Originally posted by Brooke Meyer They're well made cheescake or maybe glamour photographs. Hand any of them a large pipe wrench and you've a classic Rigid Tool calendar by Peter Gowland. Nothing wrong with that, learned lots from Gowland's work. He learned classic 3 light portrait lighting in Hollywood. But compare that with work by Yosef Karsh or Philippe Halsmann. Improbable clothing in the context of the setting tends to mask the real character of the subject. Showing the true nature of someone and how they looked is something Halsmann believed and I believe is essential for a successful portrait. Yes, they're well made photographs of attractive young women and given the preponderance of males on this forum, obviously well received. But I'm not sure a Mom or Dad would want that to be the photograph of their child, the one that personifies her. I've had Moms and Dads buy photographs made of their dancers on stage in fantastic costume but the portrait they buy to hang in a prominent place in their home is as true to their daughters nature as I can make it. Invariably, they are simple and without the distraction of fad or current fashion.
I disagree, there is background colors tied to subject in almost all of the photos. The eye color can, in many circumstances be coordinated with the clothing or background. The background choice in the first photo is bold. Perhaps you should lurk in the critique area with your critiques. "preponderance of males"? Interesting choice of words. I am fascinated with your response. Your critique borders on insult and implies, with your choice of words, that your ego is bruised.