| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2005 11:54:38 AM · #1 |
Hi everyone,
I'm very happy about my entry in Surrealism! I've asked for an indepth critic of my work, but didn't receive any, so i was wondering if there was members here who'd have something constructive to say about my work. I know its far from perfect... so i want get better!
Any suggestions?
 |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 12:16:17 PM · #2 |
I thought this one would be on top five!
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 12:16:26.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 12:16:31 PM · #3 |
you scored pretty high with this one.
I would say a little more even lighting would have scored you higher (less shadows in the background.) I like the effect, but many voters here don't I think.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 12:34:58 PM · #4 |
I liked the concept very much, but was disappointed in the 'reality setting' that happened with the close proximity of the draping/background and the close up nature of the model.
Seeing this invoked the poker dogs in my mind and I expected more of a setting, rather than a portrait. Had this been less portrait-like, I think I may have voted a point or two higher, but seem to remember that this got an 8 overall anyway from me.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 12:42:38 PM · #5 |
Here's what I see:
Conceptually, the image is purely surreal, and you scored very high points on concept alone. It's in every way a compellingly thought-out image and you are to be congratulated.
Photographically, the image falls short of optimum by a considerable distance. Disregarding for the moment your subjective decision to light it the way you did, with a harshly-lit, very aggressive background, it is otherwise technically flawed:
1. the entire dark area in the bottom of the image is blocked up, we can't see any separation of legs/chair/shadows.
2. the highlights on the left hand/cuff (the one supporting the "chin") are burned out and register no detail.
3. The model and the chair seem to be leaning over to the right, and this is emphasized by the stem of the glass, a presumnptive vertical line, which is also leaning to the right.
4. There's no separation of one of the chair arms from the model.
So technically the image seems somewhat slapdash. Aesthetcially, I think there's a bad imblance between the harsh detail on the background lighting and tones against the emptiness of the rendering of the dark areas of the subject; to me, these ouhgt to be reversed, with the subject completely rendered even at the expense of the backdrop, although seeing both well-lit would be better yet.
That's my take on it; a fantastic concept that scored very well despite a rather pedestrian execution in the actual image. Compare that with my entry, where the actual technical aspects are pretty much flawless but the concept itself is not especially interesting.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:31:04 PM · #6 |
Arcanist: In your eyes, would a higher framing of the picture work better? And you say more 'props' in the setting?
I know of the poker dog drawing and understand your thoughts on my entry. I thought about pushing the setting a little bit more with a table, a rhum bottle and a cigar and hashtray, but decided against it as 'space' was very tight and i didn't want the viewers attention to be draged away from the horseman.
Would that make it better in your eyes?
Bear:
That's an impressive critic and exactly what i was looking for, Thank you! Let me explain my thoughts so i can at the same time, better understand your comments;
1: The lighting was actually intended that way; i felt it would give more attention to the head of the model. But i didn't see the 'no separation between legs and chair', which is a very good point. Perharps black on black wasn't such a good idea. I seem to have trouble lighting black fabrics properly.
2: That, i totally understand, and to this day, and like my pic's description explains, i so wished for a softbox, which would have probably helped on the nose and hand. I used a simple umbrella with 500w of light just over the head (croped out). You think a Softbox would've helped in this instance? or perharps a more angular lighting? I was going for the 'over the head' dramatic lighting effect to give more height to the character.
3: ehehe you are so right. The angle of the chair was partially on purpose, as i wanted to give a sens of asymetry to the shot, but my model couldn't see anything in the mask, and so couldn't feel the glass completly stable. I didn't notice it until after the shoot. I should pay more attention to these details.
4: I honestly never noticed this detail, which seems to come back for a lot of people. Again, i think i must work more on my lighting on black fabrics. Perharps a more angular (again) lighting could've helped?
General question: I shot this in F/8, using the 17-55mm 5.6 Canon lens... Would a 'Bokeh' effect (f/2.8) could've helped this shot? I didn't have enought space to create a depth of view between the Model and background, but it seems the general concensus goes towards that. Should i use another light on the background (red fabric)?
Thank you very much for the comments! This helps me a lot!! |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:31:12 PM · #7 |
I've taken the liberty of subduing your image a little bit, trying to recapture some tonality in the dark areas and "turn off" the aggressive BG, plus I rotated it a little bit. None of these are ideal fixes IMO, but are what come to mind when working from the image-as-shot-and-posted. There was nothing I could do (without a lot of work) with the burned-out hand.
Just for purposes of comparison...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:39:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I've taken the liberty of subduing your image a little bit, trying to recapture some tonality in the dark areas and "turn off" the aggressive BG, plus I rotated it a little bit. None of these are ideal fixes IMO, but are what come to mind when working from the image-as-shot-and-posted. There was nothing I could do (without a lot of work) with the burned-out hand.
Just for purposes of comparison...
Robt. |
I must have a lot to learn about photoshop. How the hell did you fix that lighting? What a difference! I gave the original image in the challenge an 8, but that may have pushed it to a 10. I also use Photoshop 4 at home, so I'm guessing that newer versions have more useable features these days. maybe i should upgrade.
Edit - Whoops, I looked again, and it appears I originally gave the photo a 10 in the challenge. Well, Robt, what you did would make it 11 I guess. Nice work. I must have originally given the 10 because so many images in the challenge lacked surrealism. Still a neat shot.
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 17:46:51. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 05:56:02 PM · #9 |
"Select/color range/red". Load the selection as a new selective color layer, adjust the intensity and brightness of the red component, fade the layer until it looks right. Took about 15 seconds.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:49:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Select/color range/red". Load the selection as a new selective color layer, adjust the intensity and brightness of the red component, fade the layer until it looks right. Took about 15 seconds.
Robt. |
Thanks for the explanation. I have been saving up for a better camera, but I'm debating on just buying the latest Photoshop. I just looked at another award winning member's photo and saw what a difference photoshop made, I may have to put the camera on hold. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 10:58:53 PM · #11 |
Bear,
I understand now what you are explaining. Although i'm not sure how i could work this out in lighting, this definatly calls for a reshoot once i get my new equipment.
Thanks for your time on this!!
[/url] |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 11:41:43 PM · #12 |
here is my critique:
The concept is outstanding. This is an image that stands out. The colors are also good because it does help keep the interest where it belongs. Even the composition and angle are simply great. It is so novel that I placed it in my favs.
Of course, all images can use some improvement. Let us assume we that we are going to keep the same set up. The first problem you must consider is that you are photographing white and black. These are the two extremes. Had you selected a light grey shirt, it would been better, but let us assume that this is all we have. Well, the first thing to consider is that you are shooting a full size subject. The lighting here has to be approached so as to evenly light the figure. The burn out areas tells me your light source was too close. If you only had one light, then realize you need two so as to cover the entire body and the lights must be far enough to avoid the hotspots or to reduced them to a point they are not offensive.
Let us suppose you place two lights, then you may want to consider a fill light. If you place a similar wattage light at twice the distance away, you maintain the character of the lighting, because the fill will simply bring a little more light in the the shadow areas.
This light tweaking is best learned doing table photography. However, the same techniques apply to images like this. You always avoid burn out. Lights even when bounced require a certain distance from subject to avoid the hot spots. Also, I do not know what the texture of the horses' head is. It is shiny, you are asking for more problems and must be treated much like you would shiny metal.
So then, while your image is not expertly lit, it was able to deliver the gyst of your concept. Many images, while not technically perfect are blessed with great appeal. Your is such an image. It should drive you to study this subject of lighting because in the end the image you present is only light and shadows. You always want to make these two as well balanced as possible. Keep up the nice work. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 09:39:43 PM EDT.
