Touch of Skin

Very nice and sensuous image. Better than most figure studies that I have seen in this gallery lately. I often have to ask on many of these shots why the girl is naked. In this particular shot the question answers itself. There are wonderful shapes defined in the foreground, and the soft focus in the background adds mystery and a general feeling of wonder. Even the hair on the side of the face further creates curiosity. For me, this image would have been absolutely perfect if somehow you could have left out the blanket or pillow on the right side. This causes at least a minimal distraction. Also, thanks for printing rather than doing those "cop-out" negative scans that seem to litter this gallery.

Gorgeous. The tones are beautiful and the flow very engaging. Utterly personal yet I could see it hanging in my own bedroom.

This coming from one of those "cop outs" who scan negs and litter up the place, so take it with a grain of salt. *wink -Karen

very, very nice photo!!! need to find me a nice model to start playing with some body and shapes....

A wonderfully sensuous photograph. I wonder if that little snippet of black in the background doesn't dectract a little from the flow of lines and tones in the rest of the photograph.
Best,
Daniel

I disagree with esanford. The blanket is the anchor that holds this image together. It echos the shape of her left hip lending balance to the composition. In addition, unless you have been told otherwise, this may very well be a negative scan. I myself can simulate the qualities of a print through negative scanning. I would say that credit should go to Monophoto for being able to make a good scan more than a good print. Those cop-out people Esanford speaks so affectionately of should be taught how to scan more than anything. I agree that most of the images on here look bad but I don't think that has anything to do with scanning over printing, just lazy, sloppy people. The "Cop-out" comment is insulting. The art-making that is photography doesn't center around the techniques but around the image. I think you'll find there is difference between a technician and an artist. Many of the people on this forum are technicians and will never be true endevouring image-makers, just people obsessed with techniques. At risk of sounding arrogant, many years of study of all the arts and experience in image-making in many different mediums is necessary for one to create consistantly profound images. You will have many people who every 15th, 20th or 100th shot will be good. This is the norm for most, but with years of study the ratio becomes smaller and smaller. Azo this and Platinum that but the one key thing to remember when endevouring to become a great image maker: Photography, Painting, Sculpture, Video, etc. are techniques and mediums for the image maker to express themselves, not arts in and of themselves. Too many people spend there lives obsessed with one medium and end up limiting themselves in the process. For example, though I teach photography on the university level, I give my students assignments in which they are required to go outside of photography for inspiration and in many cases are required to create painting, or sculpture, or computer graphics, or video in an effort to exercise their creativity. So, in closing, don't be so closed minded, and allow the possibilities to climb in. Only then will you be able to create imagery with meaning and purpose.

Ah yes, this is a stunning image. I believe that you have accomplished a great deal with this nude. (This may be splitting hairs) but, what I find distracting is the direct bottom center. There is a clump of hair, I believe, that is pointing up as well as a lump coming up from the bottom of the image that makes no sense. When creating imagery of this sort, you should pay attention to these completely anonymous items as they can affect the end imagery greatly. Though this is an abstract, these elements that I mentioned are too indicipherable to be useful in this photograph. Good work though, keep it up!

The pointing up hairs and the blanket on the right make that this photo is not perfect. Perfection is bbbooooooorrriiinnngggg. For me certainly the hairs are intriguing. Nice!!
And for the negscans instead of printscan: I always print at least 11*16 inches my scanner isn't big enough. I have to agree that my scans are lousy but then again: my scanning of prints would also be lousy.
And for other artforms besides photography: plain drawing is the mother of all visual arts.

My Dear Peregrenari,
My comment was never designed to insult, but to stimulate thought and discussion on an otherwise "nicey ticey" gallery. Your points are all well taken, and your arrogance is justified by your vast experience. By the way, I never said that most of the images here look bad. That's a subject for a different conversation. Moreover, the photographers on this site who are learning such techniques as Platinum, Bromoil and other processes are, in my opinon, the most dedicated and committed of those among us. I don't think that those who master the craft of computer technology to be in the same league with them. My comments only relate to negative scanning. My point is a simple one. This gallery is dedicated to traditional analog photography. Print making is part and parcel of that process. I absolutely resonate with your comment about the laziness of many of our members. Therefore, it is my profound belief that for this purpose, the image alone is insufficient. An analog photographic print is the specific end result of film photography. If scanning is the key, then lets stop the charade and just make this yet another digital imaging site. I do not oppose digital imaging. However, it is the stated purpose of this site to promote traditional photography. Of necessity, even scanning a print is digital; however, there is a distinction because it facilitates our ability to share without physically meeting. As a teacher and as students, we should explore other forms of art because it helps our total vision. I chose photography because I have hands of stone when I tried other art forms. I enjoyed your passionate reaction which says that I fulfilled my mission.

Nice response man! I thought after posting that I might have been a bit heavy handed. Even to the point that I called up mdavis and asked if I looked like a jerk. Ah! Such is life. Thank you, esanford, for the reply though. You make very good points.

Peregrinari,

Your response was the kind of debate that I often try to incite (my wife constantly admonishes me to stop my mischievous behavior). I find that when I really evoke passion in people, they come back with both guns blazing and provide real, raw thought. As you have seen from this gallery, there is a reticence to really express feelings (as you and I did). Please understand that I truly appreciated where you were coming from. I believe that scanning has a role here; but many of the members are going out shooting pictures making negatives, scanning them, and then taking the short term satisfaction from mild comments. Then, those negatives are filed away in a binder never to see the light of day. Remember, Ansel Adams said that he only got about 12 good images per year with daily photographing and hours of hard work in the darkroom. The method that you are imparting to your students is the kind of hard work that it takes to gain even a modicum of skill. I revere this art and am often humbled by it in my own feeble attempts to improve. This is why I am constrained to express myself when I see others who take this opportunity for granted. Thanks for your thoughts!

Ed Sanford

The above discussion is what i look for at this site. It is only through feedback that we learn. Thanks to Monophoto for posting this image and stepping out there. The comments here create a dialogue i look forward to when i log on. Let's have more.

Ignacio Cozier