One of my periodic check.. (Page 4): Subtlety...

RogStrix Loc: UK

JohnFrim wrote:

I have been looking really hard for the nudity in your photos. So far the only one that comes close is a dark nipple on very chapped skin.

Subtlety...

Rongnongno Loc: FL

RogStrix Loc: UK

Rongnongno wrote:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

RogStrix Loc: UK

Rongnongno wrote:

MrMikeFRPh Loc: Here, not there

Do what I do. When I don’t like something, I don’t look at it!

twr25 Loc: New Jersey

The idea of posting "sub-par" photos is to LEARN by a critique from other photographers. Some are here to admire and others to comment on the techniques, lighting and beauty. Your statements seem to reflect your own bias. No one is forced to enter the site.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

twr25 wrote:

The idea of posting "sub-par" photos is to LEARN by a critique from other photographers. Some are here to admire and others to comment on the techniques, lighting and beauty. Your statements seem to reflect your own bias. No one is forced to enter the site.

Please find a teaching moment in this section.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Rongnongno wrote:

Sorry, I was mistaken. You have the mental capacity of a two years old.

God bless you & Tiny Tim -- Rongnongno
Keep up the good work!!
However, every once & awhile within this topic a real Artest with a camera provides us a beautiful image

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Rongnongno wrote:

Still no redeeming quality here.

Between old poses that seem to be underage girls and what I see as employer's abuse you have the usual voyeuristic approach to nudity that offer nothing as fas visual effect and mastering of light goes.

Well, yeah, umm.
No, I never had a period- I don't know what to tell you about your emotional roller coasters.
Every year you get older, they seem younger. Basic "underage" girls seem to be in their late 20s.
Still life, animals and women have always been subjects of artistry. From cave drawings on.
Sometimes, when you disagree with the world- it ain't the world.

14kphotog Loc: Marietta, Ohio

Rongnongno wrote:

Still no redeeming quality here.

Between old poses that seem to be underage girls and what I see as employer's abuse you have the usual voyeuristic approach to nudity that offer nothing as fas visual effect and mastering of light goes.

Well Ron when I see your avatar all I have ever seen from you is piss and moan about others photos. Would you please post some pictures of yours, if you do indeed photograph, for us to see, cause we are all tired of your verbal B.S.

PaulG Loc: Western Australia

Perhaps a good time to make a point. Most of the stuff posted here is downright dreadful; seriously. Sure . . . we are all at different levels of creativity and being in relevant positions to critique; which, by the way, is extremely important and progresses the whole reason for posting and learning. The thing that is a little worrying are the responses regarding such work expounding their virtues (great lighting/wonderful pose) when a lot of these images are clearly anything but. Any form of art is obviously a matter of interpretation but, regardless of its form, there are some basic criteria that quantify it as such. I guess the challenge is to put something out there that we feel "genuinely" proud of or gain a sense of achievement from.

Thurber Mingus

PaulG wrote:

I guess the challenge is to put something out there that we feel "genuinely" proud of or gain a sense of achievement from.

Interesting...I have been "proud" of every image I've posted here, or else I would have never posted them on this highly critical public forum. If I have an image I'm considering posting and I think "it's OK but not that great" I'd never post it. Surely everyone who posts on here feels the same???
I respect your opinions and critique Paul but "good" is so subjective any public forum will be similar, right?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

14kphotog wrote:

Well Ron when I see your avatar all I have ever seen from you is piss and moan about others photos. Would you please post some pictures of yours, if you do indeed photograph, for us to see, cause we are all tired of your verbal B.S.

Funny, sometime you need to check beyond your myopic point of view. As to 'we are all'... Let me laugh at that blanket statement.

You want some images?

Have at it. I need to update this list.

No nude or boudoir? I am respectful of the women who have posed for me (a long time ago) and will not post any of their images in a forum like this one, giving them in pasture to voyeuristic old men that are not interested in anything else than their T&A under the pretext of 'art'.

Oh, one more thing... You folks here do not understand what some images represent as in orchid. Apparently T&A are the only form of 'erotism' acceptable in this section.

I have on more post in this section few people understood it. A simple exhibit in Nantes, France

PaulG Loc: Western Australia

Thurber Mingus wrote:

Interesting...I have been "proud" of every image I've posted here, or else I would have never posted them on this highly critical public forum. If I have an image I'm considering posting and I think "it's OK but not that great" I'd never post it. Surely everyone who posts on here feels the same???
I respect your opinions and critique Paul but "good" is so subjective any public forum will be similar, right?

I agree with your sentiments entirely. Obviously individual tastes and levels of expertise (at producing an image) varies hugely and will always provoke comment and critique. Observations, such as body-shape of a model - are largely unnecessary - though it is up to the photographer to present that model in the most favourable light possible. Unfortunately this is often not the case. There are without doubt some really well produced images on here. And pleasingly there are some contributors whose work has improved measurably over the months. Unfortunately there are many that repetitively include irrelevant and superfluous junk in the background/foreground when a little forethought would obviously go a long way to remedy this.