second wrote:...
@R0m30:
That's a forum about - let's say serious or art - photography, and I think they care about other aspects than we do here....
Well I guess - looking at the forum - there are many aspects
to girl photography. You have plain porn, you have erotic kicks,
you have nude pics and non nude.
On the other axis you have glossy-show-all, artfully work w/ the light, point and shoot and point somewhere else and accidentally shot a girl or part of it.
My personally definition of "amateur" would range in the
work w/ the light area since the word means trying to get better and better at it and loving it - what the amateur tells from the professional
is, the professional does roughly the same but earns his/her living with it.
Party pics and roughly-shot-somewhere-in-a-direction-of-something-like-a-girl are not "amateur" but more fun pics. That said, mobile phone pics could rarely count as amateur too
second wrote:
so don't worry about their comments!
(Still one could learn from them of course... ...e.g. MET-ART showed there is no contradiction between these different aspects of photography...)
Yes, met-art style is a good start if you don't just look at the model (but don't miss her

but also look how it was made (the light, the posing, the background). They aren't all so perfect made so there is plenty room for
own improvements, like "I'd do this slightly different...put the light somewhere else, let her pose a bit different..."
Just some thought - now happy amateur photographing!