|Happy New Year from the Critique Club!
I've seen your portfolio and this is not your best work. What it lacks (but what some of your other stuff does exhibit) is a point, a reason for the viewer to give it any attention. The photograph is not, despite your title, really about the shapes of the pictured objects in any but the most incidental sense. Sure, the bottle has an interesting shape, but if you were going to pay tribute to that shape, this is not the most flattering of points-of-view to see it from. The glasses have an elegance of shape, too, but if they are the subject, why is the champagne bottle in the shot at all?
I know this must seem a dismal and mean-spirited critique, but I don't mean it that way. If your other images did not include some very thoughtful work, I wouldn't dare to be so blunt (i.e if I thought this Shapes II entry was your best stuff).
For example, this ...
was not just beautifully executed technically, but it also elegantly captured the character of the rice; it's simplicity and its purity.
And this ...
was rather more ambitious, and had some very impressive qualities, not the least of which was a meaning, an artistic intent. And that's just what the Shapes II shot is missing.
From a technical viewpoint, the photograph is competent; focus OK, reasonable lighting and depth-of-field, and all that guff. But if the image isn't about something, the quality of the technical stuff is wasted.
As an aside, how'd the glasses get full if the bottle's unopened?
Having said all that negative stuff, I nevertheless wish you a great year in 2006, and will look for your future entries at DPC. Cheers!