You really have completely misread what I said.

I assume you're referring to this:

Please note, I haven't said anything at all about what 'should' be. I haven't said anything about 'should' here, nor indeed anywhere else.

Let me try and explain what I mean. When I talk about 'most portraits', I'm referring to the huge number of portraits where the model takes up most of the frame, she is in focus, she has an attractive expression, she is lit and exposed in such a way as to be able to see lots of detail in her face, and the background is either very plain, or it is so out of focus that there's nothing else to look at other than the model.

These are the ones where, as I say, it is clear (since there's nothing else in the shot) that the intention is to capture her looking good, hopefully also with some element of personality being apparent. There's nothing else going on. Since the intent is obvious, it is relatively easy to say whether it's good or bad.

For instance, if it's obviously supposed to be in focus, if it isn't, then it's clearly a flaw. If you're obviously supposed to be able to see the detail in her face, then if you can't (because of back lighting, for instance), again it's obviously a flaw.

However, with your photographs, none of this is obvious. Because there is so much else going on in them than just a picture of a girl.

Which brings me to my main point:

If those distractions are intentional, then any critique must necessarily be based on different criteria, than if they are unintentional.

Which is why I was saying that without knowing the intent, I didn't know how to critique them, and all I could offer was a statement of whether I liked them or not. At no time was I saying anything at all about what the intent should or should not be.


I hope I've clarified things. I don't like your photos, but I have no opinion about you personally. I was commenting on the photos, nothing else.

George, this is silly semantics. If I had meant to say they were 1280 pixels wide, that is what I'd have said.

I grant you that to avoid the slightest ambiguity, I should have said "they are sized perfectly for this forum and monitors 1280 pixels wide."

My apologies.

Of the people reading this forum?

Do you really think the majority are at less than 1280 x 1024? You may be right, of course, but I'd be surprised.

If you'd taken the trouble to think just for a moment before telling me I'm talking nonsense, you'd notice that Kemal's landscape shots are actually 1024 pixels wide.

Which, including the large left hand margin (which I hadn't at all forgotten), is perfect for 1280 x 1024 monitors, as I say.

This is one criticism I wouldn't agree with.

The pictures were perfect for the most common screen size these days, namely 1280 x 1024, and because the landscape ones were the same width, they were nicely aligned too, which I certainly appreciate.

Inevitably it will always be the case that there will be some people who are still using lower-resolution monitors than the majority. Sizing pictures for that minority will then disappoint those who have larger monitors, and would prefer to see bigger views of the shots in order to fully appreciate them.

Perhaps an appropriate compromise would be to size pictures for the majority 1280 x 1024, but after each shot displayed in an [IMG] tag, also to include a URL to the image, so that if clicked, the image will open in a separate browser tab or window, and be automatically resized by the browser if it's too big.

I'll try and remember to do that next time I post any photographs - maybe others could too in the meantime - and we can see if it helps those with the smaller monitors.

I've probably been the most outspoken on this thread, so I'll hazard a guess that this is aimed at me.

If you asked me for an honest opinion of your photographs face to face, I would say exactly the same as I've said on this thread. Nothing I say has got anything to do with you personally - and I find it disappointing that you seem not to distinguish between criticism and insult.

I actually went to some length to explain the sense in which I was interested to know your intent, which was to try and find out whether the sort of criticisms I might make would have any point. That was the only reason I asked. Now that I know that you do it like this intentionally, what can I say? You achieve distorted, often out-of-focus shots, with distracting (to me) backgrounds and (to me) underexposure absolutely brilliantly. And I hate the effect. Big deal!

I'm amazed that you think anyone is doing this. And if you read what I wrote again, you'll notice that I have said absolutely nothing about what portraits should or shouldn't be, only about what I like and don't like.

In that case, as I've been at pains to explain, nothing I might say about the pictures is of any value - it just comes down to the fact that I dislike the style. If you'd done all that stuff accidentally, then there'd be some point in giving feedback. But if it's deliberate, then fine. You've achieved what you want, I just don't like it.

I certainly won't offer an opinion on your work in future if it's similar to what we've seen, since any feedback wouldn't be helpful.

In your opinion, of course.

Maybe they were intended to come out like that. Maybe there's some subtle and deep point he's making juxtaposing a mostly grouchy, bored looking model next to windows with lots of reflections.

This is my point. If that's his intention, then all I can say is that "it's not my cup of tea".

But without knowing, there's nothing I can say that has any meaning.

The thing is, with most portraits, it's clear that the intention is to make the model look as good as possible, and so it's often quite easy to assess whether a photo is good or not.

There's variation of opinion, of course - I happen not to like the heavily made-up, intensely lit "studio" look, whereas others here clearly do. But that doesn't stop me from being able to see whether, in those terms, a photo that I happen not to like is any good.

The problem with these pics is that there's no way of knowing what the intention is, so there are no sensible criteria that can be applied.

Take the one that's almost a complete silhouette, for instance, with just the hair lit. That would in itself be quite an interesting study, were it not for the fact that the background is horrible, and distracts terribly from the contrast between the almost-silhouette and the hair. Also, if the intent was to contrast the hair with the dark body, the stupid splidge of light on the nose is completely ridiculous.

So I'm much more inclined to think that actually this was not the intention, and that it's just a carelessly composed, badly exposed snap that, as Pete says, is faintly insulting to the model.

But that's just my view. What do I know. For all I know, there are people that like this look. I'm not one of them, in case you hadn't guessed.

I don't have the slightest idea how to critique these photos.

I could talk about distracting backgrounds; I could talk about distortion; I could talk about wonky horizontals or verticals; and I could talk about exposure.

But whether such observations have any point at all depends on what the photographer was trying to achieve. If he intended the pictures to come out like this, then all I can say is that I don't like any of them, and such subjectivity is worthless, or almost.

Well I've ordered mine now too!

I now have this image of GL in cycling shorts riding along no hands, a K10D in one hand, a rear lens cap between his teeth, attempting to fish another lens out of his bag with the other.

It's not a pretty sight on a Friday night as I try to relax with the weekend coming on...

Well if there's one thing they can't accuse you of, George, it's of not being a lateral thinker.

However, you wouldn't be shitting me, would you?

Ooh, a pun !

(Joking apart, it doesn't look all that padded)