. You have >> indicated that you are quoting me, but you have not quoted me. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >care to lock your doors at night, because someone using your IP address >and your screen name did, in fact, say that very thing. I would think that you would know what constitutes a quote, what constitutes a paraphrase, and what constitutes an allusion to what was said. I would also think that you would know that you really don't slip anything past people when you selectively snip. You wrote: "Clearly, I should not have snipped the context. Perhaps had I not, you would have better remembered that your "shouldn't cross the line" comment was in response not to the OP, but to Mark's 'correcting color to make a photograph better is an obligation'." The above presents what appears to be a quote of what I said, but is not a quote of what I said. In the post that I'm replying to, you've restored what I've said. It is quite different from saying that Mark "crossed the line" as you have implied. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > I would think that you would know what constitutes a quote I do. For example, I quoted what you posted. > I would also think that you would know that you really don't > slip anything past people when you selectively snip. Since the entire thread is quite new, I expect it is still all available on everyones local Usenet server, and if not, is readily searchable on Google. Therefore, it would be fruitless to even attempt to 'slip anything past', since anyone who cares to can read the entire thread for themselves. Though at this point, I daresay most would not be interested. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com >> I would think that you would know what constitutes a quote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Though at this point, I daresay most would not be interested. Actually there is a lurker who monitors these groups and keeps an account of who zips up last in such monumental pissing contests. Have at it, kids. You may set a record. SignatureFrank ess "You know my method, Watson. It is founded upon the observation of trifles." —Sherlock Holmes— > Actually there is a lurker who monitors these groups and keeps an > account of who zips up last in such monumental pissing contests. > Have at it, kids. You may set a record. I seriously doubt it - I can't imagine this comes anywhere close to qualifying as "monumental". Unless, perhaps, when used in the phrase "monumentally pointless". Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com >> I would think that you would know what constitutes a quote > >I do. For example, I quoted what you posted. And you also quoted what I did not post. >> I would also think that you would know that you really don't >> slip anything past people when you selectively snip. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to 'slip anything past', since anyone who cares to can read the entire >thread for themselves. Many newsreaders, as mine is, are set to show only unread and current posts. The trail of the thread may be opened, but people seldom bother. >Though at this point, I daresay most would not be interested. Very true. I look forward to meeting you again in an exchange. Perhaps you will actually address the topic or question. I'd like to see how you handle that. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > And you also quoted what I did not post. Incorrect. My inital post, in its entirety, was: ******** > There's a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed unless the > photograph is a commercial shot where the model is in the > picture to sell a product. Nonsense. Even if one accepts that there is such a line, the only person who should decide if and when to cross it is the photographer (or their employer), for whatever reasons he or she decides. ******** > The trail of the thread may be opened, but people seldom > bother. I would recommend to you that you take the time to develop the habit, as your memory is obviously too flawed to be trusted. > I look forward to meeting you again in an exchange. Perhaps you will > actually address the topic or question. I'd like to see how you > handle that. As is clear from my quoted post above, I set out to do exactly that. Unfortunately, you were more interested in dissembling and obfuscating than in defending your absurd comment about a line that shouldn't be crossed. Perhaps you recognized that it was a pretty foolish thing to say, and so were simply trying to distract from it by spinning as fast as you could. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > As is clear from my quoted post above, I set out to do exactly that. > Unfortunately, you were more interested in dissembling and obfuscating > than in defending your absurd comment about a line that shouldn't be > crossed. Perhaps you recognized that it was a pretty foolish thing to > say, and so were simply trying to distract from it by spinning as fast > as you could. Totally irrelevant! Tony and I determined in another newsgroup that he does, in fact, have Wainscoting on his walls. Rita Rita D Berkowitz wrote: > Totally irrelevant! Tony and I determined in another newsgroup that > he does, in fact, have Wainscoting on his walls. If you're convinced, well, hell, I reckon that's good enough for me. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com >> Totally irrelevant! Tony and I determined in another newsgroup that >> he does, in fact, have Wainscoting on his walls. > > If you're convinced, well, hell, I reckon that's good enough for me. Convinced? Well, after a mindless pissing contest in the true spirit of any Usenet conversation Tony did admit having Wainscoting on his walls. True, I was highly skeptical since my stance was he used Photoshop to put it on there. I won't back down on my accusation that he digitally removed the knots and nail holes. But, if it's good enough for you then is surely is good enough for me. Want an after dinner mint? Rita > Want an after dinner mint? You got any of them booze filled chocolates instead? Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > >>> Three portraits of Wendy on: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > necessarily become an "artistic creation" to make the photograph a better > photograph. You're caught up in the trend towards white teeth that is all the rage in a small subset of current human culture. It used to be wildly popular at one time for teeth to be distinctly off-white, and preparations were sold for this purpose. Looking beyond trendy social conditioning, Wendy's teeth look perfectly fine to me. Nice photographs, BTW. Jon > You're caught up in the trend towards white teeth that is all the > rage in a small subset of current human culture. It used to be > wildly popular at one time for teeth to be distinctly off-white, and > preparations were sold for this purpose. That's a good point. What amazes me is how people are literally destroying their teeth much more quickly for the sake of vanity. > Looking beyond trendy social conditioning, Wendy's teeth look > perfectly fine to me. I agree. They are what they are. > Nice photographs, BTW. Agree. Rita >>> Three portraits of Wendy on: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > eye-bags. When this is done, though, the results are no longer > photographs. They are artistic creations based on manipulated images. Teeth are too white for me too in: http://www.flashworth.com/allnude/untitled.jpg My only goal was to make a good spontaneous shot of Wendy. Gregoir (NL) >>>> Three portraits of Wendy on: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Gregoir (NL) If the teeth "require" lightening, then the eye-whites, too. Otherwise, if I hadn't seen the originals, the "corrected" version would be OK. I don't like the wrist in the last one. My eyes kept jumping away from the very pleasant face to the angles. Natural as it may be, it distracts from what I think was the purpose of the photo. Remember that a v v large percentage of people viewing such pictures are not philosophers, photographers, nor hypercritical lesson-givers. They may see things through a haze of ignorance, tastelessness, and disinterest in novel or extreme dimensions, but their appreciation is no less poignant, on their own terms. Shoot for yourself. If your self needs a little catering to the intended audience, so be it. It is yourself who contributed the perception of that need and its valence, resulting in your personal product. Which does not have to conform to any parameters other than your own. That may include any influences you may adopt as germane. Including but not limited to "generally accepted guidelines". -- Frank ess "In this universe there are things that just don't yield to thinking —plain or fancy—Dude". —J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson >>>>Three portraits of Wendy on: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > My only goal was to make a good spontaneous shot of Wendy. And that you did. I did note, tho, that her skin tones are more alive in the altered image. Some folks have teeth at least as white as in the alteration...... SignatureJohn McWilliams If your only goal was to take a spontaneous photo, you have done well. Assuming you are an amateur, they are very good and you should keep it up. As for the teeth, that's a personal thing. Personally, might lighten them some, but not too bleached-white. The only comment I have is that it appears that you removed the background. On photo #1, the loose hairs look a little photoshopped -- if you look at the ones near HER right ear. Also, below that there is a gap in the hair where the background isn't quite as light. Loose hair are particularly hard to handle when deleting a background, but you did well. All in all, they are very good. Keep up the good work. > If your only goal was to take a spontaneous photo, you have done well. > Assuming you are an amateur, they are very good and you should keep it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > All in all, they are very good. Keep up the good work. Thanks. No I did not remove the background. The background is white paper, a bit (too)overexposed. Gregoir Touch up those loose hairs, print it, hang it on your wall and be VERY proud of it. ... and give her a copy, too, I suppose .... >If your only goal was to take a spontaneous photo, you have done well. >Assuming you are an amateur, they are very good and you should keep it >up. If you click on the back arrows on that page, and look at the rest of his photographs, it doesn't look like Gregoir is just snapping spontaneous photos and happened to come across Wendy. He seems to have an endless supply of very attractive young ladies. I don't think he needs encouragement to keep it up. (Pun intended) Since his site link is snipped, I'll put it back: http://www.fotogregoir.dds.nl/portret/index5.html SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Damn, your right. An endless supply of good lucking women. Maybe we should be asking for HIS advice. Nice photos, frankly better than mine. I see from your porfolio you are a professional. I saw the rest of your portrait portfolio on your site. What's your typical lighting setup? I like it. skim > Nice photos, frankly better than mine. I see from your porfolio you are > a professional. I saw the rest of your portrait portfolio on your site. > What's your typical lighting setup? I like it. > > skim Thank you , Skim. No I'am not a professional. For my portraits with a white background I use mostly 1 studioflash with a white umbrella. The flash goes through the umbrella. And two flashes,(without umbrella) on the white background to get the backgrond nicely white. For portraits with a dark backround I us 1 flash with the umbrella and 1 flash with a snoot from behind on the hair of the model. Best regards, Gregoir (NL) www.fotogregoir.dds.nl > Was the goal here to take a well-composed photograph of Wendy, or to > take a picture of Wendy and improve her looks? Good question. > If the former, there's no need to correct the color of her teeth. The > photographer has done a good job. Especially on the middle shot. True, minor color correction isn't always a bad thing, but if the person has smoker's teeth like this person does you would be misrepresenting what the subject is by whitening the teeth. Of course, this would be fine if the subject wanted a picture that didn't represent reality and you still get paid. > With Photoshop, we can whiten teeth, erase wrinkles, and eliminate > eye-bags. When this is done, though, the results are no longer > photographs. They are artistic creations based on manipulated images. Tony, we usually don't agree on much, but you nailed it perfectly. This reminds of that picture of the Burger King Whopper. That damn thing looks so good; the beef looks to be about 20oz, the lettuce and tomatoes look so fresh and full of color. I wonder how many people actually got a Whopper that looks close to the one in the picture? Photoshop is great, but it seems to be an over abused tool in some cases. I guess it all depends on what you goals are for the end product? Rita >Tony, we usually don't agree on much, but you nailed it perfectly. It always makes me nervous when someone who normally disagrees with me does agree with me. It makes me feel like I misstated my position. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>Tony, we usually don't agree on much, but you nailed it perfectly. > > It always makes me nervous when someone who normally disagrees with me > does agree with me. It makes me feel like I misstated my position. You did! But not to worry; "Rita" often disagrees with whomever. (Or agrees, depending on which is the minority opinion.) But, since you know all about both photography and usenet, this does fall, does it not, well within what's expected in this old NG? SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>Tony, we usually don't agree on much, but you nailed it perfectly. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You did! But not to worry; "Rita" often disagrees with whomever. (Or >agrees, depending on which is the minority opinion.) Rita is a familiar poster to me from another newsgroup. >But, since you know all about both photography and usenet, this does >fall, does it not, well within what's expected in this old NG? Quite so. Newsgroup behavior is very predictable. For example, I know that people who are normally intelligent and reasonable often turn snide when their own opinions are not mirrored by others. They feel that if their opinion is challenged, then they are challenged. Most of my postings in the last five years have been in an English usage group that deals - in part - with the meaning of words. "Opinion", for example, means a view formed in the mind of the person expressing it. A "differing opinion" is not a contradiction of fact, but simply an alternative view. It's unfortunate that, in newsgroups, so many people bristle at differing opinions. Just for the record, I do not feel I know very much about photography. That's an iceberg that grows larger as you approach it. I do know quite a bit about how I react to photographs, and my opinions reflect my reaction. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> It always makes me nervous when someone who normally disagrees with >> me does agree with me. It makes me feel like I misstated my >> position. > You did! But not to worry; "Rita" often disagrees with whomever. (Or > agrees, depending on which is the minority opinion.) Hey, when in Rome.... Isn't this what Usenet is all about, 90% noise and disinformation to 10% quality information? I'm just trying to liven up the complacent natives and get them to think for themselves. As for Tony's opinion on this subject I genuinely agree with him. Photography, whether good or bad, is becoming a lost art to creative mass manipulation. Why buy a camera when you can manufacture a better image with CGI? > But, since you know all about both photography and usenet, this does > fall, does it not, well within what's expected in this old NG? Anyone that's been on Usenet for a while knows the in and out of what goes on. That being said, one can expect, in any group, that they will be abused or offered smart-a.s comments instead of a sincere answer to their genuine question. So, it's always best to take in all the information and noise and then to extrapolate any shred of usable data. Unfortunately, this is the norm so each of us find ways to adapt to our environment. Rita > Teeth are too yellow.....see minimal correction: > http://www.flashworth.com/allnude/untitled.jpg A lot cheaper to use Photoshop than to visit a Dentist. :-) But photoshop has a steeper learning curve than denistry. > http://www.fotogregoir.dds.nl/portret/index5.html > Your comments are highly appreciated ! I like #2 the best. The smile looks less natural on #1 and #3. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.