|
Here's my 2cents..... not that anyone cares, but what would GFY be without pointless banter, right?
Without seeing the entire set, it's tough to judge one picture. I wouldn't have included that shot and I certainly wouldn't use it as a consideration for a cover or anything along those lines, but it's not the worst shot in the world by far. Odd pose, yes there is no catchlight (but you can't always get one), the lighting could have been adjusted but who knows if he was working with assistants or not. Lots of what-ifs included when looking at the picture.
We all take stinkers (including Dean and Paul and everyone). This picture isn't a total stinker, but its definitely a middle of the road shot. Who was the photo editor that included it in the set? Did he/she need an extra shot or two to reach 60 total pics? 80? 100?
I have my Playboy membership for the same reason as you Dean. Research. It also has included their "loyalty" sites which means I get more content to review for the $20/month. Cheaper by far than buying books and easier than looking at TGPs. Some of what goes up at Playboy isn't the greatest, absolutely, but I could say that of many sites, including a few that you shoot for, but that doesn't mean it's all shit. On the other hand, Playboy and the sites you work for, do include quality shots from premium shooters, such as yourself, that enhance the site and help to separate and brand their name.
Besides. How would we know the mediocre work from the good work if all we had to judge was the work of one photographer or one continual style?
Playboy the magazine could get away with producing A+ content all the time (although it wasn't always A+ even at 12 issues a year). Websites require much more material. Often you publish C grade and better because you need it. Simple as that. Members would overlook this picture and move on to the next in my opinion. Nothing to cancel a membership over I don't think. They have plenty of B and A material to stay around.
__________________
ICQ: 370 037 008
|