Chloe + Chris eShoot

sgf323 wrote in post #12272869
The whole point of a critique is to bring things to the attention of the requesting party that they may not already know. It does no good to anyone to just say the photo is bad or has "problems" without going into what those are. On the same token, it does nothing but pad an ego to say "Beautiful", "Awesome", etc. Either way, those comments are worthless.

I don't see where the OP requested any critique to begin with. Do you?

To blast him and call his picture "inferior" is rude. Who is he or even you to to say nobody can say what they feel without you/or him analzying another person comment? Can't you just take it for face value? If someone say, "I like #4 the best!" Can we just leave it at that? I'm tired of people NIT picking everyones work to death. It leaves me to think that every photo that CC'er takes is technically perfect, which I highly doubt...

mrmarklin wrote in post #12240419
I disagree with all the above critiques and will actually try to help you.

1 Aurora note the problem, among others.
2 He's out of focus, and there are no catchlights in her eye. A flash would have been useful
3 What's the point of this shot? Nothing is happening, and your horizon is off too.
4 Horizon in this shot and the silo is the focal point. It'ss the biggest thing in the shot!
5 i like the second shot best but he dress is blown out in both of them.

6 Slightly washed out, actually the sky is blah...............

7 Against a totally dead sky we have what? Some sort of "artistic" flare...............??

I'm really at a loss as to why praise is readily heaped on this segment of the forum on what are clearly inferior photos. Not just this set, but almost all of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I cannot agree with the people above.

I disagree with all of your comments except for #2. I agree with that one. I think he should have been to the back a little more if the main purpose was to put him out of focus. Here's an example of what I mean.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Thanks everyone for checking them out.

I do appreciate the critique, and if you hate them or love them that's up to you. I am always trying to learn and improve so no worries.

Here is the one with him more in focus.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Love that B & W but you cut off her hands. Big No-No. You had plenty of room at the top. Also, I like lens flares but I think his penis is on fire...

Sorry, already starting the weekend with a couple beers. My comments are getting a bit punchy. But I am serious about the B & W comment.

love the warmth of the picture.

lol @cameraMan

I sort of like the space above her in the vert shot, next time I'd have her do something with her hand to get it in the frame, or as you said, drop down 6" and reframe.

danielvalentephotograp​hy wrote in post #12275543
lol @cameraMan

Look out POTN... There's a drunk on the loose!

Cutting at joints is a "no-no", cutting between joints (like the forearm in this shot) is ok... at least by any portrait "rules" I've ever read.

CameraMan wrote in post #12275534
Love that B & W but you cut off her hands. Big No-No. You had plenty of room at the top. Also, I like lens flares but I think his penis is on fire...

Sorry, already starting the weekend with a couple beers. My comments are getting a bit punchy. But I am serious about the B & W comment.

sgf323 wrote in post #12276234
Cutting at joints is a "no-no", cutting between joints (like the forearm in this shot) is ok... at least by any portrait "rules" I've ever read.

I was always told that if you have room in the frame then there is no need to cut off between joints.

I've never heard that at all. And, what would decide if you have "room"? Most of the time, extra room in the frame is based on a compositional technique. In the shot above, the room is to create negative space above her so depending on the original intent, maybe there was no "extra" room for getting the hand.

CameraMan wrote in post #12277288
I was always told that if you have room in the frame then there is no need to cut off between joints.

^ This is a classic example... of how photography is so subjective. Where did you guys study photography? Internet? School?? From a workshop?

Rules are meant to be broken, not always followed to the letter. Sheesh..lol

Exactly why I had rules in quotes in a previous post. Although, I do think the rules have their place and that it is good to know them so you can break them intentionally and with purpose. For the most part following the "rules" do help you make more engaging images and breaking a rule for a specific intent can help you make a point with the image. But following the rules to the letter because you must can be debilitating to creativity. At the same time, being oblivious to the rules can make your imagery very hit-and-miss unless you are blessed with an incredible eye and and natural talent -- in which case knowing the rules could actually hinder your natural creativity.

http://www.flickr.com …e/5649954428/in​/contacts/

Look at this for example. This shot is awesome. Horizon is in the center of the frame and hands are chopped off at the wrist. Sky is completely blown out.

Does that make me love the shot less, no.

Rules are meant to be broken.

Another example from Jose Villa's blog:

Number one rule is the bride is the most important subject... everything/one else can be out of focus including the groom.