| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2005 01:00:38 AM · #1 |
hey guys
i lost track of time and didn't get a chance to submit my photo for people...so i was wondering if you guys could give me some comments on it.
this was taken in boone, nc. this guy is always with a cig on the same bench, same time, and talking to the same guy everyday. like clockwork. hes awsome, never talked to him, be we always smile when i walk past.
andway, tell me what you think. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:05:14 AM · #2 |
I think it displays emotion and humanity. Obviously that white stuff over his shoulder in the background is unwanted, but that is beside the point. I would have placed it the top 25% of what i have seen so far. Not only is his uniqueness special, but his eyes and expression add dimension to it. Sorry you missed the deadline.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:08:20 AM · #3 |
I LOVE your subject, he is awesome. Such an interesting character, lots to study.
I like the composition.
I can live with the background- even though there are some grey bits that are bothering me (would not have seen those before I calibrated my monitor).
I find the light a bit too harsh - it adds interesting shadows, but I find it just a bit too much.
As it is, I would have voted a 6 or 7. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:08:46 AM · #4 |
I like the Crop, Negative space and the subject. This is a nicely composed shot.
I'm not quite sure which it is but for me the subject appears too sharp or it is the lighting that makes differnt feature of the subject stand out in kind of an unbalanced way. Just my thoughts.
Andy
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:13:56 AM · #5 |
Boone? Do you go to Appalachian State?
I like the shot. It has character.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:14:34 AM · #6 |
A great shot, awesome subject, great composition and I love the way his eyes are focused on the empty space. However, as has been mentioned already, I found the lighting a bit harsh.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:16:35 AM · #7 |
I think it's a very nice shot. A little less contrast, and a bit less negative space might make it even better. Good work!
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:18:09 AM · #8 |
no, i actually go to school in raleigh, but i visit friends in boone often
thanks everyone else for the helpful comments |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:27:51 AM · #9 |
i fixed the grey a bit after i read the first couple comments. i didn't see the grey stuff not the insane sharpness until i realized i hadn't set my new monitor.
so i blame the monitor :P |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:52:13 AM · #10 |
too late to enter but thought this would have been a good shot. any comments would be greatly appreaciated. thanks |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:19:11 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by irika:
hey guys
i lost track of time and didn't get a chance to submit my photo for people...so i was wondering if you guys could give me some comments on it.
andway, tell me what you think. |
Hi!
The photograph is excellent, artistically. Could you perhaps upload an unedited version into your portfolio? I would change it to a square crop, perhaps just off his right shoulder as I think there is too much negative space.
The post-processing is too harsh. The edges are a bit oversharpened and there are some blown highlights (with resulting weird patches of highlights in certain areas, like the tip of his nose) which may have been recovered if by chance you shot in RAW.
I think if you reduce the contrast, tweak the levels, curves, increase shadow values, apply less USM, and touch up the highlights to create smoother transitions from dark-to-light, you would have a fantastic entry which I would score at least 8. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:28:01 AM · #12 |
I think the image is great but the processing could've been better. There's a lot of dull grey. Would've benefitted had you mixed your RGB channels differently or blended your shadows better.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:53:55 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by irika:
i fixed the grey a bit after i read the first couple comments. i didn't see the grey stuff not the insane sharpness until i realized i hadn't set my new monitor.
so i blame the monitor :P |
Great shot, would have recieved an 8 or 9 from me. I would just do a slight dodging to bring out the right side of his face a little more, but I reallylike the lighting and framing. Well done.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 06:18:04 AM · #14 |
Here's a tweaked version of this very fine image, with the contrast toned down:
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 06:43:21 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Here's a tweaked version of this very fine image, with the contrast toned down:
Robt. |
Robt,
Nice tweak... just thing to lift it to a "10" in my book.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 07:35:40 AM · #16 |
This stuff is so subjective....there is something about the composition that is unsettleing to me...the image has a certian hit or miss feeling to me because of the choice in framing or cropping you made. Because this is what I call street photography, I believe that the lighting issues are almost impossible to address fairly...The best "people" photographs that I have seen are the one where the photographer gets involved with their subjects....If you see this guy alot and have made eye contact with him maybe its time to talk to him (in public) with out your camera at first then work your way slowly to photograph him with his consent...There maybe some better images waiting...Of course if you aren't comfortable doing so you shouldn't put yourself in this position.....This is not to say you can't get good images of people without that kind of involvement, but most of the time your images will have a detached feeling to the viewer.(maybe good or bad ) If I were to vote on the image I what give it a 6 because he is interesting an interest character and I know how hard it is to put yourself out there to take such images...If you could make the next steps you would much likely score higher...Keep it up you are on the right track...
Barry |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 08:13:05 AM · #17 |
Take my comment with a grain of salt, I'm pretty new to photography, but I think my point here is valid & it's something I see at DPC quite often. It has to do with the overuse of negative space to achieve the rule of thirds.
This brings up a question I've had for the DPC experts for some time. In an obviously great, interesting photo like this (I love the subject, by the way!), why choose to force-feed the negative space & rule of thirds on the viewers. The subject has such great character that I would crop much more closely: the bottom looks good, the top I'd crop to the upper forehead, the left I'd crop just in from his frizzies, the right I'd crop just in from the bright dreadlock.
This way, it seems to me, that if we have to follow convention, the line from eye to eye and the line from nose to chin follow the rule of thirds. The negative space can be the darker side of his face, neck, collar area.
In my extremely humble opinion, this is a fantastic photo as you have it, worthy of a wall-hanging, and it would be even better cropped in as I describe. Congrats on a great capture, it's a shame you missed the deadline, I think you waould have done very well, I would probably have given this a 9.
I'd love to hear the opinions of the wise DPC veterans on this!
{edit, add photo}
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 08:15:02. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 11:40:01 AM · #18 |
Well, I'm not a DPC "veteran" (only been here a few months) and I'm not sure I'm "wise" either, but I've been a photographer all my life, and here's my take on what Strikeslip asked;
1. I don't see much "force feeding" of the Rule of Thirds in here. In fact, I rarely see any extended discussion at all of compositional principles in DPC, and this surprises me. Lots of discussion of post-processing, of "tangible" things, takes place, but little attention seems to be paid to core "artistic" principles like vision and composition, movement vs stasis, stuff like that.
2. As posted, the image doesn't follow the Rule of Thirds anyway; measured on my monitor the image area is a hair over 6 inches horizontally, and the implied line up the center of the nose is an inch and a quarter from the right edge, so that's between a fifth and a quarter of the way in. In fact, the slightly out-of-balance feeling of the entire picture could be attributed, if one were so inclined, to the fact that it does NOT follow the rule of thirds...
3. This crop below, while still maintaining a strong sense of the same diagonal that dominates the original composition and maintaining the very important (IMO) balancing of positive and negative space (What IS the emptiness into which he's staring? I ask myself...), zooms in more on the subject's face while attaining a much stronger sense of balance that's characteristic of RofT images:
4. In the even tighter crop strikeslip has proposed, the diagonal dynamic has been completely sacrificed, as has the negative space. While this may have its benefits, it's now a completely different picture and not, IMO, a better one for the change. In particular, the loss of the wispy hair at the top of the frame is hurting the image, I believe. There's something poignant about that.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 11:46:54 AM · #19 |
AAaargh, I like bear_music's crop a lot more than mine!
Thanks for post bear, composition is something I have been struggling with and I hope there are some more posts to this thread about it, as I think this photo could be a good learning tool for me. Oh, ya, did I forget to mention, it's always all about ME.
:-D |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:27:06 PM · #20 |
| Well I got more in depth feedback then i was expecting, which is AWSOME. thanks so much for the great comments. the reason I chose to so much negitive space is to give the guys hair some contrast. I totally agree with you all on the over processing, which i blame my monitor again ;). Too bad i missed the deadline, seems it would have been my highest rated photo. Oh well, there are always other challenges. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:32:39 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by irika:
Well I got more in depth feedback then i was expecting, which is AWSOME. thanks so much for the great comments. the reason I chose to so much negitive space is to give the guys hair some contrast. I totally agree with you all on the over processing, which i blame my monitor again ;). Too bad i missed the deadline, seems it would have been my highest rated photo. Oh well, there are always other challenges. |
Maybe you can work him into the jewelry challenge? |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:41:43 PM · #22 |
I think also in the crop that bear put up it creates a natural line for the eye to follow from the sleeve up to the face.
Cool photo Jennifer! Keep 'em coming...
edit - too many that's...
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 14:42:27.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:54:53 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
1. I don't see much "force feeding" of the Rule of Thirds in here. In fact, I rarely see any extended discussion at all of compositional principles in DPC, and this surprises me. Lots of discussion of post-processing, of "tangible" things, takes place, but little attention seems to be paid to core "artistic" principles like vision and composition, movement vs stasis, stuff like that. |
Good point.
Personally I like the composition in the original better. It's not because of it's adherence to the rule of thirds (I've always viewed as more of a guideline than a rule anyways) but rather because the negative space balances the face. The problem with the other crops is they immediately become right heavy. I liked it better with all that black on the left to keep things balanced.
Negative space is a whole compositional element unto itself, very fun to explore.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:11:15 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by virtuamike:
Originally posted by bear_music:
1. I don't see much "force feeding" of the Rule of Thirds in here. In fact, I rarely see any extended discussion at all of compositional principles in DPC, and this surprises me. Lots of discussion of post-processing, of "tangible" things, takes place, but little attention seems to be paid to core "artistic" principles like vision and composition, movement vs stasis, stuff like that. |
Good point.
Personally I like the composition in the original better. It's not because of it's adherence to the rule of thirds (I've always viewed as more of a guideline than a rule anyways) but rather because the negative space balances the face. The problem with the other crops is they immediately become right heavy. I liked it better with all that black on the left to keep things balanced.
Negative space is a whole compositional element unto itself, very fun to explore. |
Just to keep our signals straight, the original image does NOT follow the Rule of Thirds; the focal point is somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the way in from the right edge. My cropped version does follow the Rule of Thirds, more or less, and was but up by way of illustration of this point, as a counterpoint to the much more tightly cropped version that preceded it. I don't think "my" version is "better" than the original, although it's certainly more balanced.
But balance isn't everything, in fact IMO it's far from it. Personally I like the uneasiness of the original crop better than the more tightly-contained version I posted up. I suspect I'd be happier still with one that split the difference, but it's not my picture to make these decisions about, and they are highly subjective.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 16:12:15.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:23:09 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by virtuamike:
Originally posted by bear_music:
1. I don't see much "force feeding" of the Rule of Thirds in here. In fact, I rarely see any extended discussion at all of compositional principles in DPC, and this surprises me. Lots of discussion of post-processing, of "tangible" things, takes place, but little attention seems to be paid to core "artistic" principles like vision and composition, movement vs stasis, stuff like that. |
Good point.
Personally I like the composition in the original better. It's not because of it's adherence to the rule of thirds (I've always viewed as more of a guideline than a rule anyways) but rather because the negative space balances the face. The problem with the other crops is they immediately become right heavy. I liked it better with all that black on the left to keep things balanced.
Negative space is a whole compositional element unto itself, very fun to explore. |
Just to keep our signals straight, the original image does NOT follow the Rule of Thirds; the focal point is somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the way in from the right edge. My cropped version does follow the Rule of Thirds, more or less, and was but up by way of illustration of this point, as a counterpoint to the much more tightly cropped version that preceded it. I don't think "my" version is "better" than the original, although it's certainly more balanced.
But balance isn't everything, in fact IMO it's far from it. Personally I like the uneasiness of the original crop better than the more tightly-contained version I posted up. I suspect I'd be happier still with one that split the difference, but it's not my picture to make these decisions about, and they are highly subjective.
Robt. |
Right. Wasn't trying to imply that the original fit the rule-of-thirds mold. The RofT comment was directed at the cropped versions.
I think the uneasiness of the original comes from the 2:1 frame, hence my comment on weight/balance (the negative space basically takes up the left half, and subject including hair fills up the other). Seeing too many square & 4:3 crops via the challenges so stretched crops tend to catch my attention.
|
|
