InfiniteISO wrote:
As to the second point you were trying to make, I'm sorry, that's not a valid example to illustrate what I stated. To follow that line of logic, I would remove the figure from a figure study and replace it with some inanimate object.
Precisely my point. You nailed it. Perhaps ALL photos posted here for the purpose of soliciting comments on pose, lighting, background, props, etc, should use manikins as subjects. In fact, maybe we should standardize on the "Volvo Family" of crash test dummies; that way every photographer would have a common starting point, and model attributes are totally out of the discussion.
This is nonsense. Photographers choose their models because there is something they find appealing, or that they want to "expose", in the attributes of the person.
I believe there are 2 classes of negative comments about the model -- and yes, to keep it simple, let's stick with women.
The first would be an expression of a personal preference for certain physical characteristics of models. Tattooed or not, long vs short hair, shaven vs not, piercings or none, heavy set ("Rubenesque") or not; dark skinned or light skinned, tan marks or none, heavy makeup or natural, etc vs etc. I believe that these are predominantly the sorts of comments that you have said are inappropriate or not helpful because there is little or nothing the photographer can do about these attributes. And guess what -- I agree with you in that these comments have nothing to do with the photographer and his talents/technique. They are merely an expression of the viewer's preference for women. Try as you may, you will not stop these sorts of comments.
The second class of negative critique would be the suitability of the model as the main subject of the intended message in the photo. If you were trying to show youth you would not choose an elderly lady (Note: I was told by "an old woman teacher" that there are no old women, just elderly ladies) as the subject. If you were intending to show smooth bodyscapes you would not choose someone disfigured by arthritis. If you were trying to show a "beautiful smile" you would not choose someone with missing and rotting teeth. If you were trying to show the joy/beauty of health and physical fitness you would not choose someone obese. If you were doing a photo shoot of a formal place of business you would look for models with suits, not ripped jeans and tank tops.
I think commenting on the model in these latter cases is justified. While the comments clearly come across as negative attributes of the model, they really are more of a critique of the photographer for not having done due diligence in accentuating the positive and diminishing the negatives about the model. Simplest case in point -- you don't take a portrait of someone with a large hooked nose from the side or from the front with a wide angle lens at close distance. Of course, if want a scary look, get the long-beaked witch with the wart on the nose; a gorgeous button-nosed young lady would simply not fit the bill.
ISO, you might think we disagree on many issues, but I don't think we are really far apart on this one. The model is a part of the entire image and contributes greatly to the overall outcome. If the model is not suited to the setting -- as perceived by the viewer -- there will be negative comments.