Stunning model!! Makes one happy to be back!!
I guess I missed when thumbs done was removed! I would like to see it back!
There must be a kitchens factory which sponsors some photographers.
Today 50% of the set is set in the kitchen.
The kitchen is not a place where you can meet art.
Severe censorship applied by the hair on the breast of Alma.
Set rating: not classified.
The beauty and grace of Alma are out of the question.
In this set she is like a pearl on a ring of tin.
gaetano maria, I agree entirely with you that in this set the background of a kitchen not appealing, however Erro did a set in the past with Tubbea, the model is Monica here, in a kitchen which was a scream. She is playing with the food. At one point she is actually pointing her knife at us. So IMO you could have a kitchen in a shoot, but if you do, then use it. That was not the case here...It was a distraction.
Of course I have nothing against the kitchens.
I propose another kitchen, in my opinion, memorable Quinn in Vinilo.
The difference is that here the colors are bright, the ambiance is luminous.
Quinn is over the kitchen does not have to crawl on the ground under a sofa.
These are the differences, I think, between the beautiful and less beautiful.
Even Quinn tip against a very dangerous weapon.
But in weapons Alma has nothing to fear.
Gorgeous. Feminine. Deep.
I think that this girl is gloriously special and rare.
Thanks, Alma... even your lips are mesmerizing.
ps - I love your nose... and your lips... and your eyes... and your hair... and
Happy birthday, again, LOL!
Hard to disagree with that
OK, I am proposing an informal member's poll here.
I mentioned this issue in a recent Arkisi set, and I've been thinking about it ever since.
In general, I like Arkisi's work, enough to have subscribed to his site. But there is one thing that I don't like, and it is consistent throughout most of his sets, and I'm wondering if any of you feel the same way, or if y'all actually like it.
The issue I'm asking about is his lighting. It seems consistently overbright. It seems to overpower the colors of the models themselves, and it seems to "wash out" their natural appearance, so they seem somewhat unsubstantial.
Weigh in guys and girls... let me know if you agree with me, or if I need to get a new set of glasses.
I see in this set, all the pictures covered by a veil, are all almost 'soft focus'.
And the colors are not bright.
Thanks for answering my "poll," gaetano!
1. At all images RGB numbers on model's face don't exceed 200 in red channel. This is normal for Caucasian skin. For more details please read Dan Margulis's works.
2. I like contrast images, sorry.
3. Images are prepared at calibrated panel with IPS matrix and intended not for viewing on TFT lcds.
4. Thank you for subscribing to my site and putting valuable comments. I appreciate it. But please appreciate me as a photographer and more importantly as an artist with his own vision.
Thank you for answering my question, Arkisi.
Understand that I was addressing an aesthetic issue... I wasn't negatively criticizing your vision. I understand that I'm not going to agree with the photographer on everything!
Your site is very good and well worth the subscription, and I'm glad it's successful! I intend to continue subscribing.
I agree with these comments. There are several photographers that always screw around with the colour of the pictures, much to my annoyance. Arkisi does this, but the one that really ticks me off is Koenart, some of his series are so pale you wonder where the model got to.
Thanks for your input, hunter!
If photographers intentionally overexpose their shots it's usually because they want to "blow out" certain areas of the picture (e.g., certain areas of a model's body) they consider unacceptable. If they unintentionally overexpose their shots then they're either careless or technically deficient. If the overexposed photos are suspiciously consistent in the same area of the model then you can deduce the photographer meant to do it. In my opinion its dishonest photography because he's trying to mask an attribute(s) of the model and coincidentally deceive his audience.
Arbusik, thank you for your answer to my question. I had already deduced that this is a consistent tendency of Arkisi's photography, so he does it intentionally.
...but I don't consider it "deceptive," it is simply a matter of personal choice/artistic vision.
I have been photographing women for the last 13 years and doing general photography for the last 40, and I understand what you're expressing. I am not sure whether it's a post production choice (Photoshop adjustment) or a problem with his initial set up, but the images have a higher level of contrast than I prefer. If you play around with image software and slide the contrast controls up and down, you'll see that the images go from overly soft and flat looking on one extreme, to overly intense (darks too dark, lights too bright) on the opposite. You and I prefer a less intense level of contrast. Whether this is a conscious choice on the part of the photographer or not, I can't say. Though, if you notice it in all of his work, that suggests it probably is a conscious choice.
That said, this can be an artistic preference. What appeals to one might not to another. There are people who would intentionally make their images look like this and there are those who would intentionally avoid this look. I'd prefer a bit lower level of contrast myself, but that's me.
Hey Twisted, thanks for your answer and your explanation. I'm afraid that this is ~ as you say ~ simply an artistic preference of Arkisi's.
...and, not being a photographer, I could be totally wrong about this, but it strikes me as not a post-production thing, but rather a matter of lighting or flash. I think Arkisi uses a brighter/harsher lighting setup/flash than most of the other photographers here on MA.
Ironically I did a post on a different set discussing essentially the same thing today. I ended with the same though in your last paragraph but not as well stated. The fact Arkisi responded is great. I do not recall you joining in often but I am so glad you did today. To have post by those of us who have had to do it, hopefully adds to a better understanding with the members. But personal taste will always be here. Both by the artists and the viewers. Viva la difference! It is what makes this whole site interesting....
Definitely, swplf! I don't remember seeing Arkisi commenting before either.
Welcome, by the way, Arkisi! I hope you join our conversations more often in the future! We members really enjoy when the photographers become involved in the discussions.
There's no excuse for consistently under OR over exposed shots. There's more than a few software programs available that can manipulate RAW files. That manipulation includes but is not limited to adjusting exposure, contrast, white-balance, geometry, dust, noise, etc.
Examples of post-production RAW file editing software are Phaseone's CaptureOne, DxO Optics Pro, Aftershop Pro, Gimp, Adobe Photoshop.
fer_realz - I'm no photo pro, amateur or otherwise, but I don't have any issues with Arkisi's work at all. Not having that technical eye, I look at general appeal, such as a good balance of poses, model personality & beauty, setting and overall quality.
I'm not quite old enough to be considered one of the old geezers club, although I would accept an honorary membership if the founding members SWP and Sailor grant it!
BTW, Do you use the same name to comment on another site, one that begins with "F"?
Thanks for commenting, kilroy!
I'm glad you don't have the same issue I do with Arkisi. Personally, I enjoy all the other aspects of his photography.
I don't know if I'm considered part of the old fart's club, but I feel that I qualify, except I'm not a photographer! ( :
Yes, I do comment infrequently on other sites, because there isn't as much of a conversation on other sites as on MetArt. But when I do comment, it's under the same screen name. ( :
Do you use the same screen name?
BTW, unlike you other geezers, I am not in any way a photographer, so I'd appreciate your comments from the perspective of actual/professional photographers as well as your simple aesthetic reactions.
Forget about the technical jargon. For me what's really important is to be mindful of the photographer's intent: is he portraying his model as she really is or as he'd like to see her or as she'd like to see herself? In other words do you feel like the photographer's being honest with you or do you feel like there's something else going on (e.g., over or under exposure, smudged over areas, skin like a mannequin's, etc).
It just seems to me that Arkisi regularly uses harsh lighting that overpowers the natural look of the models. With the more tanned or darker skinned ones it looks OK, but with the more pale ones, it makes them look kinda ghostly and not quite healthy ~ which is ironic, because as a rule I prefer pale skin.
It just seems to me that the light is far too white and far too bright.
I love her enigmatic facial expressions. She seems to be asking the viewer a question with her eyes.
More sets of model Alma A and galleries by Arkisi on the Met Art Network: