Time between images

[thedude]

Firstly let me say that I am not putting Abby or her talents as a photographer down, but the one thing that drives me nuts about her images is that there is hardly any time duration between each photo. I would rather look at a dozen images, which have been carefully posed and selected for posting on the site, than 30 photos that were taken on rapid fire. OK Abby, it gives you the ability to say that there are X amount of new images of a model on the site, but the images are often taken only moments apart, where is the creativity there?

There may be a lot of people who like this "style", I however find it to be very lazy. I mean, it's almost like looking at a series of stills from a video.

As I said above this is a personal opinion and I do not mean to offend anybody, merely offer an opinion which perhaps did not occur to Abby. Please just keep it in mind during the next shoot.

[arsby]

Dude,

Does the software you use to look at images have a "slideshow" function where you can mark a series of images and have them change automatically with a variable number of seconds between each image? Take a series of Abby's "lazy rapid-fire" images and put them through the slideshow. You may get an appreciation of what we see in this stuff. It's not a video, but it gives the same effect and is 100 times clearer and more detailed. Plus, you can stop it at exactly the best part, where the pussy is open widest, or the dildo is in deepest, or her beautiful face is the most flushed.
Abby seems to be more likely to throw 75 or 100 images at us (instead of the normal 50) when the set includes these rapid-fire sequences, so it's hard to complain.
BTW, Irfanview (www.irfanview.com, or almost any shareware/freeware site) is free and has a nice slideshow function.

Arsby

[Abby]

Hi Dude

The magic of the internet means you're free to download as much or as little as you like. Plenty of people have told me they like the slow progression, so I will keep it in, and you can download your fave 12 images from 100, by using the thumbnails we go to a lot of trouble to supply for this very purpose.

The number of images on the site is not so relevant to me (most sites who have inferiority complexes cite "130,000 images!!!!!" etc, but I don't feel the need to do that. Most sites who DO do it seem to rip their content from newsgroups anyway. You will note, I hope, that no where on the guest pages, do I cite "millions of images within", tho I do say I add between 300 and 350 images a week to the site. No one has accused me of being misleading in this department - you're the first.

Not trying to be aggressive, just letting you know where I stand.

I include the number of images on the members page and elsewhere, and indicate if the model does spreads, pee, etc, so browsers have an idea what to expect. Generally, nude-only models will have less pics, compared to models who do spreads and insertions. It's intended to help, not "LOOK HOW GOOD I AM!!" - but I guess you'll have to take my word for that (tho I always thought it was obvious, but now you have brought it up, I guess it's not - to you, at least).

Including more images of a given model does not cost you, the member, any more, really. Or rather, let me put it this way: If I decreased the number of images per model, the price for subscribing to the site would stay the same.

So, you can count it as a free gift that you choose not to enjoy, if it makes you feel any better.

The issue you raise intrigues me, however, so I might put it in a survey on the members page from this Wednesday. The survey will reflect what I have said here, and so by it's nature be a leading question: "it's not going to cost any less, but would you rather see less pics per model?".

If you think there's a more accurate way to word it, followup here, and we'll get us a definitive answer.

Also, as Arsby says above, many image browsers feature slideshow actions, either triggered by a time (that you can set), or a keypress (space, page down, etc). Other apps include FireHand Ember, ACDsee, and LView. You may wish to give these a try on some long series, see how you go.

Thanks for your feedback.

a

[thedude]

I think that the point I was trying to make has been lost. I have NO problem with the number of photographs that are being placed online, my issue is with the QUALITY of those images.

I was trying to spark a little more imagination and creativity from the photographer by pointing out a common trap that many photographers fall into.

It's very easy to take a beautiful model, place her in front of an attractive background and ask her to remove her clothes. A series of photographs can then be taken, one immediately after the other and you can call it a day. It is more difficult for the model and photogrpaher to work together in an attempt to make each frame a composition within it's own right. To do this takes time, practice, careful thought, skill and good communication with the model. The last skill is something which Abby has herself admitted that she is not the best at.

It appears that some photo shoots producing 20 or more images took place in a matter of only a few minutes. As I said in my last post this is a "style" that many people may be quite happy with and which you may be even be deliberately trying to achieve, I was merely offering an opinion which Abby may have thought about and then worked with to improve and grow as a professional photographer.

I would like to address a point which was made in the reply by Admin.
"The number of images on the site is not so relevant to me (most sites who have inferiority complexes cite "130,000 images!!!!!" etc, but I don't feel the need to do that. Most sites who DO do it seem to rip their content from newsgroups anyway. You will note, I hope, that no where on the guest pages, do I cite "millions of images within", tho I do say I add between 300 and 350 images a week to the site. No one has accused me of being misleading in this department - you're the first.

Not trying to be aggressive, just letting you know where I stand."

Well, the last sentence does come across as aggressive. I do not accuse you of misleading anybody about the content of your site at any time, I find the way you say "you're the first" to be a bit nasty. My point was merely meant to encourage you to really look at your images from a more creative point of view and instead of just shooting on rapid fire, and having the shoot over so quickly, to stop after each photo, look at what you are taking and ask yourself is there any way that I can capture the next image better, otherwise you may as well just use a video camera and be done with it!

I know that it is very difficult to have somebody criticising work which you have put so much time and effort into, and which you are truly proud of, without becoming defensive, but I only offer this opinion in the hope that it may inspire you to become a better photographer, who will be able to more carefully analyse each image that is being captured in order to offer your subscribers truly outstanding photographs. This web site is wonderful and the models are beautiful, but the execution just needs a little work, this is all I was trying to say.

Again I say yes, people can select which images they choose to download, but as a photographer Abby, wouldn't you prefer to place 50 images online, that you feel really captured the model and the mood of the photo shoot well, than 50 images that were just taken rapidly one after the other without having to put too much thought into it at all? That way instead of people only downloading 12 favourite photos out of 100, they may begin to find that all 100 are worth downloading!

I think your survey question is a kneejerk reaction that may make you look silly if it were to be placed online in the light of this follow up post. Would I rather see less pics per model? No, but I would like to see BETTER pics per model.

Yours in photography,
The Dude.

[centaur]

Abby does offer creativity and does put artistic thought, skill, etc. into every photo shoot. Of this I have no doubt. She could just post the best 20 images that she is the most proud of, but in addition, she offers us a free BONUS, a gift if you will, of numerous rapid fire images that we can run a slide show with if we choose. Thank you Abby.

[anonymous]

Thedude has some interesting points and I agree with Centaur
and Arsby as well
The answer seems obvious
Tons more pics of each model http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Abby]

Hi guys

First, Admin = Abby, just so's you know. http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Second, Anon, thanks for the tip. ;)

Third, Centaur, glad you like it. Cheers!

Finally, Dude. I am glad you clarified what you meant, and in a nutshell, I agree with you, there's plenty of room for me to get better, and with constructive criticism on the boards, that will happen.

Not sure if you read my bio page, but I was not a photographer, have no formal training. I was just frustrated by what I saw out there, and thought "jeeze, ANYONE could do better than that!".

The reality of it, of course, is that it's a helluva lot harder than it looks. And your comment that it is "very easy to take a beautiful model, place her in front of an attractive background and ask her to remove her clothes" is DEAD wrong. I would class that as THE single biggest challenge of that part (image capture) of the biz.

Creating an environment where a model feels comfortable to be naked in front of a bunch of strangers is NOT AT ALL EASY.

I am a little hurt by your comment that I said I was bad at communicating with the model - I don't remember saying that, but if I did, I suspect it may be out of context here. I pride myself on having a good rapport with all the models I have shot. Of course, some are easier to get along with than others, but my job is to get the best out of them, so I am not going to poison he water there.

I would really like to know which shoots you're referring to, Dude. Are you inferring that the sequences of people like Julia 155 - 180 are a waste of ether? That's a specific method I employ to capture the essence of the action happening before me. My new camera allows me to shoot at four frames a second, and does that kind of thing justice, in my opinion. I have used that method with a few models lately, for specific sequences, usually those involving masturbation, but also for some acrobatic yoga stuff (coming soon). There the shoot verges on the documentary, something that has appealed to me for a while.

Documenting what happens to each little fold of skin, pubic hair, sticky bit of girlcum, as a dildo slides all the way in, and all the way out is fascinating stuff, and pretty sexy, as well. There is room for it to become clinical, gynecological, mechanical, and I'll be the first to admit that that kinda shoot is not for everyone. But I can capture it, I like capturing it, and if you don't like it, don't download it.

If, however, that's NOT what you're referring to, then I agree with you - I could either edit the existing sets more aggressively, and include the top 10% of pictures, instead of the top 50% it is now, or shoot a lot slower, and, as you say, consider each shots composition oh so carefully, and use 90% of images taken.

The result would be a set of images that are arguably "better" - tho that's pretty subjective - and would probably be a lot shorter, cos I am simply not THAT creative. As it is, you get to see "A" stuff, and "B" stuff in the one set, as Centaur mentions, above. You get it as a free bonus.

Sure, it'd be nice if every pic I took was an A pic, but I'm no Suze Randall. I agree that is something to aim for, but i hope you agree that if you compare some of my first shoots to some of my recent ones, the standard has raised considerably. Plenty of things stay the same, tho - that's my personal style, which every shooter has. Room for improvement, in my case.

Now, you say, "Abby, wouldn't you prefer to place 50 images online, that you feel really captured the model and the mood of the photo shoot well...?". The answer is: No. If I preferred to do that, I would - it's my site after all, right? You make the same mistake a lot of people who don't really think much make: you assume I don't think about what I am doing.

I have no idea why people assume that about me, and rightly or wrongly, it REALLY shits me. I can assure you, that every SINGLE _pixel_ you see on this site has been closely examined and thought about, and often agonised over where it should or should not be included.

Editing a shoot (ie, selecting the keepers) takes a LONG time, and involves intense concentration on my part. For troubling shoots, I sleep on it, and review it again and again, before I am happy with it, and release it to the site. Plenty of people flick thru 100 images in 10 seconds, with barely a glance, others take time to appreciate the journey, others skip straight to the anal insertions (or whatever).

Every picture in a series of 100 either advances the progression of the event, OR it shows something of the model in a new way that has not yet been shown. That might be something as small as a facial expression, or a firm set of tummy muscles as she laughs. But i think it adds a dimension to the shoot that a three page, 12 shot mag spread would totally loose.

My goal, more than asking models to give the camera a sexy look, pout, and preen and act like a penthouse model, is to document the model getting naked and having a bit of fun. There's room for creativity there, but I count myself as a craftsperson, not an artist. i may be shooting myself int he foot by saying that, but it is the case, to an extent. Obviously, if a model does something I think is boring, I'll edit that picture out. Just cos we all know models blink, does not mean I need to show a picture of them blinking.

And we all know models laugh, too, but that does not mean that - like blinking - I should edit those pics out. For me, a chick laughing is very sexy (for lotsa reasons, including tummy muscle definition, and the idea that she's having a good time, is comfy being naked). And if she's naked, all the better.

Bandwidth is cheap(ish!), digital film is free, so why not shoot a lot of coverage, edit out the obviously bad shots (blink, focus, completely redundant pose), and put the images up for people to enjoy? Like models, not every image is going to appeal to everyone, but the more ppl my images DO appeal to, the bigger my customer base, and the better gear, models, and most importantly, TIME I spend on shoots.

Until Janurary 2002, we were running to stand still (or sliding backwards!). Now we're breaking even, we have more time to spend on things that you are referring to. So, rest assured that I hear you (tho I do disagree with some of your finer points), and I appreciate your effort to make it constructive.

a

[arsby]

I'm sorry, Abby. Your entry was over 1000 words, so it's not eligible for the "The Philosophy of My Work" essay contest. You'll have to cut it down a bit. http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Why is it, that out of that whole wonderfully entertaining philosophical rant, the only part I remember is "some acrobatic yoga stuff (coming soon)". How Soon? Who? ... Hurry up!

Hey, Dude, didja try the slideshow thing? Can you see how someone might appreciate it, even if you don't?

[muggins]

Kate_P's set contains several of these sequences. They're a special effect and look great viewed on a four frame per-second slideshow as Abby intended them to be. No lack of imagination on her part, just a neat feature but perhaps a little overused in recent sets. However, Bianca and Alana's sets don't seem to feature these rapid fire sequences, so I have no reason to complain. It's a little unreasonable to expect 300 uniquely posed images anway IMHO.

Muggins

[thedude]

Well, it appears that what I was talking about is actually a method which Abby not only likes to employ, but which other people seem also to be quite fond of. This is fantastic, as I said in my first post I'm not trying to put Abby or her site down in any way whatsoever. I think I did achieve what I meant to which was to simply make Abby aware of my opinion, (whether or not she or other people agree with it), and with this discussion in mind Abby is more aware of her style of photography.

I am also a photographer, and I always welcome any comments from other photographers that I can use to improve my images. It hurts when people criticise, (even if it is constructive and well intended), but I am mature enough, as has Abby been, to realise that I am not being criticised on a personal level.

Abby, I would like to say that I admire you for sticking your neck out and developing this wonderful web site. I hope that it continues to grow and becomes more and more of a success for you.

Finally, as with any discussion that doesn't actually take place person to person, sometimes things written do not come off as they were intended, I would like to wrap up by saying that if I appeared to be rude or presumtuous at any time I truly did not mean to be, my only hope was to spark a mature and well thought out discussion which would simply serve to make Abby more aware of herself as a professional photographer.

Yours in photography,
The Dude

[iatros]

I have followed this thread with great interest.

The Dude has valid points about a photographer's style. Abby gives us an almost voyeuristic series of beautiful girls undressing. I personally find it very erotic, which is why I keep coming back. She has previously admitted that not all the shots are perfect - a sure sign that she cares about what she is presenting.

Abby could produce artistic photosets, which would take more time and, I suspect, less content in terms of new models. If I feel that way out, I edit which of the downloaded photos I look at. Its called personal choice.

Dude, you also complain about Abby's reply being aggressive. Re-read your original post: "Firstly let me say that I am not putting Abby or her talents as a photographer down, but the one thing that drives me nuts...". You were very definitely putting her talents down, however unintentional. If Abby's reply was terse, perhaps you deserved it.

I hope you have learned something about constructive criticism. Start by highlighting what you think is good, then say how you think it could be improved. Whatever I may think about your original post, it produced a wonderful discussion about the philosophy of Abby's site.

I say to all, keep up the good work.

Iatros

(Arsby - I think I prefer Bianca's sticky fingers to acrobatic yoga, but I'll reserve judgement until I see the pics http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif)

[timidly]

Abby, thanks for not being another Suze Randall.

Dude, I hope all of our constructive criticism results in sets containing voluminous numbers of perfect photos. (I've tried! ;-)

Seeing this criticism discussed has got to be gratifying for everyone who reads the Forum.

[Abby]

Oh, BTW, the acrobatic yoga stuff I mentioned in this thread was Kaya, who's on the site now. Just so's you know. http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

a

[jus1drun]

i see muggins typed out and "IMHO" and i've seen that before in other threads...i've also seen either "IMO" or IHO".......would someone catch me up on what that all means, please? http://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif tia

[jus1drun]

wait....i cant believe it hit me after all this time...."In My Humble Opinion"???

and of course the IMO would be without humility, lol.

nm, but thanks to anyone who was going to reply....luv ya bye bye