More on "selfie"

[Rob C]

Sigh...

How long until the first story about thieves tracking women down across the net, just to steal their selfie rings?

Well done! That's your scoop of the day!

;-)

Rob C

[LesPalenik]

Sadly for those who dislike the term selfie, it's already morphed further.
Welcome to the 'belfie'. The bum selfie. Yes really.
Though the Daily Mail in it's rush to find an excuse to show pictures of women backsides did an article on the supposed new trend started by Kim Kardashian [like it had never been done before] and did so with a bunch of photos taken by someone other than the subject. Duh!
Probably didn't pay the photographers for them either.

Looks like this one was taken with a good lens. The corners are not distorted at all.

[Rob C]

That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque, but that's one of the problems of creative writing: one woman's meat...

Rob C

[jjj]

That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque, but that's one of the problems of creative writing: one woman's meat...

I'm having trouble working out which way your preferences lie here due to the potential vagaries of English, which also adds to English's creative writing possibilities. 
Is positively grotesque, grotesque but in a good way [which is something someone who likes curves may say about KK] or is do you simply mean very grotesque?

[Rob C]

I'm having trouble working out which way your preferences lie here due to the potential vagaries of English, which also adds to English's creative writing possibilities. 
Is positively grotesque, grotesque but in a good way [which is something someone who likes curves may say about KK] or is do you simply mean very grotesque?

jjj, I couldn't possibly answer that directly: 'twould destroy the interpretative value each reader brings to the party. We would end up like North Korea. (Not Cuba, because I know a Cuban or two, and they are definitely different, also one to/from the other.)

Rob C

[jjj]

Heaven forbid we had clarity of communication, as then what would we bicker about? Other than MF Vs DSLR Vs MFT/Apple Vs MS/ Canon Vs Nikon….

[Rob C]

Heaven forbid we had clarity of communication, as then what would we bicker about? Other than MF Vs DSLR Vs MFT/Apple Vs MS/ Canon Vs Nikon….

Well, there's always the colour/black'n'white scab that we could pick should everything else fall into the despair of ultimate clarity... I'm increasingly drawn to black/white these days.

:-)

Rob C

[jjj]

On that note - one thing that always bugs me about the idiotic rules about photos in photojournalism competitions is that despite all the moronic and mostly ignorant rules about not altering the image, B+W shots are still allowed. But heaven forbid you decrease or increase colour saturation at all, as then the dogs of war will be unleashed in various photo forums and blog posts.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

On that note - one thing that always bugs me about the idiotic rules about photos in photojournalism competitions is that despite all the moronic and mostly ignorant rules about not altering the image, B+W shots are still allowed. But heaven forbid you decrease or increase colour saturation at all, as then the dogs of war will be unleashed in various photo forums and blog posts.

When it comes to B&W, there are only two kinds of people: those who understand the difference between B&W and color and those who don't. You don't.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque...

Either way, the picture reminds me of my grandma's saying: "Wise man's shame is fool's pride." Or woman's.

[jjj]

When it comes to B&W, there are only two kinds of people: those who understand the difference between B&W and color and those who don't. You don't.

Oh as I'm apparently too dumb to know the difference, please explain to all us unenlightened fools. With particular reference to the specific context I was talking about.
Oh BTW, that's an extremely patronising and very ignorant post Slobodan. That's the sort of thing I'd expect from the likes of Floyd Davidson.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

On that note - one thing that always bugs me about the idiotic rules about photos in photojournalism competitions is that despite all the moronic and mostly ignorant rules about not altering the image, B+W shots are still allowed. But heaven forbid you decrease or increase colour saturation at all, as then the dogs of war will be unleashed in various photo forums and blog posts.

What I wonder is this: If you convert to B&W by simply decreasing colour saturation all the way, is it still allowed? 

[jjj]

What I wonder is this: If you convert to B&W by simply decreasing colour saturation all the way, is it still allowed? 

Well it's B+W then, so that's fine. Yet less extreme desaturation is somehow too extreme for some bizarre reason.

[LesPalenik]

That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque, but that's one of the problems of creative writing: one woman's meat...

Since we are talking pure optics, a "positive or convex warp" term could be used here.

[Ray]

Looks like this one was taken with a good lens. The corners are not distorted at all.

But look at all that noise and grain. It's almost enough to put one off all sex. 

[LesPalenik]

What I wonder is this: If you convert to B&W by simply decreasing colour saturation all the way, is it still allowed?  

I'm not sure if it is allowed or advisable, but I converted it anyway for your convenience (see attached image).
I desaturated in on my old laptop armed with a 13-year old Photoshop 6 (fully paid for and registered with Adobe - along with my other personal information that was distributed recently worldwide). I was wondering whether the latest version of PS CC would produce anything more meaningful, but either way, the BW version simply doesn't work for me. I'm sure there are some connoisseurs who really enjoy pronounced contours and shapes, and harsh treatments in the grungy monochrome scenes, but speaking for myself, I like good light to see all the colours.

Anyway, it seems that in this particular case the BW conversion wouldn't be in the best interest of the model or most viewers.
A gentle Puppet Warp push in the westerly direction (starting at the easternmost point of the formation) might yield a more pleasing result.  

But look at all that noise and grain. It's almost enough to put one off all sex.  

Yes, Ray, I noticed all the noise when I examined the original picture. Most likely, shot at high ISO. It must have been quite dark in that room.
As you say, the overall impression is off-putting, that's why I pointed out that the corners held the most promise.

[jjj]

But look at all that noise and grain. It's almost enough to put one off all sex. 

Some people think a lot of noise is a sign of good sex! 

[Rob C]

Some people think a lot of noise is a sign of good sex! 

Or rotten furniture and lung cancer.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Oh BTW, that's an extremely patronising and very ignorant post Slobodan...

Perhaps.

However, you opened the door, Jeremy. You called the opinion you disagree with "idiotic, moronic, ignorant."

I was much kinder to you.

[fike]

It's fascinating to see how we malign a sexy selfie in a way that we would never malign artistic nudes or fashion photography. 

I think it is very interesting to see how women present themselves when the image is self-taken and given willingly (I will, for the moment, put aside the fact that many of these photos were never meant for distribution, which in itself is an unfortunate betrayal).  It's as if when women take over their own image and deign to represent themselves as objects of beauty or admiration, suddenly they are narcissistic sluts, but when they pose nude for "artistes" then THAT is okay.  Very strange mores we have here, people.

A selfie is to a portrait what an autobiography is to biography.  One is not better than the other.