Jane

Doesn't work AT ALL for me. Photo is composition, just like design. Look up Gestalt and see if this falls in any category. I don't shoot with gestalt principles in mind, but when images work, I can always find why. Always.

OK ... actually I rather like the composition. It's not following the 'rules' but would you really expect that from Olafs? There's a bit of tension in it.

I agree with Nathan's comment above that balancing the brightness of the subject's body more closely with her face could be worth trying.

Overall, I think it's a good image and enjoyable for being a little bit 'different'.

I didn't say it had to follow any rules, but a good capture, in retrospect, will exhibit one of dozens of visual geometric systems that make an image worth looking at. People can argue all day that art is in the eye of the beholder, but it's the art students I've had that argue their mothers liked their work, and that faculty just doesn't understand their creative vision, that are selling insurance now.

This looks like the photographer saw something similar (oh, put a lot of black on one side and have the subject on the far other side in shadow), without understanding the nuances of balance. My suggestion was to remove the media from the image and to learn the basics of visual literacy.

mcluckie wrote in post #18389759
I didn't say it had to follow any rules, but a good capture, in retrospect, will exhibit one of hundreds of visual geometric systems that make an image worth looking at. People can argue all day that art is in the eye of the beholder, but it's the art students I've had that argue their mothers liked their work, and that faculty just doesn't understand their creative vision, that are selling insurance now.

This looks like the photographer saw something similar (oh, put a lot of black on one side and have the subject on the far other side in shadow), without understanding the nuances of balance. My suggestion was to remove the media from the image and to learn the basics of visual literacy.

I can fully understand the frustrations of dealing with art students who have been encouraged to develop exaggerated levels of self-esteem combined with underdeveloped abilities to critique their own work. That's a product of the age in which we live, I think, and it leads to unfulfilled potential.

And maybe I have a poorly developed sense of visual literacy (although I try hard and I hope not). There's room for differences of opinion when it comes to visual appreciation and we are not all going to like the same stuff, although I'd expect there to be a lot of common ground. In this case, I actually like the imbalance in the image. I like the quirkiness of the composition but I can understand why others might not. (And I'm not Olaf's mother travelling incognito!)

P.S. I'm not sure I want to be sold insurance by failed art students

Nathan wrote in post #18389676
I think that the exposure on her face appears somewhat abrupt in the sea of black. I think the brightness of her face is what makes this image "creepy".

Also a bit abrupt is the transition from lit to dark. I'd like to see a more gradual transition.

Olaf's style is usually chiaroscuro. The abrupt transition from dark to light is the very staple of chiaroscuro imagery, as is the tendency to have most of the image very dark and just a tiny little bit of the frame be very, very bright. . That is what this style of imagery is supposed to be, and I think that this is what Olafs is trying to do with this image.

I actually think that the bright spots of the image aren't bright enough. . I don't think that Jane's illuminated face stands out quite enough. . The dark areas of the photo are dark enough, but the bright parts aren't bright enough to create the type of extreme contrast that my eye is looking for in this style of imagery.

Another little nit-pick I have regards the area around her feet. . I like that her feet are illuminated, and hence stand out a little bit from the background (at least we can see them). . However, I don't like the fact that the corner of the sofa cushion to the left of her feet is equally illuminated. . In fact, that corner of the cushion might even be a wee bit brighter than her feet. . In this type of imagery, light is normally used to highlight and accentuate the important parts of the composition, and I fail to see how that corner of the sofa cushion is more important than Jane's feet.

Overall, I like this image a lot, particularly the composition. . I especially like all of the negative space on the left side of the frame, and the noticeably long rectilinear aspect ratio, which allows for even more dark space to exist. . I am trying to do this more and more with my wildlife images, as I find that my eye is just very attracted to images where the subject is way off to one side and the rest of the frame is mostly just negative space. . It is just a very aesthetically appealing look, and my eyes feel happy when they see images that are composed this way.

.

That negative space continues to stir up the pot - that's always nice.

About those legs - yeah, I still don't like them. Those feet were a problem.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18391896
Olaf's style is usually chiaroscuro.

If it was, I think the image would work better without the left side of the image and, as you say, make the bright spots brighter.