Please...bring your pitchforks

[chauncey]

Help me out here...before I got into this addictive smoke genre, most of my posted images were
quite popular, regardless of the sites. That said, these smoke pictures are getting raves and pans,
depending on the sites. Why is there such a variance in acceptance? Please opine. My latest...

[Shadowman]

Chauncey,

I think it might help you if you create a matrix of what is accepted/panned and have you look closely at those images and see what is unique, typical, and what would appear easy/difficult to accomplish by another artist. When I look at your works I see what appears to be difficult to achieve, what looks like another art medium (watercolor, pastel, etc.), and what looks like it would appeal to specific age groups. To have a balanced collective of any particular fan/critic within one forum would be statistically impossible. Keep up the effort and perhaps look at different marketing techniques to get more publicity for your style.

[Manfred M]

I've moved this thread here. I know you have been posting your smoke pictures in the General Photography Discussions thread, but as you have "productionalized" your work, they are probably a better fit here, which is where pretty well any images that are not people or pets should go.

[IzzieK]

I agree with John here, William. This one is very nice with all the curvature well pronounced especially at the pour side bit (ones before reaching the thin lines.) I like the colour of the background matching well with the smoke and the transparent look it has at the top middle part too. What is there not to like?

[chauncey]

I based my question on the lack of feedback from these images compared to what I routinely
received from other genre...I'm thinking that it's due to them not being true photography???

I see what appears to be difficult to achieve

Not difficult for me to achieve but...difficult to conceptualize.

What is there not to like?

That's what I'm trying to ascertain.

[Marie Hass]

Dear Chauncey,
I have been silent as well, and for that I am sorry. I am very much guilty of skimming the People & Pets and Nature & Architecture sections first, and then I usually run out of time. Nothing to do with you, only my viewing habits.

Manfred was right to move your thread. I sincerely believe it will get more views.

On your image - This one has a very seductive look and feel. The fact that what appears to be a woman's rather large breast facing left inside the smoke curtains does for me, nothing to dissuade that perception. Mind you, the color of the image (pinks and fleshtones) are also at work to convince my brain of what I think I am seeing.

I really like the artistic intent of this image. I am not qualified to comment on the technicalities.

Marie

[FootLoose]

..I'm thinking that it's due to them not being true photography???

I don't know what "true photography" is but I know that images that have been created with the aid of photoshop tend to polarise opinion in forums. I think part of that is due to the critics' limited processing skills. In other words, they don't recognise the skill and effort that goes into producing an image that is something more than 'sooc', or a faithful replica of how they remember a particular scene or object. So, if they can't compliment an image such as yours on the technical aspects (sharpness, depth of field, lighting etc) - because those things don't apply to the image - then they have nothing to say.

Having said that, I have been too busy to visit this site lately but from what I recall of the kinds of image you were producing earlier with smoke, this is one of your better examples. I am picking up on the sexual overtones of it, too. Apart from the toning, the tulip shape and the soft curves have vaginal resonances. And then the breast-like structure located in the middle of it, kind of reminds of Picasso.

[Manfred M]

I based my question on the lack of feedback from these images compared to what I routinely
received from other genre...I'm thinking that it's due to them not being true photography???

How is this not "true photography"? In any sense of the word, you are taking pictures using a camera and a studio light. You are then photocompositing, using PP software, into an image you are presenting to the viewers. How is this different than a "true photographer" using PP software to remove power lines from a shot or to clone over areas of an image that are not working properly or retouching a face. You are using exactly the same tools, although you are achieving a different result.

[Barbara Ponder]

I don't visit the other boards either. I generally even forget the people and pets one The smoke images I have seen in the contest have been very nice but since I have not seen them on the this board I have not commented. This particular one screamed vagina the second I saw it and so I personally find it not so appealing. Art is so subjective and there will always be fans and critiques no matter what genre you choose.