I like the set, but can see the point on the "eyes" and "hands" comments. My favorite is number 4, but many of these would be stellar with slight posing and lighting changes. Love her hair, color, length, and texture.
I keep taking "second looks" at this beautiful woman. She alone dismisses any nits! She captivates the entire frame nicely! You just enhanced my view!
Dan
gheller wrote:
For me, most of these are *almost* there. Here is what I mean:
(1) awkward crop, flower petals have brown edges to them, taking away from the "purity" of the image
(2) probably my favorite of the set, love how her hair matches the object in the background
(4) I love backlit images, but the background is too bright for her face, takes away the focus on her
(6) a bit of adjusting could have avoided the hot spot on her nose and forehead
(7) awkward hand / thumb position. flat exposure could be saved in PP. it appears that her hair matches the chain, but too dark / dull to know for sure.
(8) "up the nose" POV is rarely flattering. blurry hand coming out of nowhere.
Overall, she seems to only have one "look". It is up to us (IMO) to bring variety to a set and, for the most part here, her expression is *cut and paste* from one image to the next.
ShotByTom wrote:
You don’t feel the need to provide excuses for not sharing your own work, but you have no problem sharing unsolicited advice!
I am not sure your statement even warrants a reply, but I will assure you that by posting a picture here (unless specifically says, "no C&C please") enjoys feedback on how to improve their images.
I tried to use the most simple english as possible so that you would understand, sorry if it still goes above and beyond your comprehension.
I am guessing you are a youngin', but I thought you have been here on FM long enough to know better than your initial issue - guess not.
I will continue to offer C&C on images, despite how it makes you feel - just so you know.
gheller wrote:
...I will assure you that by posting a picture here (unless it specifically says, "no C&C please") enjoys feedback on how to improve their images.
OK, I'm going to chime in here. gheller, you are quite wrong in your above assertion. I would say that the norm is that C&C is welcome (and enjoyed) only when the person states "C&C is welcome". I didn't say anything at the time, but I did find your initial post on this thread to be somewhat brash and unsolicited, especially the length at which you went to find faults. It didn't bother me all that much, because I know that I have much to learn about portraiture, but if we were to go into another section of the forum, like the Nature & Wildlife section for example, it would indeed be rude and off-putting if I were to write-up a similar scathing critique on a series of someone's bird photos when they hadn't asked for any C&C. Indeed, I would look like a jerk if I did, so I'm not sure why you feel that it's ok for you to do that here in this section.
Just my .02 but when I joined FM in 2005 the people forum was going through a kind of realignment of direction. The main argument was labeling NSFW threads in the subject line, and that people were stroking egos too much. Critics were the anticipated norm after Fred banned NSFW photos, and most participants genuinely interested in improving their portraiture wanted to know how their efforts were being received (instead of a popularity contest). I've been away for quite some time - so maybe I missed another change in direction. I do think a good critic is another talent, and does not require a mastery of the art in order to give a valid assessment. Anyway, I would much prefer someone telling why they like or dislike an image than a generic "nice shot", "great capture" etc - like some stroke of luck has produced something you actually invested time and thought into creating.
James Markus wrote:
Just my .02 but when I joined FM in 2005 the people forum was going through a kind of realignment of direction. The main argument was labeling NSFW threads in the subject line, and that people were stroking egos too much. Critics were the anticipated norm after Fred banned NSFW photos, and most participants genuinely interested in improving their portraiture wanted to know how their efforts were being received (instead of a popularity contest). I've been away for quite some time - so maybe I missed another change in direction. I do think a good critic is another talent, and does not require a mastery of the art in order to give a valid assessment. Anyway, I would much prefer someone telling why they like or dislike an image than a generic "nice shot", "great capture" etc - like some stroke of luck has produced something you actually invested time and thought into creating....Show more →
Couldn't have put it better myself. As a member since 2002, I have seen the ebbs and flows of this site (luckily always staying above the threshold of DPR, haha).
Colin F wrote:
OK, I'm going to chime in here. gheller, you are quite wrong in your above assertion. I would say that the norm is that C&C is welcome (and enjoyed) only when the person states "C&C is welcome". I didn't say anything at the time, but I did find your initial post on this thread to be somewhat brash and unsolicited, especially the length at which you went to find faults. It didn't bother me all that much, because I know that I have much to learn about portraiture, but if we were to go into another section of the forum, like the Nature & Wildlife section for example, it would indeed be rude and off-putting if I were to write-up a similar scathing critique on a series of someone's bird photos when they hadn't asked for any C&C. Indeed, I would look like a jerk if I did, so I'm not sure why you feel that it's ok for you to do that here in this section.
You are (relatively) new to this forum, so I will give you some slack in that regard.
As is stated by James above, many people post simply to hear, "great shot" and "well done". Don't get me wrong, if you go thru my posting history, I give praise where praise is due.
People who know me well on this forum know that I say what I see. And having more background in photography than there is time to type, most appreciate the opportunity to learn.
That said, if you just want a "high five" for your images, it is simple enough to state so in the subject line or body of your post.
Sorry if my critique offended you because it was not sugar coated, but that is the way I offer feedback - and will continue to do so unless the OP states otherwise.
gheller wrote:
You are (relatively) new to this forum, so I will give you some slack in that regard.
6.5 years is new?
As is stated by James above, many people post simply to hear, "great shot" and "well done". Don't get me wrong, if you go thru my posting history, I give praise where praise is due.
That isn't the point.
People who know me well on this forum know that I say what I see. And having more background in photography than there is time to type, most appreciate the opportunity to learn.
That isn't the point.
That said, if you just want a "high five" for your images, it is simple enough to state so in the subject line or body of your post.
That isn't the point.
Sorry if my critique offended you because it was not sugar coated, but that is the way I offer feedback - and will continue to do so unless the OP states otherwise.
That isn't the point.
The point is whether C&C should be reserved for when it is asked for.
Nice set. In addition to greg's comments, what I noticed were the dark eyes in the first few, up until #4 when we see a catchlight.
Birds are fine, but keep going on the people shots.
What if her eyes were indeed dark. Wouldn't it look goofy if they were bright, with her looking like some alien? Is there a rule within portraiture that eyes must never reflect reality and always be bright?
Colin F wrote:
What if her eyes were indeed dark. Wouldn't it look goofy if they were bright, with her looking like some alien? Is there a rule within portraiture that eyes must never reflect reality and always be bright?
Not alien at all if you do it *right*.
It is better to take critique and learn rather than challenge it, don't you think?
I've seen gheller's work and it's very good. He posted on this forum. But that's not the point. The objective is to discuss the technical aspects of the photo - how it or future photos might be improved. One doesn't have to be skilled at playing the violin to recognize a sour note or a particularly good performance.
Jim Rickards wrote:
I've seen gheller's work and it's very good. He posted on this forum. But that's not the point. The objective is to discuss the technical aspects of the photo - how it or future photos might be improved. One doesn't have to be skilled at playing the violin to recognize a sour note or a particularly good performance.
