Lips and Cherry

[GB1]

C&Cs welcome. In this image, I decided to emphasize the model's lips more than the cherry.

G

[Justan]

To me this is TMI. I don’t want to be able to count her pores and the lipstick appears a tad heavy. I’m also not thrilled with how the nose is partially shown.

The exposure and lighting are excellent.

[geraldb]

Well, at first look I chuckled. This is a very old idea that was done countless times before, the difference is that this one is not as good. To revisit an exhausted old idea you should either add something new to it, improve it, or leave it alone. There are so many flaws in this more than I can count.

[armando_m]

I think the perfect images of this subject are drawings, or digital renderings

keep on trying

The lipstick or whatever it is looks so artificial , not that there is natural lipstick

for me the cherry has to be in the shot, not just a little bit , but complete
I would avoid the nose all together

good thing you have a model that seems willing to keep on trying

[Justan]

Well, at first look I chuckled. This is a very old idea that was done countless times before, the difference is that this one is not as good. To revisit an exhausted old idea you should either add something new to it, improve it, or leave it alone. There are so many flaws in this more than I can count.

I’m, responding to the part of your comment to which i added bolded type face. While I’ll admit the image result falls short of my and evidently your sense of ideal, we have no way of knowing that the goal was to present something in an ideal manner.

People work to duplicate and interpret others works for a wide variety of reasons. In fact duplicating works of others is one of the best ways to learn techniques and nuance that serves to make them a better practioner. Same for interpreting.

When in college, we were given a number of assignments where we or the instructor selected the works of another practicing photographer and our project was to duplicate or closely interpret (read that attempt to improve) the original work, depending on the assignment. This kind of study practice takes place in most creative processes. Sometimes the work was done in studio, and sometimes without the aid of studio lighting. In every case it is far more challenging to duplicate the work of a well-known photographer than is obvious to most. Again, the same holds true for interpreting. Don’t think so? Give it a try and then get back to us with your results. You may be able to knock off anything flawlessly, but I kind of doubt it.

In any event, there was clearly a fair amount of time and effort that went into this. While it’s up to you, you might want to at least consider respecting the effort even if the results are not up to your expectations.

[draymorton]

The lighting, exposure, and sharpness on the model are great. Everything else, just about, is a judgment call.

I'm not sure I like the pores showing as much as they are, either, but then, I don't know enough about fashion photography to know if that is acceptable. Some light skin-smoothing may have benefitted the image.

The cropped nose is a little too cropped. Into both nostrils - too much. Not that I don't like weird crops.

I've seen other cherry/lips images with the same lipgloss, so apparently it isn't a faux pas. And personally, for this kind of image, I'm not sure it's aesthetically inappropriate. What I know I don't like is the shape/expression of her mouth, but I'm not sure what to tell you should be different about it. She looks like a sea bass ascending from the water. I wish some qualified fashion photographers lurking on the forum would chime in here. In short, the expression should be alluring/sexy and, to me, it somehow isn't. I know that's not very helpful.

Like the nose, the cropped cherry is too cropped. Even though we know what it is (because we have seen this scenario so many times), we really need to see enough of it to be able to identify it as a cherry. It's also out-of-focus, which further hurts the cause.

[draymorton]

There are so many flaws in this more than I can count.

I wasn't going to comment on the above, but the old "this sucks and I'm not going to bother telling you why" tactic is so insulting. Neither fair nor helpful - and definitely not a critique. Surely you could touch on some of those flaws, even briefly.

[geraldb]

I’m, responding to the part of your comment to which i added bolded type face. While I’ll admit the image result falls short of my and evidently your sense of ideal, we have no way of knowing that the goal was to present something in an ideal manner.

People work to duplicate and interpret others works for a wide variety of reasons. In fact duplicating works of others is one of the best ways to learn techniques and nuance that serves to make them a better practioner. Same for interpreting.

When in college, we were given a number of assignments where we or the instructor selected the works of another practicing photographer and our project was to duplicate or closely interpret (read that attempt to improve) the original work, depending on the assignment. This kind of study practice takes place in most creative processes. Sometimes the work was done in studio, and sometimes without the aid of studio lighting. In every case it is far more challenging to duplicate the work of a well-known photographer than is obvious to most. Again, the same holds true for interpreting. Don’t think so? Give it a try and then get back to us with your results. You may be able to knock off anything flawlessly, but I kind of doubt it.

In any event, there was clearly a fair amount of time and effort that went into this. While it’s up to you, you might want to at least consider respecting the effort even if the results are not up to your expectations.

OH, not again?. We discussed that so many times already. I Wish you and GB1 great learning. Regards

[geraldb]

I wasn't going to comment on the above, but the old "this sucks and I'm not going to bother telling you why" tactic is so insulting. Neither fair nor helpful - and definitely not a critique. Surely you could touch on some of those flaws, even briefly.

Critique doesn't have to be all soft for the gentle soul, some critiques are harsher than others, if you seek critique you shouldn't put conditions on how it is given to you, you should be ready for both. I didn't count the flaws because to me everything was wrong with this image starting with the idea the I find "silly", composition, color, post processing, and ending with the sloppy makeup.
Somethings are beyond critique. A model who applies her makeup for a macro shot of her lips should know as a rule of thumb to outline her lip first with a lip pencil before she uses lipstick for a cleaner look, every woman on earth knows that already, they do it without being photographed.

[GB1]

Gents, let me respond to the topics in turn here.

The shot definitely has flaws: I really didn't do much post on it at all, we decided to go with heavy lip gloss, but from what I think tell as much as I like that look I think it contrasts too much with her skin type. I may indeed be able to balance them with some post, will have to look into that and see if it's possible.

Does somebody have a trademark on shooting a model's lips from 45 degrees down? Com'on ... Now that I read the replies, I have seen this angle before - many times, actually, esp in women magazines with cosmetics ads. Was I looking for some unique, completely original angle when shooting this day? no... actually, we were shooting for recreation of some Skyy Vodka adds, which I've mentioned in the Post Processing forum (I have a little ways to go on those - stay tuned), and we broke off and did a few of our own things too, including this shot.

I did a lot of cropping on this one: looks like the partial nose wasn't the best decision.

Now, to address Geraldb's posts: Dude, you sound like a baby - How old are you? I find your critiques absolutely useless - actually, worse than useless, as they have a frustrated and abusive tone. You also sound like a troll to me, with nothing better to do... I don't waste my time with trolls.

Anyway, I invite you to bypass my posts: I don't want you to waste your time since I'll just ignore your responses anyway. I also haven't seen anything posted by you here, while implying (in the tone of your posts) that you have some kind of remarkable pedigree in the field, so I believe your credibility is in question.

Dray, thanks for the detailed reply... Funny, because I find the shape of her mouth the strongest part of the image. Personal preference maybe (or like you said, judgement call). I see what you mean about a sexy mouth, but haven't you seen mouths shaped like this before a kiss in movies? (at least in Humphrey Bogart flicks).

Armando, I agree that this would be easy to convert to digital and get a better result... But I think the challenge is to get it right as a photograph. TOTALLY see what you mean about the partial cherry... it's distracting. I have an ideal how to fix it: will post another version soon. Thanks for the feedback.

Justan - Thanks for your comment(s). I agree that there's a bit more info than desired here (I had to look up TMI ... at first I thought it was Three Mile Island, the site of a nuclear accident). Interesting comment on Geraldb's comments (though I wonder if you're wasting your time?) ... I don't normally try recreating stuff, though I think it's an excellent learning tool. As mentioned above, am currently seeing if I can recreate some Skyy Vodka ads as a tribute to the art director and photographer. Those type of pix are in line with the type of photography I find most appealing.

GB

[draymorton]

Dray, thanks for the detailed reply... Funny, because I find the shape of her mouth the strongest part of the image. Personal preference maybe (or like you said, judgement call). I see what you mean about a sexy mouth, but haven't you seen mouths shaped like this before a kiss in movies? (at least in Humphrey Bogart flicks).

Yeah... maybe it's the angle. I don't know. Something's not working and perhaps I wrongly accused the mouth.

[Justan]

> Justan - Thanks for your comment(s). I agree that there's a bit more info than desired here (I had to look up TMI ... at first I thought it was Three Mile Island, the site of a nuclear accident).

The three mile island comment you made is funny! I had not thought of a disaster connotation of the term before and thought the standard abbreviation of “too much info” was universally known. It shows that the supposition that people will automatically understand a comment and not take it the wrong way is a classic mistake. In other words, it usually doesn’t hurt to spell it out a bit.

> Interesting comment on Geraldb's comments (though I wonder if you're wasting your time?) ...

I don’t know him and tried to give the benefit of doubt. I’ve found that all but the most ardent trolls will modify their comments to at least and try to fit in. While some are simply gruff, when people show themselves as relentlessly hostile (and Geraldb has not done this, in my short experience here), it doesn’t take long for that to become apparent.

> I don't normally try recreating stuff, though I think it's an excellent learning tool. As mentioned above, am currently seeing if I can recreate some Skyy Vodka ads as a tribute to the art director and photographer. Those type of pix are in line with the type of photography I find most appealing.

I’ve seen some of your other works on the subject and so see the process as a study series. I’m not a people photographer in recent years, and see other people’s works as an opportunity to learn something. And, at the risk of being pedantic, a critique forum is about an opportunity to learn by peer review……………….

Anywho, the work above reminds me of some of Andy Warhol’s (if I’m spelling the last name right) works.

[armando_m]

> Justan - ...

a critique forum is about an opportunity to learn by peer review……………….

Exactly!

That is also my point of view :thumbsup: