Comments on: Portraits Of Retired Playboy Bunnies

By: Carlos Osterling

Carlos Osterling — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:14:00 +0000

Nobody is talking about airbrushing them. To me, the photos try to make them look worn-out. Take the photo of the lady in black, with the playboy logo, against that poor looking background. Don’t tell me you would take a photo like that of a celebrity, for example.

By: perceptionalreality

perceptionalreality — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:18:00 +0000

Do you have any concept what goes into the lighting of a playboy shoot? A dozen assistants and multiple lights for every assistant. Then hours in post retouching the photos (with an airbrush back in their day; Photoshop now). It is incredibly unrealistic to expect the same production values from a project like this (with no paying subscribers to fund it), and particularly when the point is to contrast those production values and women in their prime with the realities of life (which includes poor lighting more often than not).

Just ridiculous criticism revealing an incredibly limited world view.

By: Richard Melanson

Richard Melanson — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:34:00 +0000

Fair enough. Cheers.

By: JPGodwin

JPGodwin — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:13:00 +0000

But then why post the shots at all? People complain about the work not for the sake of the work, but because of the fact that they have been offered it by a website that-to some extent-attempts to showcase talent.

If I came across these on a personal website, I’d appreciate them for what they are. I wouldn’t even notice if they weren’t lit very well. The issue is that I have come on this website in order to be either entertained or educated, and this is what I’ve been offered-of course I, or anyone else, is going to be more judgemental in that capacity.

It’s similar to watching an amateur play in a local theatre, or the exact same amateur play on Broadway. You’d be in your right mind to absolutely slate the show on Broadway, because the stage is too big for such mediocrity.

I can do a hotdog in a fine dining restaurant analogy as well, but you get my point. It’s not she created bad work, it’s that the work isn’t good enough to be admired.

I speak only for myself. Thanks for the compliment on my work by the way, that’s extremely kind of you to say.

By: Richard Melanson

Richard Melanson — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:19:00 +0000

I was just making the point that perhaps these images were not simply created to be technically proficient just for the sake of being technically proficient. Maybe that the depiction of the subjects (in an unflattering manor?) was done on purpose, and the goal was not simply to take beautiful portraits of different women.

For example, the headshots on your site are lit very well, and are extremely flattering to the subjects – it seems you achieve your goal very well. I was, however, just attempting to point out that this series might have a different purpose than some of the shoots typically seen on this site, and therefore might have been executed differently…intentionally.

Some “Fine Art” photography must make your head explode, given your cynicism (and contentious demeanor).

By: Mike M

Mike M — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:50:00 +0000

”It’s definitely not Playboy quality on the light setting in these photos.”

“I agree-as if the intention of the photog was to make those lovely ladies as ‘worn out’ as possible-not fair and not polite”

” think it would have been a little more insulting trying to make these
women look like something that they’re not and post process the crap out
of them to make them look “young” again.”

-No one said make them look young, they commented on the lighting and unnecessarily making them look more worn out intentionally.

Look at 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, and even 11. No effort is made to capture their beauty, solely their age, which makes it seem like a predisposed goal from the outset.

You should always aim to capture your subjects’ inner beauty, period. Doing so, doesn’t solely require working in Photoshop to make a workable image….

By: JPGodwin

JPGodwin — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:21:00 +0000

Thanks for clearing that up Richard, she intentionally wanted to create images that were just a bit bland, boring to look at, and not lit very well.

Gotcha.

By: Richard Melanson

Richard Melanson — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:37:00 +0000

I don’t think anyone commenting negatively understands what the photographer was trying to convey here, which I think she did quite well. You’re all getting way too hung up on the mechanics (which I would imagine were intentional), completely missing the nuance of the characters.

By: Simon Lynch

Simon Lynch — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:57:00 +0000

Being old doesn’t mean not caring for flatering light.

In the first ones, it looks like he used bare flash only. Not the best result here.

the background changes tonality which makes our eyes leave the subjects (on the fisrt 5 of them).

It seems to be better for the next ones but still… why the change in lighting? The series Is a great idea and there is alot to do with it, but it isn’t tied together well enough for my taste…

By: Simon Lynch

Simon Lynch — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:57:00 +0000

Good lighting has nothing to do with post process….