Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11682450 « Discussion on the perfection of today's photography »

  

RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Discussion on the perfection of today's photography


Okay, now that I gave my philosophical soapbox of visual communication, I took a look at the pics in the link.

Since we typically are drawn to areas of contrast, of which sharpness is one such type of contrast, these are pretty soft, imo. Having areas like shoulder, jacket or flowers that are in focus/sharper than face/eyes means that the softness becomes a detractor from her (assuming she is the intended message).

I don\'t mind the overall softness in general, but having eyes so soft (in some of them) that you can\'t distinguish iris/pupil or eyelash/eyelid is kind of a tough sell for me. It\'s almost like wearing a mask so you can\'t see the person. But, the engaging smile sends a message about the person that comes through even with the softness in play.

What\'s the point of a portrait, what\'s the message ... did that message come through loud & clear, or was it clouded somewhat by the technicals? That gets left to the opinion of the viewer as to whether the \"imperfect\" aspects were too much of a detractor or the smile overpowered them and conveyed the message anyway. Other things like nervous bokeh, bright tonal values in the background, and tones cutting through her head don\'t do her any favors either, imo. But, in spite of all that, we still see a seemingly upbeat, attractive person ... and if that may be the message intended to be sent and received ... does that make it a \"perfect\" image, or an \"imperfect\" one, or a \"significantly weakened\" one?




Jul 15, 2013 at 07:27 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Discussion on the perfection of today's photography


Okay, now that I gave my philosophical soapbox of visual communication, I took a look at the pics in the link.

Since we typically are drawn to areas of contrast, of which sharpness is one such type of contrast, these are pretty soft, imo. Having areas like shoulder, jacket or flowers that are in focus/sharper than face/eyes means that the softness becomes a detractor from her (assuming she is the intended message).

I don\'t mind the overall softness in general, but having eyes so soft (in some of them) that you can\'t distinguish iris/pupil or eyelash/eyelid is kind of a tough sell for me. It\'s almost like wearing a mask so you can\'t see the person. But, the engaging smile sends a message about the person that comes through even with the softness in play.

What\'s the point of a portrait, what\'s the message ... did that message come through loud & clear, or was it clouded somewhat by the technicals? That gets left to the opinion of the viewer as to whether the \"imperfect\" aspects were too much of a detractor or the smile overpowered them and conveyed the message anyway. Other things like nervous bokeh, bright tonal values in the background, and tones cutting through her head don\'t do her any favors either, imo. But, in spite of all that, we still see a seemingly upbeat, attractive person ... and if that may be the message intended to be sent and received ... does that make it a \"perfect\" image, or an \"imperfect\" one, or a \"weakened\" one?




Jul 15, 2013 at 07:27 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Discussion on the perfection of today's photography


Okay, now that I gave my philosophical soapbox of visual communication, I took a look at the pics in the link.

Since we typically are drawn to areas of contrast, of which sharpness is one such type of contrast, these are pretty soft, imo. Having areas like shoulder, jacket or flowers that are in focus/sharper than face/eyes means that the softness becomes a detractor from her (assuming she is the intended message).

I don\'t mind the overall softness in general, but having eyes so soft (in some of them) that you can\'t distinguish iris/pupil or eyelash/eyelid is kind of a tough sell for me. It\'s almost like wearing a mask so you can\'t see the person. But, the engaging smile sends a message about the person that comes through even with the softness in play.

What\'s the point of a portrait, what\'s the message ... did that message come through loud & clear, or was it clouded somewhat by the technicals? That gets left to the opinion of the viewer as to whether the \"imperfect\" aspects were too much of a detractor or the smile overpowered them and conveyed the message anyway. Other things like nervous bokeh, bright tonal values in the background, and tones cutting through her head don\'t do her any favors either, imo. But, in spite of all that, we still see a seemingly upbeat, attractive person ... and that is probably the message intended to be sent and received ... so does that make it a \"perfect\" image, or an \"imperfect\" one?




Jul 15, 2013 at 04:37 PM





  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11682450 « Discussion on the perfection of today's photography »

 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.