K - I know I am going to get railroaded on this one (its kinda been part and parcel for my experience here - but I don't mind 'cause it does help me learn).....
Anyway - don't know if I use this one, but thought it was kinda neat (in a very un-neat, I'm ready for abuse kind of way.....lol).
I think this is fantastic. Proves that it pays to break some rules. I'm with Brian on the half-face thing. However, it may look more effective if you burned out the wall in the background IMHO.
Again - totally unprocessed... but looking for feedback on the concept.... given the threads I've been reading ately, I'd appreciate feedback on the idea, rather than the manifestation of it...
You know I think it would have worked better without the bridal couple in it at all! The interaction in the party in the background is a bit like an old masters oil painting, much more interesting!
ngm2000 wrote:
You know I think it would have worked better without the bridal couple in it at all! The interaction in the party in the background is a bit like an old masters oil painting, much more interesting!
not_an_artist wrote:
I'd appreciate feedback on the idea, rather than the manifestation of it...
The idea being underexposed background and sidelighting? Looks great.
But IMHO, the harsh shadow of his foot gives too much away. The rest of the shadows are harsh, yet soft (an oxymoron) because they fade to black.
I think it makes a great 2:1 crop, hide his harsh leg shadow, let his tux frame the right, her dress gives a gradual taper to the lower corner, and we still get the impact of the black:
Murph, I really like that 2nd image, and while Clarence's crop looks good, I think there is a better crop in there, try a few and show us what you come up with.
. 
