Okay, I'll try to put an image here. Hope it works!

Sakari

-- Sakari Makela (sakari.makela@koulut.vantaa.fi), August 11, 2000

Answers

Oh! Uhm. Nice! She can come around and repair stuff in my house any time she wants :-)

Seriously: It's a great picture! Lovely colours and I like the framing. Obviously a lovely model.

I hate to say anything that could be considered negative, but:

1. The spotlight on the model's face is very hot: please turn it down a bit or fix it in printing.
2. I think the model's pose could be improved a little. Basically I'd like to see more of her. Put the spanner in a higher position (so she has to reach up to hold it) and turn the model more towards the camera so we see more of the upper body: breasts (yes!) and stomach. Or maybe stand the model up?

But it's great shot. Two words: Image library.

-- (allane@cybaea.com), August 11, 2000.

...and if you could get rid of the clutter in the background over the model's left shoulder? Please?

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), August 11, 2000.

mechanique

I like the surely pose. Yeah I'd like more ti..... er breast and tummy, but this is only one pose. The part of the image I think needs most attention is the lighting. Needs more fill. James

-- james (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), August 12, 2000.

Forgive me for adding my biased feminist POV here - enough people are gonna like this anyway I4m sure, so please don4t take this so seriously :) It4s hackneyed even for a clichi. It4s been done a million times before - voluptuous, heavily made-up young female with strategically positioned smears of black paint in her face, and adorned with a tool she wouldn4t know how to use if her life depended on it. So much for artistic merit... Photographic qualities: Adequately framed, but badly lighted - esp. the shadows and the too bright and cluttered background are major disturbing factors. For reference: A working woman who is both feminine, powerful and REAL Ofcourse we all know which one the Playboy editors would rather pay for :) (PS: If the link doesn4t work: Shoot me!)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 13, 2000.

Surprise surprise!

http://photocrit.hosting4less.com/cgi-bin/s?zzvW9n- p13072325+vTc+vWD+000214-06:33:40-lvk

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 13, 2000.

This needs more edge, with which even Christel and I might find something nice to say about it. If anything, the face light needs to be brighter, blown out even and the background lit separately. Here it (the background) suffers from light and shadows left over from the subject, both of which could have been directed to fall further to the right while giving more modelling to subject by placing the light further to the left. If anything (sorry James) there's too much fill, not to mention makeup that it inadequate to the task, which is inadequate to this forum. This empty image belongs elsewhere, like where ever "Hustler" wannabes hang out... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 15, 2000.

please don't feel this response is a personal affront. it is just an honest reaction to an image that you offered for criticism. having said that, i can tell you that it goes beyond incompetence, and falls to the level of an insult to photographers who make serious attempts to produce images which contain the slightest element of dignity.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), August 16, 2000.

Hey, even the makers of 'Chained Heat 2' had their own vision, and it was good enough for the USA network at midnite, before 'Silk Stalkings'.

Sakari, I think what is getting people upset here is the picture uses a pose and setting which objectifies the model, making her look like less of a person, or not one at all- an uncomfortable thing on people photography. She might even be cool with the whole thing- we don't know. If you look at a lot of the photographs here, they connect you to many of the intangible, wonderful things about people, but your's seems to present 'the goods' in a framework of implausible fancy. Why's she gonna work on the motor in just a bra? Sure I worked in a metal shop without a shirt, but I protected my eyes and something else from the flying sparks.

If you want to make a decent erotic photograph, I would reset the scene in a less implausible fashion- hinting at all of the mental, emotional and physical things that people find sexy, instead of just blatantly displaying them. A tight, expressive shot of somebody who looked more like they worked on cars for a living with a few buttons of the jumpsuit undone or a sleeveless undershirt.

For that matter, try to make some sexy self portraits, perhaps in this setting. If you manage to make yourself look not like a goof or a rack of lamb, you've got a good start.

You could research pinup and erotic art too **office workers take heed** like Bettie Paige, who set it all up herself (www.allbettiepaige.com) or Alberto Vargas from the 30's and 40's also (www.hollywoodandvine.com), or look at the Pirelli Calendars (www.pirelli.com)

Andy

-- Andy McLeod (andrewmcleod@usa.net), August 18, 2000.