|
I have two quasi similar shots. One is cropped in from 100mm One was a hasty shot at 200mm, and the framing breaks some "rules" about cropping near elbow. But i LIKE it. opening up the floor for debate. Please note: they dont work in low res. So please click through, full screen the browser, then lemme know your thoughts (yes I did this before. but stop being logical. This is ART, not logic!  ) EDIT: since I didnt make this clear earlier, I started this thread because I like the mood the colors evoke in the second one . But for latecomers, there's a more general portfolio critique lower down.   Jul 23 18 12:45 pm Link You seem to love everything you produce. It might be time to raise the bar a bit, at least get it off the floor. Those shots, delete and move on. Jul 23 18 02:52 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: If YOU like it what else matters? Jul 23 18 03:17 pm Link FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: heh. well if i like it, i keep it in my own storage regardless. Jul 23 18 03:50 pm Link FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: Philip Brown wrote: You never accept other people's advice. You always argue. Jul 23 18 04:06 pm Link Mark Salo wrote: +1. There's often a lot of "yeah, but..." Jul 23 18 05:10 pm Link Curious to know what you like about either of these photos Jul 23 18 05:15 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Neither of them fit in any of those categories. Jul 23 18 05:34 pm Link redacted, sorry Jul 23 18 05:39 pm Link Garry k wrote: oh ouch. I thought the first "normal" one would at least pass, since it's more traditional Jul 23 18 06:04 pm Link Gorgeous model. Images are too dark and have no 'pop' to them. The swimsuit is a shapeless sack of cloth and unflattering - even on someone this attractive. If you can, shoot with this model again and get some lovely light on her. Jul 23 18 06:05 pm Link sweet gamine wrote: yes, I agree. Jul 23 18 06:17 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Those aren't any better. Jul 23 18 06:30 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: redacted Jul 23 18 06:32 pm Link Orca Bay Images wrote: that's not particularly helpful. Jul 23 18 06:56 pm Link FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: If the client likes it. Jul 23 18 07:09 pm Link sweet gamine wrote: Huh. Jul 23 18 07:29 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: The "somewhat better" shots share the same problems as the first snapshots. Jul 23 18 08:09 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Oh, that must explain why her pants are undone, flapped open, and slightly pulled down. So obviously, all the glamor photogs will hate it Yeah, right. Never mind the fact: Jul 23 18 11:07 pm Link redacted Jul 23 18 11:18 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Hey Philip, here's what I think: Jul 23 18 11:23 pm Link Chris Lauw wrote: oh wow. in depth critique. I appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Chris! Jul 24 18 06:16 am Link Chris Lauw wrote: Chris, as a amateur I really appreciate the time and effort you shared in your critique. Jul 24 18 06:51 am Link I tweaked this one up some more, but think I may hav gone a little TOO bright. no?  Jul 24 18 07:13 am Link It isn't glamour? The clothing? The mood? Not a great expression on the model in the first one. The dark face and the very bright shirt and the poor composition would make me think that this was meant as a sexy swim suit advertisement. The swimsuit is the subject. Even though it is not a swimsuit. I don't like the arm cropped at the wrist. I can get past the even division of the background in sand and water. The sky is insignificant. The back ground is blue or brown. The second one, you loose even the impact of the bathing suit. Face is too dark for it to be about the portrait. The full body image in your port is better. With the foot cut off, it breaks the rules and I don't like it because the loss of the foot doesn't add some exciting impact on the image, but I have seen crops like that in SI. Surprisingly. As pointed out, the arm position is awkward, even though it is a very common arm position, it is not appealing. Cropping above the joint eliminates the issue ad you could probably salvage a decent portrait from it. You say it looks better full screen. It is portrait. Do I need to rotate it and hold my laptop up on end to get the effect? Shouldn't that be an indication that something isn't good enough, even to you, if the limits of the format have to be changed? By the crop on the one prone position in your port, with no end space, it seems you are focusing on the girl rather than the overall composition, in both the ones you linked and the one in the port. The rules of composition are there for reasons. Breaking them is fine- for reasons. It isn't always well received and it should be consistent with your goals. Are you making art for your pleasure or because you want to be an artist and derive an artistic income or artistic accolades? (Yes, reluctantly I call it art because even the scribbles on the fridge are art, but art is never viewed without subjective decisions on quality and readability- sometimes a very good photo is just another pretty face). It is hard to break the mold, get away from the ordinary, and still be aesthetically pleasing, which it seems you are going for, rather than being challenging, or provoking. Jul 24 18 07:31 am Link Philip Brown wrote: Uhm...I think it is definitely a glamour shot. If not, why that choice of wardrobe...particularly with the pants undone? Philip Brown wrote: Her expression is anything but quiet and compemplative or thoughtful looking. Philip Brown wrote: Maybe it really rocks in that environment - I don't know I didn't try it. Lots of images look great without me having to follow instructions on how to view them. Jul 24 18 08:48 am Link to address your original question... I prefer the original framing although I think it too has issues (like cropping at the wrist). I sometimes prefer images which break the conventional rules and in those cases I do as I please. However, I know that many others viewing the photo will disagree and prefer to see the image according to what they expect. So, it really depends on who the photo is for. If it is for you then do as you please and crop however you like it best. If you are creating it for others to enjoy and appreciate then perhaps a different choice is more appropriate. Jul 24 18 09:01 am Link Philip Brown wrote: That's an interesting take. I wouldn't have come to the same conclusion, but it's good that you did. Jul 24 18 09:31 am Link grmblegrmblegrmble... I took my favourite photo and enhanced it for other people's eyes.  Jul 24 18 11:34 am Link I think you think you're better than you are, but you're also insecure and seeking validation while pre-emptively deflecting criticism. I admire the fact that you put yourself out there, though, it's a tough thing to do. You're also tenacious, and that's a vital part of developing your craft. I do believe you're improving, I like this last shot of Callie. It's vibrant and it looks cool. Jul 24 18 09:21 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: This is better but dark. Jul 25 18 12:44 am Link Philip Brown wrote: What exactly is it you LIKE about it?? Her elbow is bending in a way that doesn't look natural, her eyes are squinting and she has dark circles around the; the crop makes her torso look disproportional to her legs; and the scowl on her face makes it look like she's either uncomfortable or unhappy. Yes, anyone can break the rules of framing a shot...but you still have to a GOOD photo to make it worth keeping. If you want to get a good example of what "breaking the rules" looks like, then check out Jorge Kreimer's work ( https://www.modelmayhem.com/JGKW ). His shots are more than just unconventional framing and compostion; they also have energy, mood, eroticism, and a distinct sense of style. The image you posted, combined with your post, just seems like someone trying to sell the emperor a new set of clothes. Philip Brown wrote: I don't need to see a bad image in hi-res to know it's bad. The colors, the details (or lack thereof), and the god-awful pose look the same in any size. Philip Brown wrote: No, this is not "art". Although I'm not a huge fan of Terry Richardson, I do find some of his shots to be very artistic. There's a boldness and an 'in-your-face' attitude behind them, that captures the raw energy of art in the same way some punk rock can just grab you and make you want to hear more. Your image is just another snapshot. There's no sense of effort, planning, or even spontaneity behind it. Basically, it comes across as something YOU find to be a "Happy accident", but I (and I'm sure a lot of other people here) don't see it. That doesn't make me logical; that means I get no emotional response or visual interest in what you've shot. Jul 25 18 01:22 am Link Jul 25 18 01:53 am Link Philip Brown wrote: You should enhance HER eyes. Jul 25 18 06:26 am Link Philip Brown wrote: To me it's sinister and threatening. Jul 25 18 06:31 am Link Mark Salo wrote: a fair point. I did actually lighten around them a bit already though. they were in much more shadow previously. Jul 25 18 07:44 am Link No such thing as "proper" framing. There's good framing and there's bad framing. Sorry to say, but your framing is not good, sir. Jul 25 18 04:44 pm Link Mark Salo wrote: Philip Brown wrote: I don't like the picture. If it were mine, I would delete it. Jul 25 18 05:33 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Chalk that shoot up to experience and learn how to use fill light, either from a flash or a reflector. Don't keep shooting bad snapshots and expect to fix the problems in post. Jul 25 18 11:54 pm Link Orca Bay Images wrote: This is good advice! Jul 26 18 07:33 am Link |
But I dont really care about that one. 
