p.1 #2 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
I'll let Ron or others more knowledgeable about posing dancers address the technicalities of the pose, but it looks good to me. I like her outstretched arm following the lines of the building in the background.
I would consider removing the crane and the white and orange OOF lights to the crane's left. I might even go so far as to remove the building construction under the crane. It gets really busy with the sky coming through the openings.
p.1 #3 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
I like the concept but I would have looked for an area where there was not so much buildng in the background. I want to see more sunrise color and less building. The other thing I would have done is used more flash to fill the dancer and stopped down some to get more color in the sunrise. It looks a bit washed out.
p.1 #4 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
Would suggest more light on the dancer -- fill for the face as I don't like the shadow on the near side of the nose, a rim light to separate her from the background. Also not a huge fan of the shadow across the back of her left thigh. And as someone else mentioned, I think the dancer is competing with the background too much -- so I would either separate her using a rim, or move locations.
p.1 #5 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
I agree with Gene and Greg about the background. The color seems all over the place as well. It's like you settled on a color between the natural color of the sunset sky, and the color of the flash-lit dancer. If you treat them as two different colors, and then bring them in together, you have a better chance of getting a color on both of them that looks more natural.
I do remember photographing at least one dancer in the Intensive portrait shoot from Grand Rapids, so this probably is her.
p.1 #6 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
Dmacmillan, this is the advantage of having someone look at the shot who doesn't live here. I get so used to the building that I no longer "see" them fully. I can see your point!
p.1 #7 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
Thanks for your input, gene. I really chose the urban environment on purpose, but can totally see that a natural landscape would really afford more chance to work with the sky and sunrise. The dancer was very much interested in the skyline of our city and wanted to feel like a part of it.
GregS, because the sun was rising across the river, I chose to bring light to her in a way that might mimic the light of the rising sun, so quite a bit would be in shadow, but of course it wasn't really possible to do correctly because if the light were truly in line with the sun, she would be in profile, so maybe the whole concept doesn't really work. Might need to sleep on that one a bit!
By the way, the lighting was with continuous LED lights :-)
p.1 #8 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
Since I have never been to Grand Rapids I had no idea it was a skyline. I don't see anything there that is iconic or stands out. Still, iI would have shot it with the sky darker for more pop in it. Look at Friscoron's image and you can see more about what I am saying. Yours is good but you can make it great.
p.1 #10 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
Look forward to seeing more of it. I am sure you could bring the sunrise in more with some photoshop work, especially if you have a RAW image or use the RAW filter in PS.
p.1 #11 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
dmacmillan wrote:
I'll let Ron or others more knowledgeable about posing dancers address the technicalities of the pose, but it looks good to me. I like her outstretched arm following the lines of the building in the background.
I would consider removing the crane and the white and orange OOF lights to the crane's left. I might even go so far as to remove the building construction under the crane. It gets really busy with the sky coming through the openings.
I like the overall concept and photo.
I agree with Dave 100%. It is a pleasing composition and sometimes the surroundings just make the composition less workable. Not your fault but they can be corrected.
Dan
p.1 #16 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
My first reaction was I would liked to see it taken from a much lower shooting angle and from a bit further right. I think that change in perspective may have minimized the background distractions. Nice photo.
p.1 #17 · Dancer at Dawn - request constructive criticism
I like the pose. The arms and back leg make great diagonals giving a sense of tension to the shot. The arm follows the angle of the building across the water. I would prefer to have her turn clockwise so more parallel to the building with the arm following the building line. Then move the camera left to eliminate the distracting crane that doesn't seem to make sense or add to the image. I would position the camera to see a bit more of her face. I would move her far enough from the edge so you could place a kicker behind her. That would really make her pop from the image. It would emphasize the arch of her back and outline the wonderful pose. Also, would add a fill either on camera axis or slightly to the left to brighten the back arm. It seems lost in shadow. The kicker would help with the arm as well. You could consider gelling the main to match the warm morning light that would be expected. Also, that would help depth as warm advances while cool recedes. I like that you left room ahead of her and would do the same with the repositioning. You have lights so you can take the same approach I do on location, first I find the appropriate, clean background, then I kick up the ambient light with main, fill and accent lights. You shot with a 35 mm lens and that is a "story telling lens" so everything in the frame should contribute to the story. You are getting "pop" from your strobe, but you might take a look a the Zeiss 35 mm distagon that has awesome micro contrast and depth when stopped down to environmental shot apertures.
