VN Ren'Py Light of My Life [Ch. 1-7 v1.0.0] [Naughty Road]

[Moosexl]

MHHMMM!!!!

 

[Miðgarðsormr]

MHHMMM!!!!

I think what you try to express with your Mhhmmm is something like this.

Spoiler: And i agree with it.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[atrebor68]

MHHMMM!!!!

Please, explain...

 

[Abhai]

MHHMMM!!!!

mhhh...that is one lucky hydrant-appendage there

 

[PBS666]

MHHMMM!!!!

Nice model. Too bad the photographer didn't know (or didn't care for) what he was doing . She deserves better.

 

[yoyomistro]

Nice model. Too bad the photographer didn't know (or didn't care for) what he was doing . She deserves better.

Really? I think it's a great shot. The model is in focus, but off center so there's a cool depth effect with the perspective of the sidewalk, the color scheme of the mural is almost perfectly aligned with the sunset to the point where they almost blend into each other with the lack of focus, and the warm colors of the background contrast well with the cool colors of her dress. What issues do you have with it specifically?

 

[PBS666]

Well, for starters, in portrait photograpy IMO the attention of the viewer should be drawn to the model. Having leading lines which lead to brightest point in an out of focus background do not help in this matter, on the contrary. Now the mural, the background and the model are fighting for attention.
Cool colours of her dress ? You mean the wrong white balance for the subject. Even her skin looks cold. If the photographer had done this right, the warm colors of the background would even be warmer, so the contrast would still be there, but the model would not look like she just walked right out of the morgue. Again, what is the focus of the photograph, the model or the background ?
Also, cropping through her foot is sloppy IMO. Either have her feet in the shot (which is what I would have done) or crop tighter.

 

[Wonko_the_Sane*]

Really? I think it's a great shot. The model is in focus, but off center so there's a cool depth effect with the perspective of the sidewalk, the color scheme of the mural is almost perfectly aligned with the sunset to the point where they almost blend into each other with the lack of focus, and the warm colors of the background contrast well with the cool colors of her dress. What issues do you have with it specifically?

I agree with the evil public broadcaster: nice model; botched photograph. The obvious post-shot (global) adjustment of hue and saturation doesn't help matters, either.

 

[yoyomistro]

Well, for starters, in portrait photograpy IMO the attention of the viewer should be drawn to the model. Having leading lines which lead to brightest point in an out of focus background do not help in this matter, on the contrary. Now the mural, the background and the model are fighting for attention.
Cool colours of her dress ? You mean the wrong white balance for the subject. Even her skin looks cold. If the photographer had done this right, the warm colors of the background would even be warmer, so the contrast would still be there, but the model would not look like she just walked right out of the morgue. Again, what is the focus of the photograph, the model or the background ?
Also, cropping through her foot is sloppy IMO. Either have her feet in the shot (which is what I would have done) or crop tighter.

I think you're misunderstanding the shot then, it's not actually a portrait IMO, it's more of a landscape; kind of like a Monet piece with the subject serving as a point of contrast to the larger scheme, almost like a tree blossoming alonside a dirt path weaving through a meadow alongside a hillock.

The intended contrast seems similar to this painting:

You must be registered to see the links

And the model's place in the image seems to serve a similar purpose to these subjects:

You must be registered to see the links

Your interpretation seems to be based on some expectation of a pinup style shot with the landscape supporting the model, but I think it's a landscape shot with the model providing a focused point of contrast.

I agree with the evil public broadcaster: nice model; botched photograph. The obvious post-shot (global) adjustment of hue and saturation doesn't help matters, either.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, I see a stylistic landscape, y'all see a botched portrait.

 

[LarryK]

I think you're misunderstanding the shot then, it's not actually a portrait IMO, it's more of a landscape; kind of like a Monet piece with the subject serving as a point of contrast to the larger scheme, almost like a tree blossoming alonside a dirt path weaving through a meadow alongside a hillock.

The intended contrast seems similar to this painting:

You must be registered to see the links

And the model's place in the image seems to serve a similar purpose to these subjects:

You must be registered to see the links

Your interpretation seems to be based on some expectation of a pinup style shot with the landscape supporting the model, but I think it's a landscape shot with the model providing a focused point of contrast.



I guess we'll agree to disagree, I see a stylistic landscape, y'all see a botched portrait.

Your reply and analysis clears it up for me. I was confused, partly as it was presented as a portrait, yet the sunset distracted me from the lady. And after not seeing it for 30 minutes, my mind still holds the sky and loses the woman.

 

[yoyomistro]

MHHMMM!!!!

Do you have a source for this piece, btw? Would be great to know the artist.

Your reply and analysis clears it up for me. I was confused, partly as it was presented as a portrait, yet the sunset distracted me from the lady. And after not seeing it for 30 minutes, my mind still holds the sky and loses the woman.

Haha, glad I won someone over to my way of seeing it. I almost feel like if Monet had access to digital photography that's the sort of shot he'd take. The use of light in the photo is very much emblematic of his impressionist style in my opinion. I'm not a real art buff but I do like to see impressionist pieces in person whenever I can and that's the vibe I got from this pretty much instantly.

 

[PBS666]

I think you're misunderstanding the shot then, it's not actually a portrait IMO, it's more of a landscape; kind of like a Monet piece with the subject serving as a point of contrast to the larger scheme, almost like a tree blossoming alonside a dirt path weaving through a meadow alongside a hillock.

The intended contrast seems similar to this painting:

You must be registered to see the links

And the model's place in the image seems to serve a similar purpose to these subjects:

You must be registered to see the links

Your interpretation seems to be based on some expectation of a pinup style shot with the landscape supporting the model, but I think it's a landscape shot with the model providing a focused point of contrast.



I guess we'll agree to disagree, I see a stylistic landscape, y'all see a botched portrait.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it in this picture. If that was the photographers intention, he failed miserably IMO. I suspect it was more of a case of applying the rule of thirds in an inappropriate way.
It might have worked as a landscape if the model was for example walking along the street and not posing in this glamor/fashion style, looking straight in the lens. The models in the Monet paintings aren't doing that either. There they are just siting there, either talking or reading, which makes them part of the landscape, not competing with it.

In the end, I'm not pretending I know all and everything about photograpy and composition, but I recognise mistakes when I see them. I (used to) make those same mistakes myself

 

[yoyomistro]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it in this picture. If that was the photographers intention, he failed miserably IMO. I suspect it was more of a case of applying the rule of thirds in an inappropriate way.
It might have worked as a landscape if the model was for example walking along the street and not posing in this glamor/fashion style, looking straight in the lens. The models in the Monet paintings aren't doing that either. There they are just siting there, either talking or reading, which makes them part of the landscape, not competing with it.

In the end, I'm not pretending I know all and everything about photograpy and composition, but I recognise mistakes when I see them. I (used to) make those same mistakes myself

There are plently of Monet pieces where the subjects are "looking" at the "lens" and posing, but can't quite be described as the entire focus of the portrait. He just had the stylistic license to not use features on his subjects faces so that you'd be able to appreciate his focus on the interplay of light and the environments he favored. It would just be a trip into uncanny valley if the artist effaced the model to provide the same effect, and would probably just draw further attention to her as opposed to achieving said effect. Instead the deliberate clothing choice that reflects the blue hues from the pavement and her skin tone and the shadows on her face mirroring the light and shadows on the sky behind her provide the "effacing" effect. Of course, there's no way to know the artist's intent without actually hearing what they have to say, and believe me I hate a poorly setup pinup as much as anyone. It's actually a huge artistic pet peeve of mine.

EDIT: An example shot of the sort of Monet piece I'm describing:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Miðgarðsormr]

Would the shot work better if we change the colour of her dress? Cause now that i read all kind of explanations i can't unsee the flaws of it anymore.

But she still an eye catcher.

 

[PBS666]

There are plently of Monet pieces where the subjects are "looking" at the "lens" and posing, but can't quite be described as the entire focus of the portrait. He just had the stylistic license to not use features on his subjects faces so that you'd be able to appreciate his focus on the interplay of light and the environments he favored. It would just be a trip into uncanny valley if the artist effaced the model to provide the same effect, and would probably just draw further attention to her as opposed to achieving said effect. Instead the deliberate clothing choice that reflects the blue hues from the pavement and her skin tone and the shadows on her face mirroring the light and shadows on the sky behind her provide the "effacing" effect. Of course, there's no way to know the artist's intent without actually hearing what they have to say, and believe me I hate a poorly setup pinup as much as anyone. It's actually a huge artistic pet peeve of mine.

EDIT: An example shot of the sort of Monet piece I'm describing:

You must be registered to see the links

The first thing I see when looking at this Monet, is that his composition resembles the crop I made of the photo. Subject in the middle, no competing elements. This is not a landscape, but a portrait.

And I still think that the colours in the picture were the result of not using a correct white balance. They might be pleasing, but only if you accept that the models skin looks blueish. There is almost as much blue in her skin than red. (Most photographers would hide this afterwards by rendering the picture in black and white, because it would not fly telling the model/creative director it's okay the skin of the model looks blue because now the background looks correct or because of some creative licence).

Also, if you want to compare impressionist paintings with photos, in photography there are techniques which result in the same "effacing" effect you describe, without going to uncanny valley. Slow shutterspeed for instance, resulting in motion blur which looks natural in a photo.

Finally, I think you give this photographer way too much credit when you compare this photograph with the work of one the masters of Impressionism.

 

[afterlights]

There's a lot to like about that model, but especially those tits in that dress.

 

[yoyomistro]

The first thing I see when looking at this Monet, is that his composition resembles the crop I made of the photo. Subject in the middle, no competing elements. This is not a landscape, but a portrait.

And I still think that the colours in the picture were the result of not using a correct white balance. They might be pleasing, but only if you accept that the models skin looks blueish. There is almost as much blue in her skin than red. (Most photographers would hide this afterwards by rendering the picture in black and white, because it would not fly telling the model/creative director it's okay the skin of the model looks blue because now the background looks correct or because of some creative licence).

Also, if you want to compare impressionist paintings with photos, in photography there are techniques which result in the same "effacing" effect you describe, without going to uncanny valley. Slow shutterspeed for instance, resulting in motion blur which looks natural in a photo.

Finally, I think you give this photographer way too much credit when you compare this photograph with the work of one the masters of Impressionism.

I suppose we've waffled on about this enough to probably constitute a derailment lol; but this thread has always been as much about symbolic art as erotica, so waffle on I will. I didn't choose that photo for its composition which is why I didn't mention that aspect, but purely as an example of effacement of "focused" subjects, further enhanced by the clothing blending almost seamlessly with the sky, and serving as major reference points for the light source as ensconced in shadow. And like I said, I see a landscape, you see a portrait, so we're going to talk past each other to eternity as our frames of reference cannot square and we'd merely be stacking bricks onto our foundational points as to what sort of piece the photo constitutes.

Also invocation is not equalization, labeling something as "Kafkaesque" doesn't render it equal to the works of the referenced artist; merely points out thematic similarity or analogy. I reference Monet as a baseline for my thematic analysis. I am not a photographer and I'd be lying if I claimed any level of technical astuteness in the field, but I truly do think he would use subjects in a similar way to enhance a landscape had he had access to digital photography--maybe to better reception, maybe not. Also, Monet, as many artists were, was derided by his more technically minded contemporaries and his art gained wider appreciation posthumously--again, as many artists pieces do. The term impressionisme was coined satirically, in fact. So as with all things artistic, his wide appreciation in the modern era is largely subjective, regardless of the technical merits of his approach.

EDIT: Changed equivocation to equalization.

 

[Dragon59]

I suppose we've waffled on about this enough to probably constitute a derailment lol;

How about them Tardigrades, eh?

 

[yoyomistro]

How about them Tardigrades, eh?

 

[Dragon59]

It's so CUUUUUUUTE!