Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 1 total users online
- 28 users active today
- 259282 total members
- +show users online
Cortney again
© billyoneshot
(copyright information)
Uploaded: 04/10/10 5:55 PM GMT
Cortney again
Views: 396
Dlds: 19
Status: active
Dlds: 19
Status: active
Gallery:
photography->people
I have some explaining to do about the name but first to the most of you out thier except jdinvictoria who got to coment on the first one. This is Cortney my one year old granddaughter and the sister of Caitlin. As you can probrably see, you dont have to be a grandparent to have these sweeties steal your heart. Now for the name. I posted my first of Cortney last night and someone decided it was snapshotish. To that person. I think you need to reprioritize what you call art and snapshotish. Because on this one. YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
::jdinvictoria
04/10/10 5:59 PM GMT
Hey Billy, I really like this in b&w....I would not coloured the lips. in fact, I prefer it in b&w. Just my preference but she is a cutie for sure no matter what you do with the post.
0∈
[?]
In the past there was many discussion on Caedes whether an image was a snapshot or not. Think it's hard to define what's a snapshot and what's a porttrait. It's depends fully on someone's taste. To me this post belongs to the second mentioned category (portrait). I agree with you Billy: you dont have to be a grandparent to have these sweeties steal your heart.
Wonderful work.
Regards, Cornelius.
Wonderful work.
Regards, Cornelius.
0∈
[?]
Cornelius was here either to enjoy your image or say 'thank you' for your interest in my work. Please CLICK HERE to see my journal!
It is a really lovely picture of your granddaughter,the clarity is very good,Billy,it is very cute.
0∈
[?]
Cute as a box of monkeys..Nice one Billy..R.
0∈
[?]
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they speak
Hi, Billy. She is real beauty. Very sweet child. A kiss from me. And, very nice photo, too.
0∈
[?]
A gorgeous shot of her Billy!!!! Crystal clear and so soft! She really has the most beautiful eyes! Outstanding work and its surely not a snapshot!
Joanie
Joanie
0∈
[?]
I bet her eyes are beautiful BTK. They look great in B/W and I imagine they really sparkle in color. I am glad you stood up for your beliefs. It is easy to see why you were a Marine. I agree--it is a portrait.
TicK
0∈
[?]
Hopefully my photos and stories will let you know what makes me Tick
Love what you did here Billy. She is so precious and what a fine job you have done with her photo.
Stan
Stan
0∈
[?]
“Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you”
- Richard Brinsley Sheridan
She is absolutely gorgeous! I like the color on the lips. Anyone with Grand Daughters knows that they like to put on Nana's lipstick. (smile)
0∈
[?]
When an image is rejected you are of course free to question the decision with the moderators – complaining about it in open forums or as in this case by reposting an altered version is pointless as ( a ) no one except the moderators has any frame of reference to understand what you are talking about and ( b ) repeat posting an already reject image is more likely to get that rejected even quicker.
Had you posted this version originally it may have been accepted albeit in the Community gallery which is specifically there for hosting personal/family shots and not the people gallery, which is more for studies of people usually in more natural situations or poses. The first version you posted of this image had very poor white balance, uninspired composition, flat levels and colours and only really had a nice DOF and focus going for it – insufficient qualities to call something art by any wild stretch of the imagination. That being said the new version has to a large degree destroyed the redeeming factors of the first image in post processing.
It’s the age-old problem of people seeing much more in images of relatives – especially children – than is really there and normally they offer very little artistically to a larger audience. If you aren’t sure what I mean – look in the permanent galleries of children based shots such as
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=kodo34-1198170860.jpg
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=jojomercury-1126137613.jpg
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=pixell-1235281237.jpg
and try, objectively to tell me why you believe your original shot rises above a family snap level and comes anywhere close to an artistic level like that.
Had you posted this version originally it may have been accepted albeit in the Community gallery which is specifically there for hosting personal/family shots and not the people gallery, which is more for studies of people usually in more natural situations or poses. The first version you posted of this image had very poor white balance, uninspired composition, flat levels and colours and only really had a nice DOF and focus going for it – insufficient qualities to call something art by any wild stretch of the imagination. That being said the new version has to a large degree destroyed the redeeming factors of the first image in post processing.
It’s the age-old problem of people seeing much more in images of relatives – especially children – than is really there and normally they offer very little artistically to a larger audience. If you aren’t sure what I mean – look in the permanent galleries of children based shots such as
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=kodo34-1198170860.jpg
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=jojomercury-1126137613.jpg
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=pixell-1235281237.jpg
and try, objectively to tell me why you believe your original shot rises above a family snap level and comes anywhere close to an artistic level like that.
0∈
[?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
She's so sweet and you must be really proud of this little cutie
0∈
[?]