Whip the lady with the pussy

[rundadar]

One of my better shots (I think). And provides a very fertile ground for whipping some creative titles (I think) ;)

http://rundadar.smugmug.com/photos/142993582-L.jpg

[DoctorIt]

Ha ha ha!!! I nearly fell off my chair... and then I saw the photo. Eh, so? Without the funny title, you don't have much here.

I understand the creative use of shallow depth of field, but there's just too much out of focus area. Add to that the screaming fuscia color and I barely even notice the pussy. A crop, or a more clever angle would go a long way.

While we're at it, the "sensual" reference isn't even so sensual. While heavily blurred, the angle and perspective on your foreground subject is less than flattering.

A good joke, but not a serious photo. My .002

*crack!*

[rundadar]

Ha ha ha!!! I nearly fell off my chair... and then I saw the photo. Eh, so? Without the funny title, you don't have much here.

I understand the creative use of shallow depth of field, but there's just too much out of focus area. Add to that the screaming fuscia color and I barely even notice the pussy. A crop, or a more clever angle would go a long way.

While we're at it, the "sensual" reference isn't even so sensual. While heavily blurred, the angle and perspective on your foreground subject is less than flattering.

A good joke, but not a serious photo. My .002

*crack!*

Well, I invited the whipping so I shouldn't complain (I don't!). Also, if the shot doesn't work for you - obviously no amount of explanations will make a difference, so too bad. Still I would like to say a few words in "self-defense":

RE: '...and I barely even notice the pussy...'

That WAS the intention, Scott! It's a 'peek-a-boo' shot - i.e. it's an element of surprise that I liked (and still like) about this shot. The viewer is SUPPOSED to wonder: "what's the heck?..." until he 'notices' the subject.

I'd like to mention that a great street photographer Matt Stuart (not that I am comparing my talent to his!) often uses that technique - you see one picture, but in a few seconds, when you look closer you notice there's another picture (or element) in the shot too (hope it makes sense).

RE: '...the angle and perspective on your foreground subject...".

There is no foreground subject. The way I see it - the 'foreground subject' (the lady) is not a subject at all - it's a frame.

RE: '...the sensual reference isn't so sensual...'

There is nothing sensual in the shot (not for me at least) - as I've said - it's a peek-a-boo, a joke, a prank... Is it a 'serious' shot? I hope - not! :)

Thanks for your input!

[DoctorIt]

No defense needed, that's why this is the whipping post. We don't have to be shy about saying what we are highly critical about in other people's shots here. It's my job to remind folks of that every once in a while. :D

thanks for being a good sport. Your comments do shed some light on the style, I must admit.

[digismile]

I guess (for me) the problem is that if a photo requires this much explanation, something isn't working ...

I think that if the "effect" of framing, peek-a-boo, "aha, I get" is to work properly, we should be able to figure it out without such a leading title (or lengthy explanation).

Were this a photo in a magazine, newspaper, etc., would people look at the photo of the cat for more than 2 seconds? Is it a cute, endearing, make me smile kind of photo? On it's own, I think it's very ordinary. I think your concept was pretty good, but I think that the primary image here is the cat, actually cat and a half, and it's not much of a attention grabber.

I think your "frame" needs to frame a really great, stand on it's own image.

Thanks for sharing your concept,

[rundadar]

I guess (for me) the problem is that if a photo requires this much explanation, something isn't working ...


Obviously. No disagreement here :)

I think that if the "effect" of framing, peek-a-boo, "aha, I get" is to work properly, we should be able to figure it out without such a leading title (or lengthy explanation).


Agreed again. It either works for you or it doesn't :)


Were this a photo in a magazine, newspaper, etc., would people look at the photo of the cat for more than 2 seconds?


I don't know. I know people who have this photo framed (and even paid for that) so I assume - some people looked at it for more than 2 seconds :)



I think that the primary image here is the cat, actually cat and a half, and it's not much of a attention grabber.




Again - for me, it's not about the cat or the lady - it's a composition, which either works or doesn't (clearly it doesn't work for the two viewers who took time and effort to comment!)


Thanks for sharing your concept,

Thank you very much for whipping - I appreciate blunt comments even more than an occasional pat on the back. Thank you :)