brutally honest critique this:

Pherdinand

Pherdinand

the snow must go on
Local time
3:12 PM
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
7,869
what you guys (and estimated ladies) think of this?
Short comments also welcome. Don't need to force yourself to motivate a "boring" feeling. I do have a thick skin.
Just don't tell me it works better in BW :D
just kiddin'. You can tell me even that. Anything appropriate or inappropriate.

Also feel free to add your images if it's relevant. Or if it isn't.

3821169-lg.jpg
 
My eye goes straight to the silhouette at the lower right of the frame, but it's not interesting enough to sustain attention. It needs some sort of profile/characteristic to distinguish it further ie positioned sideways, leaning head turned/side profile.

I find the rest of the frame distracting. The cross would have been a good anchor, but i feel it gets lost in the balcony's shadow - if you positioned in a way to give some space between the cross edge & the balcony, this anchor would stand out better.

Overall however, it's a messy image with elements that distract and don't really tie in together imo. ie: stairs.
 
The tilt bugs me a little... ok a lot. None of the background horizontals are horizontal.

As to the composition - this is a very, very busy scene and I do appreciate how you're trying to make it work for you. Whatever the object is in the foreground that is partly obscuring the doorway and the figure in it, isn't doing you any favours. It looks like the top of a trash can but I'm guessing not? Anyway if it's mobile I would move it out of there so that the full door frame is visible and it doesn't distract from the figure.

Speaking of which... my eye is drawn there (appropriately I think) but there is a lot of other stuff drawing me way from it - the textures of the wall, the banner, the ceiling detail, that ladder... none of which you can change (or maybe want to). So perhaps losing a little of the out-of-focus foreground element (top of an altar or something?) and maybe both sides of the frame a bit would help. I might bring the left side in so that the window and all of the door are gone. Yes, you'd lose part of the cross but you don't need all of it to show what it is (and imply what it tells us about location and mood). Maybe a bit on the right side too, although after losing the left side it might look clean enough.

There's a distracting little coloured highlight on the right side of the bottom of the vertical of the cross that I'd probably burn down... and the highlights in the doorway and window are completely blown. I get that you don't want distracting scenery showing through but they seem too blown out to me, to the point the the silhouetted figure is a bit flared.

There, that's my $0.02 worth, provided to you absolutely free of charge. :)

As always, YMMV, E&OE, batteries not included, etc.

Richard.
 
Last edited:
I'd set the building straight up and the cross slumped, not the other way round. Although that might be a conscious decision?

Now it says: the world can tumble down, but religion stands tall, while otherwise it would say The world stands tall, but religion tumbles down.

Which did you mean it to say?

:)
 
Where is the theme? Too much details from interesting place, so I see chaos and I don't know why do you took this frame.
But colors and mood - I feel it, I feel this place.
 
johannielscom said:
I'd set the building straight up and the cross slumped, not the other way round. Although that might be a conscious decision?

Now it says: the world can tumble down, but religion stands tall, while otherwise it would say The world stands tall, but religion tumbles down.

Which did you mean it to say?

:)
Click to expand...

hey Johan,
thanks for the words :)
The cross is standing straight on purpose. The church is falling apart on purpose (well, ehm, you get what i mean :D). The church is in a disastrous state as you see on the walls and woodwork, and there was a choice what to keep straight so it was obvious (that time & to me). The tilt supports the idea i thought.
So not the whole world, that's a bit too big of a message- only the church.
It's not even a message, it's just a record of the fact.

I composed it, i was tilting the rolleiflex left and right, when the guy walked into the doorframe so i clicked it. I thought it turned out right with the super bright outside and flared figure. I understand technically it is flawed/flared :D but a silhouette is sufficient.
 
I'm so naive and unaware about composition and other cliches...

I don't think I do any good for OP, but I'm finding this picture interesting and filled with multilayers.

To me the main "thing" is strait in terms of alignment and the rest is secondary to it with swirl to support this statement of the main.

This picture is one of the best "inside of the church" pictures I have seen for long time.
It gives if not the story, but very strong feel about it.
 
jky, rwintle - thanks you guys - both of you say it is too busy.
I agree. It also bothers me. That time i thought it would fit nicely all together, but it's too scattered with stuff.
The "object in foreground" is not a trash can indeed :D it is the old bowl with the holy water, that had some sort of capping on it. It's a mistake. I had a tabletop tripod with me only, didn't help much.
I don't think cropping it left-right-bottom-such will help it, it's just all there in one damn shot :D
I like the stairs-window above door-silhouette, though.

thanks!
 
isorgb said:
Where is the theme? Too much details from interesting place, so I see chaos and I don't know why do you took this frame.
But colors and mood - I feel it, I feel this place.
Click to expand...

yeah i agree, messy - chaotic too much - theme is there but it's too scattered.
thanks!
 
Now after getting some replies, here's it from another angle.
This is a much "cleaner" image but i miss from it the... no i wont tell you yet to bias you, lets see what you guys think it's missing :D

3821174-lg.jpg
 
em, ... anybody know anything about using repeating elements as a compositional technique? ... no, thought not, ... cos there are a lot of crosses and arches kicking about that first one
 
First picture is excellent. There are a LOT of pictures here without much of a real subject. This has a very powerful, dramatic subject and it's a beautiful picture. The composition between the negative space of the cross and the figure form a nice triangle and the rest of the detail only supports. I don't think its cluttered at all. The comments about horizon tilt etc are superfluous and you can take or leave. The second image is good as a companion to the first, but it wouldn't be very interesting on its own. It's very good technically, and it has soul, but it's not in the same league of interest , UNLESS you pair them. Then it works well.
 
rinzlerb said:
First picture is excellent. There are a LOT of pictures here without much of a real subject. This has a very powerful, dramatic subject and it's a beautiful picture. The composition between the negative space of the cross and the figure form a nice triangle and the rest of the detail only supports. I don't think its cluttered at all. The comments about horizon tilt etc are superfluous and you can take or leave. The second image is good as a companion to the first, but it wouldn't be very interesting on its own. It's very good technically, and it has soul, but it's not in the same league of interest , UNLESS you pair them. Then it works well.
Click to expand...

... I come back to the door at the bottom-left oddly .. that highlighted curve on the LH third just drags my eye down to it
 
First one is way too busy. As for the second, the bright out of focus area is what draws the attention, not the foreground subject (which is too dark, and it's not clear what it is anyway).
 
cropping

cropping

THanks for sharing this image. The busy aspect for me is distracting too. It is compelling at the same time; one of those images, where the subject is strong and you just know there is a picture there, but maybe conditions just aren't quite right.

I can't help but think that a re-thinking of making the exposure about the whole frame rather than cropping wouldn't make for a stronger image. Of course it would also likely involve adjusting the angle of view slightly.

I am also thinking that I would be tempted to let the cross lose axis for the sake of the overall shot......another statement about religion as for the good of human condition or religion manipulated by human perception ;)

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom