Just launched...

[Arandel]

...the new version of my official webpresentation: http://www.alleviation.org/. Thought I'd share.

[Swampy]

Nice work, Arandel.

[Dena]

Very nice, Arandel. I especially like the way you have the portfolio set up.

One thing you might want to check on... when I went to the Biography page, the images did not show up... only the image placeholders. I use IE 7.0 and usually don't have a problem viewing images.

[pixel_monkey]

Nice work.

As Dena mentioned, the images can't be viewed on your Biography page. It's because the file paths are incorrect. The paths are targeted to the files in your local c:drive and not the ones reside on your server.

[Arandel]

Thank you for the kind words. I am currently working on fixing the problems of my bio page...

[Ant]

I know that this isn't in the critique forum, but what do you have against shadow and shape? Did they attack you as a child? Looks like Picasso going on there what with the 1 dimension to the peoples faces and whatnot... Super heavy hand.

[Arandel]

Ant, you are more than welcome to critique, as I appreciate all kinds of feedback. Your observation in regards to shadows is very accurate, as I dislike them. And yes, my imagery is phantasmal, since I love the works of Pierre et Gilles, who always have been my main inspiration. I adore Picasso as well, so that is yet another valid point. But there is a reason to why I title myself imager and not retoucher, where I become the later only when I need to make money. In those situations I adapt to the needs of that particular client. Thank you for your input, though.

[smak]

The site and photos look good. On the biography page: child-hood is misspelled and "by meticulously study" should be studying.
Also, I've never heard or seen anyone use the word "coetaneous" before. I know what it means now.

[myfairies]

your site and your portfolio are simply wonderful

[Ant]

Originally Posted by Arandel

Ant, you are more than welcome to critique, as I appreciate all kinds of feedback. Your observation in regards to shadows is very accurate, as I dislike them. And yes, my imagery is phantasmal, since I love the works of Pierre et Gilles, who always have been my main inspiration. I adore Picasso as well, so that is yet another valid point. But there is a reason to why I title myself imager and not retoucher, where I become the later only when I need to make money. In those situations I adapt to the needs of that particular client. Thank you for your input, though.

Your explanation explains nothing.

BLECH.

[Arandel]

myfairies and smak: Thank you so much for your comments.

Ant: I think you (deliberately?) misunderstood my earlier reply, as I fail to see why I would explain myself to you. I have come to understand from your posts here that you think immensely high of yourself, which is a wonderful trait, really, to have such strung self-esteem. However, if you look outside yourself for once, perhaps you will realize that the rest of us are not here to please you or your sense of esthetics. This world we inhabit is built on a variety, with a plethora of artistic expressions. And I for one enjoy that.

With that said, I am of the persuasion that your feedback, in a general perspective, hold validity - tremendously so. But I lack to understand why you present it in that permanently piquing tone of yours. On a global forum, built on written communication, it is perplexing to encounter a person so devoid of the ability to indite as well as common respect. But to each their own, as the saying goes. Yet, for you to set aside time from your - allegedly - busy schedule to jot down a note on my work, could only be considered as the most sincere of compliments. So, once again, I thank you.

[Ant]

Originally Posted by Arandel

myfairies and smak: Thank you so much for your comments.

Ant: I think you (deliberately?) misunderstood my earlier reply, as I fail to see why I would explain myself to you. I have come to understand from your posts here that you think immensely high of yourself, which is a wonderful trait, really, to have such strung self-esteem. However, if you look outside yourself for once, perhaps you will realize that the rest of us are not here to please you or your sense of esthetics. This world we inhabit is built on a variety, with a plethora of artistic expressions. And I for one enjoy that.

With that said, I am of the persuasion that your feedback, in a general perspective, hold validity - tremendously so. But I lack to understand why you present it in that permanently piquing tone of yours. On a global forum, built on written communication, it is perplexing to encounter a person so devoid of the ability to indite as well as common respect. But to each their own, as the saying goes. Yet, for you to set aside time from your - allegedly - busy schedule to jot down a note on my work, could only be considered as the most sincere of compliments. So, once again, I thank you.

Ok, let me spell it out for you. I commented on how 'wrong' your imagery was. Wrong in the sense of reality. Aesthetics do not come into play here. Think of a cabinet. If I took a cabinet and made it non square so the doors wouldn't close I have messed up the cabinet. You have removed shadows and shape and then added your own incorrect shadowing (and no real shape). You have messed up the cabinet. Your response to my calling you out of your bad carpentry was to say that yes, you like making things wrong and non functional and then you mentioned influences. Well, regarding your influences, I have worked with some of them and regardless of that, I look at their imagery and see, whether I like it or not, that at least the execution has been done correctly. Yours has not.

Regarding 'that you think immensely high of yourself', well, I can't say why you would say that. If you look through my posts I do not praise myself. I see a piece of crap and I say "Hey, look. Piece of crap here. Don't step in it". I don't say, "I could do that much better." I mention what is wrong. My only alternative is to look outside myself when commenting on others work. Why/how could I not look inside myself to do so? Again, aesthetics mean nothing. There are right and wrongs. This is not about personal taste.

You say you refer to yourself by a specific title and not retoucher. What difference does it make what you are called. No one cares. It's about the work. There are people in your photographs (never get beyond that that is what they are, it is the medium you have chosen to work in. This is not some other art form we are talking about here.) and people look a certain way. I do not believe it is your intention to be Picasso like in the terms of perspective, planes, shape, etc. You are just not being critical enough or do not have the knowledge as to how things should look for a realistic suspension of disbelief. Phantasmal or not, it must be executed correctly.

This creative retouching, fine and popular that it is, needs a foundation.

But to each their own, as the saying goes. Yet, for you to set aside time from your - allegedly - busy schedule to jot down a note on my work, could only be considered as the most sincere of compliments. Which is why I wrote so little in the first place, but you responded with such fervor as to ask for every bit.

I'm glad you enjoy doing what you do. However, to post it for all to see and then not be able to take the response that is uncomfortable is unconscionable. Look inside yourself. Take criticism.

[Ant]

One more thing, not that my words are so perfectly organized, but your ridiculously forced manner of speech is downright annoying. Do you look through a thesaurus before typing so as to appear, I don't know what...? You have mostly done it here and on your website, not in your previous posts.

[camilla_k]

Originally Posted by Arandel

Ant, you are more than welcome to critique, as I appreciate all kinds of feedback. Your observation in regards to shadows is very accurate, as I dislike them. And yes, my imagery is phantasmal, since I love the works of Pierre et Gilles, who always have been my main inspiration. I adore Picasso as well, so that is yet another valid point. But there is a reason to why I title myself imager and not retoucher, where I become the later only when I need to make money. In those situations I adapt to the needs of that particular client. Thank you for your input, though.

great answer there

like you said, you are an imager.
personally i think some of your work reminds me of 3d game characters, which is kinda cool. i love this one: http://www.alleviation.org/Pages/Portfolio/2.html

this is not something i would personally create or do, but that doesnt mean i shouldnt respect the time and devotion you put into your creations. so well done from me! website works well too!

most of us are some sort of imagemakers these days anyway. after digital photography took over, you take a picture and think: "ah i will just fix it in photoshop when i get home"... (guilty)

[Winsunn]

I love the Queen of Hearts. Did you use a filter or plug-in to get that look? Great work, Arandel.