It seems to have provoked you to think.

I very much like some of them, others not, and some I think are spoiled by small details.

For instance, I like the colours and soft, peaceful demeanor in http://www.ephotozine.com/u33848/gallery/600963 very much, and although there's a lot of make up, it's not garish. Apart from the heavy, messy mascara, which spoils it for me.

I also like http://www.ephotozine.com/u33848/gallery/274635. I like its 'in your face, no nonsense' look, and I like the contrast between the background and the model. I like its simplicity.

I also like http://www.ephotozine.com/u33848/gallery/302041, although I'd like it more (ironically, given your comments on my offering at http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP2166-4-1bs.jpg) if the shadows on the left side had been reduced with a reflector. I think she's also overdone the eyes slightly, but that's a minor detail and it could easily be fixed.

I think http://www.ephotozine.com/u33848/gallery/219350 is simply fab. To capture two people as well as this is generally very difficult, and although it's posed, it looks very natural. The almost-symmetry is an interesting effect without looking so symmetrical as to be a mere contrivance, and the way the faces are lit with just enough emphasis to ensure that all the background details doesn't distract is great. The one on the left of the photo looks slightly hunched, maybe, with her shoulder forced forwards a little, but this is just me being picky. Overall I love it, and I prefer it to the colour version, for some reason.

I don't like http://www.ephotozine.com/u33848/gallery/285733; I don't like the harshness of the light, the over-exposure of the wrist, which commands too much attention, or the way the skin looks so freckly where it's underexposed, and white and shiny where it's over.

I also don't like http://www.ephotozine.com/u33848/gallery/281589, since although the crop has the potential to be interesting, the expanse of relatively over-exposed neck distracts from the face. The backwards tilt also over enhances the chin at the expense of the eyes.

I don't think the outside 'fairies' shots come off at all. They're a bit too contrived for me.

Overall I think she's very interesting, and her style does appeal. She's a damn sight better than I was, though, at that age (and probably than now, too).

I find EPZ annoyingly slow, though.

Incidentally, I wasn't asking for facts as in "this is a bad picture". Clearly that is subject to opinion.

The sort of facts I'm trying to separate from opinion are "this part of the picture is overexposed, and the detail has been lost, making the skin look shiny and rubbery" (which is a fact, almost at least), as opposed to "the skin tone is appalling" (which an opinion).

If you like shiny, rubbery skin, then it might be a very appealing photograph, but that's the subjective part. At least being specific allows me to understand what it is about the picture that other people don't like and why, and come to my own conclusion.

I wasn't familiar with that, so I googled for it. My monitor's a bit grubby, so it was a moment or two before I found the moon in it at all.

We're very much in agreement there. I don't like it much either.

I certainly can see the difference. But you talk, John, as if that is the only benchmark. If glossy magazine shots are the only yardstick then god help us all.

The intensely lit, heavily made up, unnaturally-posed, expensively-clad, skinny models captured - and then manipulated out of almost all recognition - on the covers of Vogue look fabulous. But what they're selling is a fantasy, an unrealistic glamour world that few of us inhabit.

Just to pick one theme: of course you can afford to be bitingly sharp if every pore is stuffed with powder, and the slightest freckle airbrushed - excuse me - spot healed - out. But the real world isn't like that, and although I'm not for a moment attempting to excuse gross lack of focus, most of us don't look at one another with the magnifying glass with which some seem to inspect photographs.

I simply don't accept that that's all there is to portraiture. My apologies if you're not intending to imply that, but that's how you often come across to me.

Nor, I might add, am I for a moment suggesting that I'm anywhere close to achieving my particular vision, if such it be. I'm still working on that...

Please continue with the feedback, though. I might rail against some of it, but they say whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

Any chance the moderators could split this thread, so that Kemal's and Pete's vilifications can be kept separate?

Ok, let me pick a specific.

What do you think would be lost if, in the 3rd of the original pictures, the background had been horizontal, rather than at an angle.

My take on that is that it's just sloppy composition, not art, but I'd be interested to hear a contrary view.

Please folks.

Especially when we're trying to discuss things where subjective impressions can be so different....

MAKE AN EFFORT TO SAY SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU OFFER CRITIQUE.

"Strange" as an adjective in this context is as useful as an ashtray on Don's motorbike.

I don't see it as "Strange". I see it as a bit overexposed, with some unwanted shine, from what I assume is fill-in flash. If you see it as strange, then fine.

But WHY?

I know virtually nothing about the art world, but I know enough to understand that there's a never-ending debate between two schools of thought, which I might contrast as follows:

"My god that is wonderful art, deep and meaningful" ... and

"That's not art, any two year old could do that by chucking paint at a wall".

So one man's art is another's garbage.

I thought the OP's model was lovely, but my own subjective impression is that the confidence and relaxation evident in those photographs come through despite, not because of, any skill of the photographer.

With a neutral background, and the girl in focus, the same poses would make her look fantastic, to my mind. But the lack of focus, the nasty contrast between the distracting backgrounds and the bright backlighting just spoil them.

Subjectivity. I rest my case.

I agree with this though.