Board index PBase Show and Tell Beautiful women.

Show and Tell

Beautiful women.

Announce and discuss your photos.
leggings
 
Posts: 331

Re: One of My Few "In the Clear" Shots

Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:57 pm


neovolatile wrote:Let us deconstruct the picture and find out what makes it successful, shall we? Why are there over 5400 hits on this non-nude shot? There are no extra links to it.

Hint, I did somethings to this shot that I think helped it.

Challenge: tell me what you think I did. My model Laurelei spotted most of them. Whatelse is there that makes this shot work?

Regards,
Ellsworth Weaver


That made me laugh, :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW: Nice photo but that is just my unprofessional opinion.

vanderstouw
 
Posts: 509


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:03 pm


legs:

feel free to give me suggestions (from one long time artist/art student to another)... i am not too proud...

ells:

i think the biggest thing about that photo that draws the hits is the tension in the hidden tension created in the shot by seeing the legs run up...

the bruise really creates a foil to the whole thing that ties it together right nice.

it has a whole sexual yet innocent thing (helped by the whole schoolgirl thing). - an erotica meets simplicity sort of thing.

of course, if the bruise wasn't there, it wouldn't work... it would probably get a lot of hits still (people like to see up peoples' skirts after all), but as a photograph, it wouldn't really have any other layers.

the shot that i have that has the most hits doesn't have that much to it.
just a bit of a curvy woman... but as far as being a great photo... it wouldn't even be in my personal top 50.

bobt54
 
Posts: 1090

Re: One of My Few "In the Clear" Shots

Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:42 pm


neovolatile wrote:Image

This is titled: Knees Mend But Hearts Sometimes Never

Let us deconstruct the picture and find out what makes it successful, shall we? Why are there over 5400 hits on this non-nude shot? There are no extra links to it.

Hint, I did somethings to this shot that I think helped it.

Challenge: tell me what you think I did. My model Laurelei spotted most of them. Whatelse is there that makes this shot work?

Regards,
Ellsworth Weaver


To me this photo is contradiction in itself. You have the face of a girl on the body of a woman in the clothes of a school girl. You show her in a shirt two sizes too small. The gap in the shirt beckons the eyes but you don't feel quite right going there.

If I had to guess on what you did, I would say that you smoothed over her shirt and possibly made it appear that she does not have a bra on thus preserving both the innocents and sexuality.

leggings
 
Posts: 331


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:50 pm


Bob54

I thought that was the reason why he did it. It is the corruption of innocence. The knee is a good touch. This is like sitting on a bench in NYC and reading Bukowski next to a school. Ells, did you have her put the blush on her cheeks or did you shop it in? Another good touch.

I feel like I am going to get slapped for looking at it.

mdlempert
 
Posts: 145


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:58 pm


Ellsworth: At first I wanted to say that you modified her hair and enlarged her breasts, but perhaps not. I'm thinking that you might have darkened the area all around her from her shoulders down. This mifgt have taken away any detail that would compete with the subject in the area most people focused. Just a guess.

mdlempert
 
Posts: 145


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:06 pm


Leggings: I read your credentials and viewed your site with interest. I've considered myself a photographer for a long time, but not much of an artist. I do appreciate the wonderful work of so many others on this site and wish I myself were more creative. But then there are times when I see some shots that I just don't understand. Here is one example:
http://www.pbase.com/leggings/image/47988254 Now, if I had taken this shot I would have mumbled something like "damned #&@#*% focus" and then deleted it. What is it that you saw in this shot ? There are others in that gallery that are similar.

Mike L.

leggings
 
Posts: 331


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:46 pm


Mike L

To be honest I loved the motion in the shot and the crispness of the black being pushed through by the light. To me it meant that and it showed the motion of a train station at night. It does not really represent my work as a whole but I don’t necessarily look for conventional aspects to what I do. I like to experiment.

The story behind the photo is this:

I was living with someone at the time and they were being a pain so I went out on a cold night to do some night photography. I find walking around and thinking about things is much better than yelling and I don’t like stuff being thrown at me, I am exaggerating here a bit. Anyway, I was out and it was freezing cold. I took some photos that came out well that night but most of them came out like this. There was nothing to rest my arms on to steady the camera so I just clicked and hoped for the best. That night my camera froze and I had to let it sit and thaw and dry out also. To me I prefer this because of how it shows, as I said the motion in it. This is back in the day of film as well. I also like the graininess of it. Basically it was just different than what most of the people I knew were doing.

I like most of the work I see here. I have yet to really explore this site and see all of it but what I like are photographers who take chances. I mention Doisneau a lot but he is a favourite of mine. Ulesman also and William Wegman as well are my hero’s in photography. There are others but they influenced me the most because of the chances they took in their art. Technically it is a bad photograph. I know that but there are things about it that I like.

WC Duncan

BTW: Those are not credentials at all. I am no different than anyone else here. We are all photographers once we pick up a camera. I just have some experience and the only reason I wrote that was because someone who shall remain nameless was irritating me. My opinion is just that, an opinion. Most people know what they like and what they don’t like. Everything is subjective.

I hope that explains it.

mdlempert
 
Posts: 145


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:41 pm


Leggings: Thank much for the explanation. I really sometimes just don't get it. But you, sir, have passed the Soulis test.

leggings
 
Posts: 331


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:56 pm


mdlempert wrote:Leggings: Thank much for the explanation. I really sometimes just don't get it. But you, sir, have passed the Soulis test.



No problem at all. I have new galleries up if you or anyone wants to comment.


Image


http://www.pbase.com/leggings

neovolatile
 
Posts: 434

Who is this Tom Jones, Anyway?

Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:19 pm


Sorry if I got too much on topic about photography and beautiful women but I thought it might be fun to look at why shots work or whatever.

Points for the blush! Laurelei who is a cosmetologist spotted it right away. I wanted that "just in from the field hockey" look. I also intensified the catchlight in her eyes and darkened the bruise. She got the bruise, she said, from swing dancing a couple nights before.

She brought the Catholic girl school outfit (including the tiny gold virgin's chain she is wearing) with her to the shoot. It was hers in high school. She was not wearing a bra. No Photoshopping needed. The hint of knee socks on the edge of the pic, the expanse of inner thigh, that look she is giving the camera - straight on (experience? strength?) seem to me to sell the shot.

She is a joy to work with. She comes along on some of the other shoots and helps with makeup.

The biological equipment, gentlemen, is all her own. You may check that for yourself at her nude gallery. http://www.pbase.com/neovolatile/lorelei_nudity

I am also trying to show many more moods she conveys in her non-nude galleries http://www.pbase.com/neovolatile/laurelei_no_nudity

And yeah, sometimes I feel like Chas. B. and sometimes like Aqualung,
Ellsworth

bobt54
 
Posts: 1090


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:13 pm


mdlempert wrote:Leggings: http://www.pbase.com/leggings/image/47988254 Now, if I had taken this shot I would have mumbled something like "damned #&@#*% focus" and then deleted it. What is it that you saw in this shot ? There are others in that gallery that are similar.

Mike L.


LOL. I would have said the same thing. I prefer my world now in perfect focus. Probably stems from the fact that I spent a few years with the world not in focus.

Soulis test??

Leggs, Here is one I keep coming back to. Can you provide some background on this shot?

http://www.pbase.com/leggings/image/47672939

vanderstouw
 
Posts: 509


Post Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:57 pm


legs, i agree w/ bob about that image... it is really a haunting shot...

did he know you were taking his picture?

leggings
 
Posts: 331


Post Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:27 am


No he did not know that I took his photo. I took it with my old Minolta. I should have lightened his face a bit but I thought it looked better and drew me in more the way it is. I tend to like photos that do that but it depends on the photo and what it wants me to do. Some are nice to walk around in this one just sits there making me and apparently a few other people look. Technically, again, it is still a little off because it is a little blurry but I think it looks good. Now I am mostly working with deeper black and white but the greys in this make the difference. I don’t know what else to say. It was a NYC street seller. I did not buy anything that he was selling because I was broke myself. Seeing the photo many years later makes me wish I did.

leggings
 
Posts: 331


Post Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:29 pm


Image

another new one

vanderstouw
 
Posts: 509


Post Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:39 pm


the treatment on this shot is totally physical (not digital)... it was with a toner called "halo-chrome" by a company called rockland, if i recall.

Image

PreviousNext

Board index PBase Show and Tell Beautiful women.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Bot] and 2 guests