My Comments that follow are not a criticism of you, your model, your talent, or your skill. I focus my comments only on the image itself and its strengths or weaknesses.
And...my comments are only offered in a friendly tone of voice to help you.
I think these are not at the same \"level\" of \"professional\" quality seen in your earlier posted images. Those I admire for their skilled use of the figures, story, light, and composition...and their \"creativity.\"
So these following comments are based on seeing images that \"have a hard act to follow.\" This simply means, your earlier images give a very \"high quality\" \"no mistakes\" \"flawless\" and \"perfect\" impression.
So...anything else below that level is likely to be seen as \"weaker.\"
Here is how I would see these images (regardless of knowing who produced them):
The #2 and #3 images look like \"poor exposures\" that have caused part of the figure to be lost or \"blown out\" to white. Because of the random placement of those \"blown white\" areas, I don\'t think they \"add\" to the images and instead look like \"flaws\" due to poor exposure or poor metering.
Of course, these are YOUR images and they may look exactly like YOU want them to look. That \"blown out\" look could be YOURchosen \"style.\"
But, from a \"general observer\" (me) the lost visual content seems more like a flaw and the images seem more like a miss.
I hope you understand all of the above comments are offered in a friendly tone of voice and with the sole intent or goal to help you with an honest observation and a different set of eyes.
My Comments that follow are not a criticism of you, your model, your talent, or your skill. I focus my comments only on the image itself and its strengths or weaknesses.
And...my comments are only offered in a friendly tone of voice to help you.
I think these are not at the same \"level\" of \"professional\" quality seen in your earlier posted images.
The #2 and #3 images look like \"poor exposures\" that have caused part of the figure to be lost or \"blown out\" to white. Because of the random placement of those \"blown white\" areas, I don\'t think they \"add\" to the images and instead look like \"flaws\" due to poor exposure or poor metering.
Of course, these are YOUR images and they may look exactly like YOU want them to look. That \"blown out\" look could be YOURchosen \"style.\"
But, from a \"general observer\" (me) the lost visual content seems more like a flaw and the images seem more like a miss.
I hope you understand all of the above comments are offered in a friendly tone of voice and with the sole intent or goal to help you with an honest observation and a different set of eyes.
Nov 20, 2008 at 08:22 AM
Previous versions of Steady Hand's message #6401245 « A face under the Service cap »
