Serious mistake from a Pro?

[Ferrari_Alex]

Folks,
I have seen this shot lately and wanted to ask you whether this is not a serious mistake from a photog - I am talking about the left eye that is hidden.
Can you see it?
I think this shot is completely damaged by this issues, however, maybe I am clueless and expect a lot more from other people than I do from myself.
What do you think?

[Pete]

I guess you took this from someone else's site, so could you respect copyright and link to the page/photo in question?

[TeeJay]

Do you have the photographers permission to post this image here?

I personally feel the eye should be visible (if that is what you are asking)

TJ

[Ferrari_Alex]

I do not have a permission....sorry.....but here is the link:
http://photoclub.by/work.php?id_photo=134927&range=30&sort=date#t

I just wanted to use this as a learning example.

[tupper]

Its an amazing image, but yes, the eye should be visible.

[Ferrari_Alex]

This is what I think - shot is just great, by the eye thing is really a big mistake...sadly

[SAB_Click]

I'm not sure I agree with you. The way it is creates the idea of 'peering from behind the veil'. With both eyes showing it could just look like she was playing silly beggars.

Just my initial opinion. :confused:

[Ferrari_Alex]

Maybe this is just me, but I am missing the second eye...I am trying to make a visual connection with the bride and I cannot because one eye is missing, although she is trying to look at me with both eyes.

[SAB_Click]

I don't agree with you.

Remember in photography 'rules' can be broken.

The image creates a strong reaction in you in that you post a thread about it and take issue with the fact that you can't see her left eye.

For others (me)...I look at the picture and want to enter the playfulness with her and move my head left to peer around her veil to make eye contact. Clever picture if you ask me - but each to their own.

[Ferrari_Alex]

Man, can't agree to this....:-)))))))))) But thanks for explaining:-)

[jacuff]

It's not a serious mistake. A serious mistake would be a sports shooter not seeing the 300lb lineman coming right at them an not getting out of the way. A serious mistake would be leaving your gear at home and not discovering you did that until you arrived to start shooting. The hidden eye may be a flaw. The hidden eye apparently drew you into the image quite well because it caused you to ask about it and not simply pass it on as another flawed/crappy image.

[Ferrari_Alex]

Yes, but you ask for a different reason....

[darosk]

I think it goes against a certain accepted convention where, in a portrait, you expect both eyes to be showing.

I would have a hard time classifying it as a 'serious mistake', though.

[cdifoto]

It could be an oops. It could be a creative decision. Or it could even be a "dammit this veil won't stay up so f-it."

It's not a serious mistake though. A serious mistake is a popped nipple making its way into the album.

[Moppie]

It's not a serious mistake though. A serious mistake is a popped nipple making its way into the album.


That depends on what your shooting............. :p

[cdifoto]

And what I meant by "popped"

[Picture North Carolina]

Rules, rules. rules. They're made to be broken.

Unfortunately, at least IMHO, this time rule breaking didn't go far enough.

If the eye was completely hidden, it would be ok. But the white part showing screws up what is an otherwise great shot.

[Ferrari_Alex]

Rules, rules. rules. They're made to be broken.

Unfortunately, at least IMHO, this time rule breaking didn't go far enough.

If the eye was completely hidden, it would be ok. But the white part showing screws up what is an otherwise great shot.

I agree, you either show it or hide it in a way that you still have a harmony. But in here the white part is completely distracting and is proving that it is a flaw.

[Picture North Carolina]

I agree, you either show it or hide it in a way that you still have a harmony. But in here the white part is completely distracting and is proving that it is a flaw.

It looks like something out of one of those zombie movies where the FX removes the iris/pupil and people are walking around with those all-white eyes. :) ;)

[Mark1]

...So every picture has to have a clear view of both eyes or it is completely damaged? No variation ever? That is the impression you are showing. Seems like an odd rule to hold on to to me.



If the eye was completely hidden, it would be ok. But the white part showing screws up what is an otherwise great shot.

I thought the same thing. Its the partial eye showing that kills it.

[Ferrari_Alex]

No-No....there are some pictures where the Photographers intentionally ask model to cover one eye with the hand....or that you see only one eye for some specific reason, yet...there is a perfect harmony in it....
But in this shot you do not see any story behind the eye being partially shown....and the white part of the eye is killing the picture.

[Halliday]

I think a larger mistake is a having an online image gallery with no way of contacting the photographer from the website.

[Ferrari_Alex]

I think a larger mistake is a having an online image gallery with no way of contacting the photographer from the website.
What do you mean?

[cdifoto]

What do you mean?
I'm pretty sure he's talking about this (http://www.dylikowski.com/).

[Ferrari_Alex]

If this is the case, than....this forum is the only place where the gallery appears and it is easy to contact me:-)
The website is just a test, I have no clue how to do the decent website....so just playing....

[Josh_30]

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... it depends. For this shot, either all or nothing would have been better, but it's not bad as is.

[onurrus]

Hi everyone I am new here and I dont think its a serious mistake.I think its just a matter of taste.Besides I am sure he would take another shot if that wasnt what he wished..

[Halliday]

I'm pretty sure he's talking about this (http://www.dylikowski.com/).
Correct.
Just calling it like I see it.

[Bill Boehme]

It grabs the viewer's attention, so "mission accomplished". And, it's different enough that other photographers will debate the eye question. If more of the eye or less of the eye were visible, the image might not quite have the same impact.

[Kevin Curtis]

Rules, rules. rules. They're made to be broken.

Unfortunately, at least IMHO, this time rule breaking didn't go far enough.

If the eye was completely hidden, it would be ok. But the white part showing screws up what is an otherwise great shot.
i'm with you. Enter text here.her eye is creeping me out because you can't see the pupil :lol:

i think it should be covered or not....just not half way

[HYBEagle]

yeah, it looks like she doesn't have an eye ball in her eye socket. I agree it should be either fully covered up or left open.

[tfd888]

If the eye was completely hidden, it would be ok. But the white part showing screws up what is an otherwise great shot.

ditto :confused:

[pwm2]

For others (me)...I look at the picture and want to enter the playfulness with her and move my head left to peer around her veil to make eye contact. Clever picture if you ask me - but each to their own.
I agree. I feel a strong urge to move my head to the left in playfulness. I would have been very proud if I had managed that reaction in a photo.