A recent shoot of mine, I really like it. But I'm trying to appeal to more than just my taste, lol. Can I get some critiques of this photo please?
Dec 06 12 08:36 pm Link
Los Angeles, California, US
Well my first impression is that it's a 1980's era background painting for a cartoon/animation cell.
But since there are subjects/models in there, I assume it's a photo.
It looks very "flat", as if the key light was directly behind the camera, it just looks boring (lighting wise).
Composition is a lot more risky, it's framed in a very candid and simplistic way, so it relies almost entirely on the details and contents within the frame to interest the viewer (which it does mildy).
The "meaning" refers to the day after Halloween, I grew up in a predominately Catholic family and that's how they would view it. But personally it looks like a colorful cartoon cell.
Dec 07 12 01:26 am Link
Oakland, California, US
The wardrobe is not the emphasis of the image. So the question must be does the wardrobe integrate well into the image? Her's does, the flowers work well with the Día de los Muertos theme, but his seems rather generic. It's hard to know how the flower theme works for him. If the concept of the picture could be changed so that he is the soul being attracted by the flowers, it would have been stronger, then you could justify his wardrobe much better. To maintain the parallels between her very flowered appearance, flowers on the dress and in her hands, he needs to be doing something equally strong with flowers, but the boutonniere is insufficient to hold that theme. His ring and watch are very distracting since the pose implies they are in parallel. But if he were the soul attracted by her flower offering then you could really highlight his wardrobe, because all the flowers become associated with her. Right now he looks rather like an afterthought. The male figure in the background is strongly associated with The Virgin of Guadalupe, which begs for a parallel with the models. The one candle near the center is a huge distraction.
So overall the composition is not well-supported by his wardrobe, her's works well, but the composition kills his participation and make him look like an accessory to- rather than a participant in the image.
Dec 07 12 07:04 am Link
Imperial, California, US
To me, the color is off, and not in a good way, blueish? I get the concept, not my cup of tea, but that's neither here or there. The perspective is bothersome, I would have rather seen a mor straight on view. But then this is coming from a hobbyist schmuck from Cali. !!!:-)))
Dec 07 12 07:20 am Link
Light Writer wrote:
yeah I'm looking at it more now, and you're right about the male models lack of flower issue. Thank you for that insight
Dec 07 12 08:49 am Link
Delphos, Ohio, US
The lens and perspective distortion are absolutely horrid. It's almost nauseating looking at it because of the way the distortion leads the eye. Fix it.
I actually like what's going on with the color - but it could use a little more punch/contrast.
The glare on the tile is unfortunate.
This shot really could be something grand if more attention was given to the little details.
Dec 07 12 09:02 am Link
Mission Hills, California, US
EV Styling wrote:
The wardrobe and make up go great together. Great job on these two points.
Dec 07 12 03:12 pm Link
William Kious wrote:
I would advise a fix but I was not the one who took the photo, but duly noted.
Dec 07 12 09:56 pm Link
New York, New York, US
M A R C P H O T O wrote:
I think this IS the original unedited image. That one of the problems.
Dec 08 12 12:06 am Link