Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Nude no. 021
Sep 10, 2021 17:33:13 #
Sep 10, 2021 18:12:15 #
WirtzWorld
Loc: SE WI
Peterfiore wrote:
Nice image...Including the top of the Chrysler Building would add so much to the narritive.
Hi everyone. Thanks for all your comments, I do appreciate them.
Now, as to this photo, I agree with those of you that said I should have included the top of the Chrysler building. All I can say in my defense is that I am not perfect. I new I fucked up when I got home and saw the file. I suppose I could try to PS the top onto the building ( I’m kidding), or just leave it alone and live with my inadequacy. I still like the photo.
Sep 10, 2021 18:24:10 #
azted
Loc: Las Vegas, NV.
When working with another individual, your concentration is stretched. When that individual has no clothes on, double the effort. When both of the aforementioned and you are both exposed to the world, well better to just congratulate yourself for what you have and ignore the so called "constructive criticism" from those who wish they got what you did!! Wonderful shot!
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Sep 10, 2021 19:49:23 #
WirtzWorld
Loc: SE WI
azted wrote:
When working with another individual, your concentration is stretched. When that individual has no clothes on, double the effort. When both of the aforementioned and you are both exposed to the world, well better to just congratulate yourself for what you have and ignore the so called "constructive criticism" from those who wish they got what you did!! Wonderful shot!
Thanks. But as an experienced shooter, I probably should have seen it. But I do still love this file.
Sep 13, 2021 11:00:27 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Bricks, lots of bricks. The gorgeous, built like a brick outhouse, model is leaning on a brick wall with the world's tallest steel framed brick building in the background. I personally would have framed the shot slightly different by removing the few feet in front of the model and including the top of the Chrysler building. Nice photo...
Me to. Probably shoot from a slightly lower position facing upward slightly a little more to get the top of the Chrysler Bldg. in the photo. Ask me how I know, I'm an expert at getting an image on the computer at home & saying, S#%&T, I blew it again. Still, a sexy model & over all decent photo idea.
Sep 13, 2021 12:21:10 #
RogStrix
Loc: UK
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this shot using a w/a lens? If so the photographer did right by keeping the film plane parallel to the model, because tilting the lens would have made her feet look bigger and her head smaller?
Its a technically and artistically good shot. Well done.
Its a technically and artistically good shot. Well done.
Sep 13, 2021 12:26:26 #
WirtzWorld
Loc: SE WI
RogStrix wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this shot using a w/a lens? If so the photographer did right by keeping the film plane parallel to the model, because tilting the lens would have made her feet look bigger and her head smaller?
Its a technically and artistically good shot. Well done.
Its a technically and artistically good shot. Well done.
Thank you.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Sep 13, 2021 12:30:59 #
WirtzWorld
Loc: SE WI
RogStrix wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this shot using a w/a lens? If so the photographer did right by keeping the film plane parallel to the model, because tilting the lens would have made her feet look bigger and her head smaller?
Its a technically and artistically good shot. Well done.
Its a technically and artistically good shot. Well done.
My story is that at the time I was thinking of getting the model just right. This is one of about a dozen - 15 frames of this scene(try that with 120 film). Some of the frames have the whole building in them but bad facial expression or shot during exhale, that kind of thing. This one had the right model specs, so to hell with the building. It’s not for architectural digest after all.
Sep 13, 2021 12:36:46 #
WirtzWorld
Loc: SE WI
WirtzWorld wrote:
My story is that at the time I was thinking of getting the model just right. This is one of about a dozen - 15 frames of this scene(try that with 120 film). Some of the frames have the whole building in them but bad facial expression or shot during exhale, that kind of thing. This one had the right model specs, so to hell with the building. It’s not for architectural digest after all.
About film: I shot over 650 frames of the Peach in a 4 hour session. My partner probably shot around the same. Let’s just call it 1200 frames all told. At 12 frames a roll and around 5.00 a roll, it would have cost $500.00 just in film. That doesn’t even start to cover chemistry and time in the darkroom. Ya, it was a great layout of capital to make the jump to digital photos, but a money and time saver in the end.
Sep 14, 2021 08:54:18 #
WirtzWorld wrote:
About film: I shot over 650 frames of the Peach in a 4 hour session. My partner probably shot around the same. Let’s just call it 1200 frames all told. At 12 frames a roll and around 5.00 a roll, it would have cost $500.00 just in film. That doesn’t even start to cover chemistry and time in the darkroom. Ya, it was a great layout of capital to make the jump to digital photos, but a money and time saver in the end.
Yes, photography as a hobby has become much more affordable... but the nature of the hobby has also changed. Yet in the end, the final objective is the same -- great images!
Sep 21, 2021 09:26:23 #
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Jan 22, 2022 23:45:38 #
Mar 18, 2022 01:00:08 #
Mar 18, 2022 16:27:45 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.