Please post no more than five images a day and respond to as many images as you post. Critics, please be constructive, specific, and nice! Moderated by gahspidy and mtbbrian.
By posting on the Photo Critique forum you agree to post only your own photos, be respectful, and give back as much as you receive. This is a moderated forum and anything abusive or
off-topic will be removed.
Good God! This is splendid! The only thing I can possibly complain about is the stem of grass partly hiding one eye. You got a serious portrait here. It is truly lively.
Well, I hate to be the nit-picker but I don't think this crop does your subject justice. Virtually half the photo is open space and, for me, as is stated on this forum IMHO, does not enhance the overall shot. Your original is better than this. But, I am in the minority on this so, what do I know.
But, I am in the minority on this so, what do I know.
That's irrelevant! It doesn't matter that you're in the minority, your opinion is still valid. Rather than asking yourself wether or not you are part of the majority, ask yourself if you simply have a different idea of the artist's intent? Maybe they didn't want to shoot a straight portrait? Maybe they wanted to shoot a portrait that flattered while at the same time putting the subject in a recognizable context? If you think of it that way, does it change your view of the background? There's no need to put yourself down, it's just a difference of perspective...
You know what you know. Five thousand frames form now you'll know more, and it'll be totally different than what you know now, but that doesn't make it any less valid right now in your development as a photographer, and more importantly, an artist.
I feel like she's too cramped. The breezy feel, the sun, her exotic look, it all begs for more breathing room. Not much, just more...air around her. I think part of it is the stark contrast between her dark features and the bright sunny background and the way the frame is divided. I dunno, I just want it to feel less claustrophobic, but not quite sure how to go about that yet.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great shot, but it needs an extra 5% to make it great to my eyes.
Thanks for your understanding regarding my earlier comment. It has been bugging me all afternoon. I hate to be tooo critical on people's work. We all are looking for comments but reinforcement as well. You have so nicely stated it and at the same time gave me new eyes to view your photo. I appreicate the interaction.
Dodged the trees growing out of her head to give a better separation between her hair and the BG. Dodged the eyes to make the catchlights brighter. Sharpened slightly before posting.
I like realworlds crop better. I think it purposely breaks the rules and gets away with it like OJ. My only nit pick, and I hate even mentioning it because I love this photo so much, is that I wish you could have used a refelctor to bounce some natural light into her face. A gold one may have been ideal.
I mentioned what I saw as flaws in the crop and I posted an illustration of what I deem to be a solution to those flaws. I don't care about rules, or breaking them, but I don't agree that the first crop works with what I perceive as the intent of the photo. It takes too much away from the subject and makes her seem separate from her surroundings. If that sense of isolation is what the photographer intended, then it works. But if that's not the intent (I don't believe it is) then hopefully other crop ideas will help them find what works best.
It's not about breaking rules and making them work, it's about wether or not, as a photographer, you are communicating through the image that which you set out to capture, be it a feeling, or a story. And through critique we find out if we were successful by gauging input from other viewers. If you really want to do the poster a service, tell him why you think the first one works better, what rules they broke, and why that makes a more effective photo, rather than just disagreeing with what someone else said. They and I will learn much more from it and will appreciate you taking the time.
Hey Seb...I'm so new at this that I'm probably wrong ;-)
I guess its just a first glance emotional connection and which photo it happens with....I'm wouldn't even call myself a photographer just yet...so I do hear you and your explanation...thanks
No, you're right. One of the hardest things for a photographer is separating themselves from the emotional connection to the photograph. A lot of us goes into our pictures, and there is a strong emotional tie. The photograph furthers that bond by reminding us of the moment at the time it was taken. But you, as the person that took it, are the only one that feels that way. That's why it's sometimes really depressing to hear negative critiques about one's work. "With that beautiful girl right there, how can they be worrying about the background?" That's one hypothetical response you might have had to some of the comments. The reason for it is that we do not share any of those emotions, we were not there, we do not know her. However, your image can evoke those in us, and that's why you need to find methods to communicate to the unattached viewer what it is you felt and saw in the scene. And that's where critique and study comes in. You start noticing the differences in viewer response that a slight crop can make, or a slight dodging and burning. You start making connections, and seeing things like cropping, backgrounds, positioning, etc. as elements and tools you can use to make your image say what you want it to. Or, you figure out how to use them to make an image that has no apparent intent yet makes everyone see something different and unique. That's the beauty of art.
The best thing you can do is look at images you love over and over and over again. Eventually you'll start recognizing what makes you love them. And if they're on the forum here, talk to the person who took them. Ask them about their intent, their motivations, what they went through to take the shot. Photographers crave attention, they won't be bothered by you asking, so be polite, but not shy. I find the most educational thing is to be there when someone takes a great picture. You see them move around, find the right angle, communicate with the subject, and craft something that on the surface doesn't appear to take much effort.
You have a good eye, nurture it.
[EDIT] Forgot to mention, don't take my crop as anything more than an example of what I think works best as an "environemntal portrait" in this situation.[/EDIT]
Realworld, you're kinda stuck in no man's land with this latest crop. It's not wide enough yet not tight enough...
It took me a while to find your original, and yes, that one needs to be tighter. Sebastian's repost covers a basic tighter recrop perfectly.
Now, if you do decide to go tighter, the crop needs to be more severe (and less arbitrary) than what you did, to be sure to draw the viewer's attention to your subject's face. Here's an example...
"Riding along on a carousel...tryin' to catch up to you..."
-Steve Studio & Lighting - Photography As Art Forum Moderator
Well...after reading Seb's words... (brought new insight for me) I just wanted to say something...and excuse me for speaking in laman's terms as I'm new to all of this...but I do see how the shot needs to be "tighter"..but at the same time I like mixing nature and beautiful faces...and that is why I mixed the two..it's like "G-d's Beautiful Creations" and wanted to get a nice mix of the background, leaves and the face...so I feel like the tighter crop takes away from that..
I appreciate all of these posts...really gets me thinking!
I appreciate all of these posts...really gets me thinking!
That's what it's supposed to do.
Steve's example was made in case you wanted to concentrate on the person and make this more of a portrait. You say you wanted to blend nature and the girl, and my original point was that in the crop that started this thread, you don't really achieve that. Notice the way the grass strands lead the eye straight to the left, into the blurry buildings. Does that help your stated intent?
Stop looking at her face (if you can) and start looking around the frame. Where are the lines in the image? Where do they lead the eye of someone not familiar with the scene? The first crop here makes me think the following:
There is a blurry skyline with a girl superimposed into it with some grass strands in front of her.
I don't feel like I'm on the beach with her, she seems to have been added as an afterthought, and I keep looking at the blurry buildings which take up most of the frame.
More food for thought huh?
I'm not trying to harp, just trying to give you more thoughts and feelings about the frame as they come to me. If you're happy with it, then fine, but don't be afraid to try different crops. However, don't dismiss them right off the bat, to really know if osmething works or not you have to give it some time. Save a few different versions, come back to them over time, see which ones you like then. It will change with time.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Coastal Flyer
