Have At It

[MattSG]

Vaseline on lens + disposable = that?

[Youngster]

Hmm, what's up with that? Most cellphones snap a better shot than that, no offence.

[MattSG]

little things like focus, clarity, maybe some composition?

[Radtech1]

What would have constituted a "better" shot?

Personally, I think you would have hit your mark if it were not for the blown out area that creates a glare above her head.

Rad

[Jemmind]

Hmmm... focus, clarity... those are subjective.

Composition. Hmmm... thats pretty subjective too.

Could any of these three elements have been deliberately chosen (including the 'blown out' part near the head)?
SUBJECTIVE:
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease>


well....critiques are pretty subjective too!
I could take a picture of dog poo and post it in here.
I wouldn't get mad when people said it looked like crap:)
If you take a picture going against the norm, don't get upset when people tell you what they think about it.
Julie

[ChP]

The image has a tired, somewhat sad (but not crying sad) look to it that I like.
The composition could have been better. You have an interesting concept, but the center composition, close to the subject, doesn't do the idea justice.

[MattSG]

just looks like an early 1980's snap shot to me. I've seen you post good pics before, and I like stuff that departs from the norm, but I just don't feel this at all.

[OceanRider]

Well Bloo, you got to love subjectivity.....I really like it. Its a perfect author pic. Well done!

Joel

[rick barclay]

If I were taking that picture based on the data you provided, bloo dog, I would have shot a much
sharper image. What you've done with your picture of the lady is portray her as being more in a fog
than in a position of "emergence." If I wanted to portray someone as emerging, I would give you the photo below, not too sharp, I admit, but it does suggest someone emerging into the light, IMO. Just trying to help you with my subjective opinion, sir. Nothing else.

http://flashdaddee.com/luke.jpg

[Pekka]

There's a story behind this image. The young woman in the photo is an emerging author. A magazine needed an image to accompany an article about her and an excerpt from her unpublished book. The magazine guidelines were these: "We consider only work which transcends the literal."

When you posted a shot WITHOUT the above explanation then people must figure out what you tried to say with the image. That is why first reaction was questioning of the technical quality (currently we live in a world which sadly values sharpness more than content). Now we know this image is very much tied to a specific context. We now also know that you did not have much time to prepare. Knowing that it is good photo. I would have paid more attention to background, though (unless the book is about houses :) ).

But I guess that sixty-some views and no comments indicates something: that sixty people didn't like it or hate it enough to comment.

Maybe people do not hate or like it, they do not know what to say.

I had once a very similar shoot - a new author, book about imaginary figures and Tanga-stylish text (japanese feel). Needed something to convey inner mind and positive thinking. The book illustration (also by author) were sort of silhuetted creatures - looked like monsters but were actually very wise and kind :) I had plenty of time to think about it and I did this shot with painting with light -technique (two Maglites in dark room). Shot was not used in book, but as promo material:

Photo by Pekka Saarinen

[rick barclay]

>I think that maybe I was hoping to see more folks break out of the techno-weenie mindset which affects everyone involved in such a technically challenging endeavor.<
>The critic MUST go beyond the surface. At some point, the evaluation of photography must go beyond picking at the obvious.<

Yeah. Many images posted here are left in the dust of technical criticism while the artfulness or
the journalistic value of said images goes untouched. It can be very frustrating when you're looking for one type of comment on your photo and all you can elicit in response is a, "Well, I think you should have cropped out that distracting cloud to the left....", or even worse, the dreaded Zero Response count. But like we all know, it's a subjective subject, subject to the vagaries and complexities of the objective mind. You really need a thick skin when you post on a forum.

[2112]

Alright, I will be very honest with you here since you asked for it. That sure is a horrible picture for a professional (or even un-professional magazine) to use. The public will not care what was done to it to make it look a certain way because it doesnt have an appealing or artistic look to it. It simply looks like a very poorly taken picture on a camera phone, in fact, I have seen camera phones that produce better quality images than this. Not to mention the top quarter of the pic is blown out because you were facing the sun. It does not matter what look you were trying to accomplish, there are certain rules that apply to taking photos no matter what. What you are saying you did is broke these rules on purpose because you are trying to create something different and artistic? Thats just an excuse made by someone who takes a horrible picture and then tries to cover it up by saying they meant it to look that way, I know because I used to use that excuse back when I took bad pictures and to claim such a thing is beyond ridiculous. If you were going for a terrible quality image with blown out highlights that makes your subject un-appealing with lighting that wouldnt even be suitable for a B rated horror flick, you have a nice start.

[2112]

2112:

Thanks for your honesty and informed opinion.

I'm still trying to find the rules for photography.

Its quite simple really and I can sum it up for you in one word....lighting. Lighting is the key element in photography and once you understand how to use it correctly, your snapshots become photographs. Believe me, I am by no means a master or think my work is brilliant but I have learned alot more about how to take a proper photo and how lighting effects them. I took ALOT of criticism when I started and wished I would have learned more about how to take a proper photo beforehand but trial and error is a good teacher too.

As far as finding "rules" for photography, read photography books on lighting your subjects, there are dozens of great ones. Study the old school masters of lighting and glamour photography like George Hurrell and examine their photos and what techniques they invented 70 years ago that we still use today. Look thru any and every magazine with models in it, thats what I do.

[rick barclay]

Rule # 12456, Bloo:

Never use a cell phone as a camera and expect a serious critique of your picture.

[Hellashot]

Bloo: this is the wrong forum for your "work".

The rules of photography require you to have a camera, not a cell phone.

[rick barclay]

Ok, wiseacre.

You broke rule #114b, which states, "Never include ugly children in
any wedding photo of the bride and/or groom."

[Pekka]

Watch your language guys. If this gets into personal battle please continue it in PM. I don't mind even heave-handed critique and counter-critique, but it needs to be civilized :)

Else I do by the old Finnish custom and take you both behind the sauna.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/rules.php

[Pekka]

I thought #114b was "never call anyone Brian", perhaps that was 115b.

[rick barclay]

Lol.

[jgbeam]

If it made a magazine cover its got to be a damn good portrait in someone's eyes. If I saw it on a cover at Border's, what special interest section would I be in? (If it was in the literary section, I'd probably never see it.) If I saw it on the lcd of my camera I'd probably delete it.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad shot. It just doesn't do anything for me, personally.

Jim

[jgbeam]

Thanks for the tips.

Whatcha think of this photo? Which rules did I break here?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/BlooDog/BrideFlare.jpg


This looks like one of Uncle Fred's shots. Caught a great moment that the pro probably missed. A keeper.

Jim

[Dr Chaos]

Ummm ... I think the chick with the thick eyebrows is pretty hot. Can you post her number too, please?