enjoy....

Stunning!!!

Mannequin- wrote:
Your composition is terrible.

What an stunningly helpful critique. 'rolls eyes'

IRT to the picture, The subject is great but, unfortunately, as Mannequin put so bluntly, the composition just isn't good. You cut the top of your subjects head off and the empty space on the left of the picture really doesn't add anything to it.

Mannequin aside from your terrible manners, I would say you are seriously off
mark. If you are going to have this BIG of a chip on your shoulders you BETTER
be all that and a bag of chips. Are you?

Not only rude, but badly mistaken.

To me the composition is excellent. It would be foolish in the extreme to apply a convention portrait composition standard to what is obviously NOT a portrait! The composition works well with the subject. That's the only compo standard that matters.

Off course they are unfounded.

It never ceases to amaze me what kind of foggy conventions people have on their
minds. I'll make my point: Just point out which convention in photography requires
the image to be composed differently than Paul did? Yes feel free also to provide
what theory requires the full face to be in frame?

I in return will be glad to post links to many images presently being exhibited in
a variety of well known institutions by masters of photography that argue otherwise.

The only convention that exists is that you (the photographer) needs to emphasize
what he/she wants to relay visually. That's all.

"How about making the subject the forefront of the image?"

Mannequin, to start with Paul's image has a context. It is impossible to criticize
without understanding the context. What you are making now is a suggestion
which is very different than your initial categorical statement about his composition.

Paul is a fire artist and makes a living as such. The composition is to his liking
and reflects his perceptions. Your suggestion, I presume reflects your likes and
dislikes and perceived desire to approximate the composition as to what you see
as better. That is obviously a personal choice and hardly makes his composition
"terrible".

That is all we are attempting to say here.

Needless to say, I find this image awesome. I am also an University educated
photographer. My likes and dislikes does not invalidate anyone else's preference
as such.

No hierarchy of better exists in one's own preferences. Yours included.

In short your preferences do not take precedence over Paul's,
although it is OK to make suggestions rather than pronouncements
of how his composition is "terrible".

Kaden, as I stated earlier, I thought Mannequin didn't give as much a critique as an insult but the point you're making not only completely invalidates the whole idea of criticism but the whole idea that there are even good or bad photographs. As Mannequin already said silva in posting in the critique section Silva is asking for the critiques of others. Even if he is happy with his photograph that does not necessarily make for a compelling piece of art.

You say "Paul's image has a context. It is impossible to criticize without understanding the context," but what is this context? A deeper story/context that demands this composition, if it exists, is certainly not obvious to see and as such is not adequate to demand "unconventional" composition.

Dear lonelyjew, and funny enough (being that I am Jewish as well) you may not
not be that lonely here. This is not an unconventional image. Not on my view. It
has a certain cimenatic flavor to it though. Maybe we have different views of the
term unconventional. Hmmm...I live in California.

Btw, your suggestion was perfectly appropriate even if I think differently.

In looking at any image I usually ask what is being communicated. There are also
images that are abstract or just communicate beauty (ex: nature) and where the
message is obviated by the visual.

Here knowing that Paul is a fire artist and that the name of the image is Halloween
Skull I am assuming that he is giving equal weight to both.

PS. You are right. I don't believe that there are such things as a bad images. All
there are, are images. Some are more pleasing to my senses than others. Not to
say that one cannot perfect one's own sensibilty to the medium and images. I
also agree that some types of criticism are intended to demotivate. I also agree
with you in regards to whether an image is or isn't compelling.

Either way, the way I feel about any an image does not take away from its own
intrinsic value.

"Your composition is terrible" has the intellectual and aesthetic critical usefulness of "Your mother wears combat boots".

The Photo Critique forum is subtitled "Technical and aesthetic critique when you are working on an image". Barren insult isn't aesthetic critique.

First: I don't create images to win photography competitions, I create them to please myself and to try and resonate with others who may see the world in a similar way.

Perhaps there is a little excess of void space on the left here.

and perhaps there isn't.

my life and death are tied to flames. they form a balance.

for me, that balance exists in the picture, remote death balances the very present now of a flame, the darkness of the infinite void to which we are committed is being overpowered by the NOW of the flames of life.

My life and the way I see the world has led me to balance my picture in a way you might not have. Yours, and others, critique have really made me think a lot more about why I did that, in what was almost a throwaway halloween snap. Thank you, my future pictures will be better for it, and that is partly why this is posted here. The other reason is to simply wish some folks I know and appreciate, a slightly belated happy halloween

I deliberately provide little in the way of textual context as that would defeat the object of the image, to carry a story or emotion on its own merits. If it didn't I can find out why.

@mannequin:To boldly state 'your composition is terrible' is woefully rude.

If you're going to critique, you must do it helpfully, otherwise it's not 'being blunt' it's just abuse. Also, you may learn something from further explanations from any legitimate artists commenting. Please don't comment on anything I post again without giving positive advice.

@lonelyjew: sorry if the title mislead you into thinking this was a portrait of a skull, it is more a comment on common fears of death brought up , for me,by incessant halloween imagery. The fact that i've been throwing fire around for the last 10 days at a theme park might also have influenced the image somewhat.

You're right in your comments in so far as that if I was going for a portrait of a guy in skull facepaint this wouldn't have been that great compositionally. The actual portraits that I did of him came out pretty well. I may post one or two in time, and no, i didn't crop them through the forehead

Kaden, Aunti, thank you both for your support and kind comments.

Insane