Self-Portrait critique needed!!

This is a self-portrait for my digital photography class. My statement is "I'm a casual reader". I couldn't have any assistance in taking the picture, so I had to bracket the picture, set the focus manually and use the timer. I wanted to show myself in the act of reading in the place where I do it the most with some of my other books in the background for extra context. I chose the Dostoevsky book (Russian) because it's the genre of literature that I am interested in currently. I am asking if the composition works for my statement? Also any PP tips that may be useful. Shot with a 20D, 24-70 1:2.8L @ 50MM, manual mode, iso 800, 1/80 @ f3.2. The only lighting I used is an incandescent bulb from the lamp in the photo. The first photo is PP a little and the second is the original raw photo. Any other comments and tips are welcome. You can download the original to make your own edits.

A NEW PHOTO AND STATEMENT FOUND TOWARDS BOTTOM OF THREAD!

Maybe try with it focussed on your face instead of the book?

Other than that, needs less noise.

Overall.... C-

The focus in this photo is on the book for me, both technically and content wise.

Technical merit, there's some room for improvement. The focus really needs to be on the face and not the book. Also, a reflector on the side of your face to balance out the lighting somewhat would have really helped alot.

Content wise, I think I might try a different book than something Dostoevsky because in a sense it seems pretentious to me. I point this out because I get the feeling that probably wasn't something intentional, and I'm certainly not trying to call you pretentious, but the fact that the title is so prominently displayed with the grip to make sure the author's name is legible almost seems to convey not so much "I read alot" as "I read profound and intellectual literature such as Dostoevsky". I may of course be picking up on something that's maybe a personal opinion and other people won't care one way or the other, but I think a nondescript book where the author and title isn't easily recognizeable will come across better as "I'm a person who enjoys reading" as opposed to "look at what I read" and the focus will be more on you.

Anyhow, Dostoevsky doesn't say "casual reader" to me

Sorta agree. I get that pretentious feeling with things like that. If its a "reading" picture, pick a book and author that is unique to your tastes besides Dostoevsky. Trite. Thats IMHO.

Focus should be on your face unless it was the goal to show off the book? Im still not sure if thats the goal of the pic. But is this photography or literature class?

Everything else looks cool though. Like the ambiance.

It was not obvious to me where the focus was in the scene. The consensus seems to be that it should be on the face, and I agree with that in principle.

I see the image as an interesting study that could be improved by more attention to sharpness and plane of focus. It may take a much longer exposure at a smaller opening to obtain that. I think it was properly exposed, and even though the scene seems to be quite warm, I assume that the color balance is reasonably correct. The second picture seems to be not quite level (the lamp seems to be tipping a little to the left).

There was no EXIF data with the picture. Knowing your Aperture and shutter speed would help in deciding what different possibilities might be an improvement.

With the title of your shot is "I'm a casual reader" I might take a different approach. Make you point of interest your row of books. Focus on the middle book with the yellow text. In looking at your exposure values, try iso 400 1/80, f/2.8. That will blur you and slightly remove you from the image. Whether you read comic books, Playboy or Russian literature is not the semblance of the composition. For me it's that you read and the books on the shelf represent what you have read.
BTW, white balance looks OK and so does the exposure. For me darker shadows will work great for this type of shot. So don't be afraid to put yourself in a darker shadow.

Thanks Sando, ill consider it.

Well...First off, I chose not to balance out the light because I wanted to show myself in a natural setting, thus just using the lamp.

Secondly, if you understood my description of the post, you would know that I chose Dostoevsky for a specific reason (its what genre I'm into), so YES!!, I do know what I'm doing in choosing that book. If I were to put a "nondescript" as you would say, then the question of "what type of books do you read?" would arise. I wanted to show people that "this" is what I read, so there's some context behind it.

I thank you for your comments Rich, ill take the first tips you gave under consideration.

Dostoevsky is specifically unique to my taste, thats why I chose it...as I mentioned in the description of the post. Also I had mentioned that this is for "my photography class" also stated in the description.

Thanks for your comments, I will take them under consideration.

Thanks Bob, I appreciate the tips. Although, I had mentioned my camera settings in the description of the post as well that the second picture was the original RAW file (unedited).

Kevin, thanks for the tips, ill try focusing on the books and see what effects I get as well as the camera settings.

Gee, you're right. I sometimes fail to note what the original poster said in his introduction of the picture. In fact, I sometimes don't read it at all

One of the things that is terribly important from EXIF data that is often ignored in a manual transcription of those data is the amount of Exposure Compensation that has been dialled in manually (and sometimes unwittingly). I think one thing that might help the reviewers in any shot where focus and DOF are questioned would be a small full detail, 100% crop. What do you think?

Robert_Lay wrote:
Gee, you're right. I sometimes fail to note what the original poster said in his introduction of the picture. In fact, I sometimes don't read it at all

One of the things that is terribly important from EXIF data that is often ignored in a manual transcription of those data is the amount of Exposure Compensation that has been dialled in manually (and sometimes unwittingly). I think one thing that might help the reviewers in any shot where focus and DOF are questioned would be a small full detail, 100% crop. What do you think?

Point well taken Bob. I don't know why all the EXIF data was stripped from the original. For the record, I didn't adjust the exposure any.

100% crop is a good idea, any suggestions are which spot to show from the picture?

I would think that this piece would give the reviewers a good shot at deciding where the plane of focus is - or at least it would give some idea of relative sharpness between face and book. Personally I like large depth of field.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks for that Bob. I like large DOF too, however, since I was shooting with very little light, and no flash because I wanted the photo to look like as natural as possible, I wasn't able to achieve a large depth of field. Since my DOF was going to be small, I had to choose what I wanted to be in focus, and the book is what I ended up deciding on. But since my face isn't that far down the plane of focus, its not entirely out of focus.

1) I fail to see a center of interest in the photo.
2) If the message of the photo is to show you as a "casual" reader, then there's no visual cues to show that you only read casually.

Like other said above, few people might consider Dostoyevski to be a casual read.

What kind of cues do you have in mind?

Two dimensional, highly visual

Maybe eating a book with a bored expression and a boring side dish... I dunno... your assignment!

Well, you asked for opinions and people gave it to you. Even if it wasn't the opinion you were looking for . When I read "casual reading" and saw the picture, my very first thought was that a book like that isn't casual reading. But I was surprised others mentioned it because I don't think it really takes away from the shot. Who's to say what casual reading is for someone else? I think you did a good job and it does look like you are in the act of casully reading. You look relaxed and unaware of the camera. I would have also liked a bit more focus on your face.

Stefan