RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Welcome to this critique thread. Please read the purpose statement and the guidelines/ground rules regarding participation.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this thread is to provide a forum where photographers can give and receive constructive criticism on one another's photographs. By setting up some basic guidelines we hope that this thread will provide a forum where the give and take of honest constructive criticism can help us become better photographers.
Guidelines/Ground Rules
The thread has very specific rules regarding participation. The one basic rule is that you cannot provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted. To post an image to this thread you must be a participant. Participation in this thread is limited. Here are the guidelines and ground rules for participation:
• Participation in this thread is limited to 5 photographers
• Participants join the thread by posting their intention. You can simply reply with your intent to join by posting something like: "I'm joining," "I'm in," or just state your name
• Joining is on a "first come, first served" basis. The first 5 to reply become the participants
• Once the thread has 5 participants, no other photographers can join or participate in the thread
• Once the thread is full of participants all photographers will upload their image(s)
• Please abide by any thematic requirement (e.g., landscape, portrait, etc.)
•The number of photos for each participant is limited to one
• Photographers attach photos as thumbnails (no inline images or links)
• Photographers post their images supplying titles (if any) and other pertinent information (the amount of information should be minimal)
• Photographers can only comment on their own images and reply to comments only when everyone else in the thread has posted their comments on the image
• Every participant must comment on every photo (except their own—initially)
• Every participant must make at least two comments, one positive comment, and one constructive criticism (which is actually two positive comments)
• Once every photographer has commented then a free flowing discussion begins. It is at this point that every photographer can comment on their own work and reply to comments, ask questions, etc.
• The participants decide when the thread closes.
If you'd like to participate in a critique thread and need some ideas about how to proceed with viewing images critically, you may find this thread helpful:
How do you look at photos
You can also provide feedback on critique threads here:
Critique Feedback Thread
Remember: Please do not provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted.
This thread is now active, please follow the guidelines if you'd like to participate! Have Fun!
.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this thread is to provide a forum where photographers can give and receive constructive criticism on one another's photographs. By setting up some basic guidelines we hope that this thread will provide a forum where the give and take of honest constructive criticism can help us become better photographers.
Guidelines/Ground Rules
The thread has very specific rules regarding participation. The one basic rule is that you cannot provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted. To post an image to this thread you must be a participant. Participation in this thread is limited. Here are the guidelines and ground rules for participation:
• Participation in this thread is limited to 5 photographers
• Participants join the thread by posting their intention. You can simply reply with your intent to join by posting something like: "I'm joining," "I'm in," or just state your name
• Joining is on a "first come, first served" basis. The first 5 to reply become the participants
• Once the thread has 5 participants, no other photographers can join or participate in the thread
• Once the thread is full of participants all photographers will upload their image(s)
• Please abide by any thematic requirement (e.g., landscape, portrait, etc.)
•The number of photos for each participant is limited to one
• Photographers attach photos as thumbnails (no inline images or links)
• Photographers post their images supplying titles (if any) and other pertinent information (the amount of information should be minimal)
• Photographers can only comment on their own images and reply to comments only when everyone else in the thread has posted their comments on the image
• Every participant must comment on every photo (except their own—initially)
• Every participant must make at least two comments, one positive comment, and one constructive criticism (which is actually two positive comments)
• Once every photographer has commented then a free flowing discussion begins. It is at this point that every photographer can comment on their own work and reply to comments, ask questions, etc.
• The participants decide when the thread closes.
If you'd like to participate in a critique thread and need some ideas about how to proceed with viewing images critically, you may find this thread helpful:
How do you look at photos
You can also provide feedback on critique threads here:
Critique Feedback Thread
Remember: Please do not provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted.
This thread is now active, please follow the guidelines if you'd like to participate! Have Fun!
.
jonasv
has no mustache
I'd like to try this (first-timer), thanks.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
I'll play again.
Wayne
Wayne
remrf
AZRF
Me too. This is fun.
Dracotype
Hold still, you're moving
I've never done a portrait one. Hmmm. I'm in on this one.
Drew
P.S. What is with this? remrf has been in the same group I've joined, and this is the third time. I swear, I am not doing this one purpose
.
Drew
P.S. What is with this? remrf has been in the same group I've joined, and this is the third time. I swear, I am not doing this one purpose
.
raid
Dad Photographer
I'm in then.
Raid
Raid
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
raid
Dad Photographer
remrf
AZRF
jonasv
has no mustache
raid
Dad Photographer
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne: I like this photo of a smiling young girl. It shows the fun that she is having.
Raid
Wayne
Wayne R. Scott said:
Wayne: I like this photo of a smiling young girl. It shows the fun that she is having.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
jvx
jvx
jvx: The photo emphasizes the person's armand hand and cigarette and leaves his face partially shown with piercing eyes. Why not!I like it.
Raid
jvx
jvx said:
jvx: The photo emphasizes the person's armand hand and cigarette and leaves his face partially shown with piercing eyes. Why not!I like it.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
remrf
remrf
remrf: The portrait is very nice. Not too much contrast is shown but the hairline is totally black on my screen. Maybe seeing some hair details would make the portrait better.
Raid
remrf
remrf said:
remrf: The portrait is very nice. Not too much contrast is shown but the hairline is totally black on my screen. Maybe seeing some hair details would make the portrait better.
Raid
remrf
AZRF
Raid, Not all of the entries have been posted yet. Why don't you hold off on the critiques until then?
Dracotype
Hold still, you're moving
raid
Dad Photographer
Dracotype
Dracotype
Dracotype: The photo looks a little "muddy" in the sense that there is little contrast and I don't see a focus point. Maybe if you has used a wider aperture to single out the Lady, the photo would be better [for me].
Raid
P.S. I was unaware that not all people had posted their images until I reached Nr. 3.
Dracotype
Dracotype said:
Dracotype: The photo looks a little "muddy" in the sense that there is little contrast and I don't see a focus point. Maybe if you has used a wider aperture to single out the Lady, the photo would be better [for me].
Raid
P.S. I was unaware that not all people had posted their images until I reached Nr. 3.
remrf
AZRF
I have a few observations to make before I begin my critiques.
1. I would urge all participants in these critique threads to re-size their entries to about 800x600 before posting them. This allows me and others to view them at about 8x10" which is a good size for this type of thing. As it is on two entries here I either have to view them much smaller thus losing some detail or view a huge file a little bit at a time losing the full effect of the image or download them to my computer and resize them myself. You don't need Photshop to do this. I have two other programs I use for quick editing which work well. One is "Digital Darkroom" and the other is called "photo filtre". Both are free and can be found easily on the web. Photo filtre is very much like a basic photo shop and has many of the same features and the same layout. Digital Darkroom is very handy for finding the right image quickly as it has thumbnails of all images in a folder down the right side of the screen. You can do basic editing in both programs including sizing,cropping and color and contrast changes.
2. In another portrait thread I listed a definition from wikipedia of the term, "portrait". The term thus defined has a wider application than I personally use. It is as follows,
"A portrait is a painting, photograph, or other artistic representation of a person. Portraits are often simple head shots or mug shots and are not usually overly elaborate. The intent is to show the basic appearance of the person, and occasionally some artistic insight into his or her personality."
This works well enough in a general sense but does not meet my personal definition which would be more in line with the last sentence but would HAVE to always include the insight mentioned and also have to be the INTENTION of the photographer AND subject at the time. This includes supposed "candid portraits" as a grab shot of a person that does show their personality but taken without their knowlwdge is not, to me a portrait. A fortuitous shot to be sure. But not a portrait.
So by the general definition of the term there are only four "portraits" on this thread . And by my definition one of the four is more of a lucky grab shot. I will leave it to you to figure out which one is the "grab" shot.
Having said that I will critique the photos in the order in which they appear in the thread.
Wayne R. Scott: Well you might not shoot a Leica but you damn sure know what a portrait is. What a lovely portrait of an equally lovely young lady. Such a priceless expression and what wonderful deportment from so young a subject. I would be honored to "take tea" with this young lady and I would be sure to be on my best behavior as well.
The image works wonderfully well just as it is but sometime if you feel like it try cropping the bottom off just where the table hits the left hand bottom border. I think you will find this brings the subject even more to the forefront of the image and loses nothing of its charm. A beautiful, fun and well crafted photograph.
Raid: This is one of the shots that I had to resize to view. A cute shot of a cute little lady. Either your scanner bed has dirt on it or the print or negs does as I see dark spots all around and above the subject. The left/right crop could be tighter as the space is not doing anything for the subject. And, merely out of curiosity does your daughter have something in her mouth? It looks like a metal ring is hanging right in front of her mouth as if she was holding it in her teeth. Either that or her hair has formed an absolutely perfect circle in that spot and no other.
JVX: Wow! Now that is a powerful portrait. Very "film noir" (sp?). Dramatic pose. Dramatic lighting and creative framing. Don't change a thing.
Dracotype: This is the other image I had to resize to view and it is the one of the five that is not a portrait. Why would I say this? A portrait is supposed to convey the features of the person. From this shot I would not be able to recognize the lady were I to meet her thus it should not be called a portrait. A wonderful image to be sure and it says a lot of nice things about the person that is depicted. But I can't really see her face. I think this shot should be one of a series that includes a portrait and in that context it is a wonderful photograph depicting a facet of the full personality.
I'm sure many will disagree. I can live with that.
1. I would urge all participants in these critique threads to re-size their entries to about 800x600 before posting them. This allows me and others to view them at about 8x10" which is a good size for this type of thing. As it is on two entries here I either have to view them much smaller thus losing some detail or view a huge file a little bit at a time losing the full effect of the image or download them to my computer and resize them myself. You don't need Photshop to do this. I have two other programs I use for quick editing which work well. One is "Digital Darkroom" and the other is called "photo filtre". Both are free and can be found easily on the web. Photo filtre is very much like a basic photo shop and has many of the same features and the same layout. Digital Darkroom is very handy for finding the right image quickly as it has thumbnails of all images in a folder down the right side of the screen. You can do basic editing in both programs including sizing,cropping and color and contrast changes.
2. In another portrait thread I listed a definition from wikipedia of the term, "portrait". The term thus defined has a wider application than I personally use. It is as follows,
"A portrait is a painting, photograph, or other artistic representation of a person. Portraits are often simple head shots or mug shots and are not usually overly elaborate. The intent is to show the basic appearance of the person, and occasionally some artistic insight into his or her personality."
This works well enough in a general sense but does not meet my personal definition which would be more in line with the last sentence but would HAVE to always include the insight mentioned and also have to be the INTENTION of the photographer AND subject at the time. This includes supposed "candid portraits" as a grab shot of a person that does show their personality but taken without their knowlwdge is not, to me a portrait. A fortuitous shot to be sure. But not a portrait.
So by the general definition of the term there are only four "portraits" on this thread . And by my definition one of the four is more of a lucky grab shot. I will leave it to you to figure out which one is the "grab" shot.
Having said that I will critique the photos in the order in which they appear in the thread.
Wayne R. Scott: Well you might not shoot a Leica but you damn sure know what a portrait is. What a lovely portrait of an equally lovely young lady. Such a priceless expression and what wonderful deportment from so young a subject. I would be honored to "take tea" with this young lady and I would be sure to be on my best behavior as well.
The image works wonderfully well just as it is but sometime if you feel like it try cropping the bottom off just where the table hits the left hand bottom border. I think you will find this brings the subject even more to the forefront of the image and loses nothing of its charm. A beautiful, fun and well crafted photograph.
Raid: This is one of the shots that I had to resize to view. A cute shot of a cute little lady. Either your scanner bed has dirt on it or the print or negs does as I see dark spots all around and above the subject. The left/right crop could be tighter as the space is not doing anything for the subject. And, merely out of curiosity does your daughter have something in her mouth? It looks like a metal ring is hanging right in front of her mouth as if she was holding it in her teeth. Either that or her hair has formed an absolutely perfect circle in that spot and no other.
JVX: Wow! Now that is a powerful portrait. Very "film noir" (sp?). Dramatic pose. Dramatic lighting and creative framing. Don't change a thing.
Dracotype: This is the other image I had to resize to view and it is the one of the five that is not a portrait. Why would I say this? A portrait is supposed to convey the features of the person. From this shot I would not be able to recognize the lady were I to meet her thus it should not be called a portrait. A wonderful image to be sure and it says a lot of nice things about the person that is depicted. But I can't really see her face. I think this shot should be one of a series that includes a portrait and in that context it is a wonderful photograph depicting a facet of the full personality.
I'm sure many will disagree. I can live with that.
Dracotype
Hold still, you're moving
As before....
Wayne R. Scott: A cute little lady. "Would you care for a crumpet Mr. Darcy?" I am a little irked by the fact that she is back all the way up against the right hand side of the frame. The lack of resolution is a little annoying too. But a very formal, sweet portrait.
raid amin: In all honesty, this portrait does not interest me. Your very cute daughter is centered. She has hair all over her face. I can't really get a good look at the contours of her face. I can tell the expression would be a great one. The lighting is well captured, but I can't really see her face.
remrf: I am a little confused, isn't Plus-X ISO 125? I see a lot of grain for 125. That said, the grain adds a bit to the portrait. The highlights are a bit hot though. I would like a little more detail too. Mood is definetely there, but I want more detail.
jvx: Excellent. In this photo, the hand is almost more interesting than the face. You can tell this is an interesting person, and he likes to use his hands. They tell almost more about him than his face does. The fact that not all his head is shown does not detract. The eyes alone seem to convey volumes. Very well executed. What particualr film was this? I like the tones.
Thats all. Enjoy.
Drew
Wayne R. Scott: A cute little lady. "Would you care for a crumpet Mr. Darcy?" I am a little irked by the fact that she is back all the way up against the right hand side of the frame. The lack of resolution is a little annoying too. But a very formal, sweet portrait.
raid amin: In all honesty, this portrait does not interest me. Your very cute daughter is centered. She has hair all over her face. I can't really get a good look at the contours of her face. I can tell the expression would be a great one. The lighting is well captured, but I can't really see her face.
remrf: I am a little confused, isn't Plus-X ISO 125? I see a lot of grain for 125. That said, the grain adds a bit to the portrait. The highlights are a bit hot though. I would like a little more detail too. Mood is definetely there, but I want more detail.
jvx: Excellent. In this photo, the hand is almost more interesting than the face. You can tell this is an interesting person, and he likes to use his hands. They tell almost more about him than his face does. The fact that not all his head is shown does not detract. The eyes alone seem to convey volumes. Very well executed. What particualr film was this? I like the tones.
Thats all. Enjoy.
Drew
jonasv
has no mustache
Let's see.
Wayne - very frivolous capture of a pleasant scene. Not much too comment on: depth of field, composition, contrast of colors, skin tones are all spot-on. I love that look on her face. I'm not sure if you do photoshop work on your photos, but if you do, I would dodge the white in her right eye (left for the viewer) to add the same sparkle that the other eye has. Great child portrait all in all.
Raid - I must confess I am not a big fan. I usually love the photos of your daughter (particularly one at the beach stands out for me) but this one doesn't really interest me. I like the look in her eyes, but the harsh sunlight and centered composition just don't work for me here.
remrf - nice portrait. Studio portraiture is not really my cup of tea but I do enjoy the sincerity in this picture. I love the lighting, although as said above, a bit more detail in the hair would add to it. The light and the b&w combined are really good at accentuating her eyes and lips, which are really beautiful. Did you push the Tri-X a lot? Doesn't matter, I think the grain works here. Very nice portrait.
Dracotype - I'm a big fan of environmental portraits, and I will disagree with remrf and say that they usually say more about a person than a posed portrait. However, I must confess this particular image doesn't really do it for me. The contrast is too harsh, there is too much detail in the background - my eyes can't rest anywhere in the photo. Despite the negative sound of this comment I do think you're on to something and continuing experimenting with documentary styled environmental portraits should eventually get you there.
Greetings
Wayne - very frivolous capture of a pleasant scene. Not much too comment on: depth of field, composition, contrast of colors, skin tones are all spot-on. I love that look on her face. I'm not sure if you do photoshop work on your photos, but if you do, I would dodge the white in her right eye (left for the viewer) to add the same sparkle that the other eye has. Great child portrait all in all.
Raid - I must confess I am not a big fan. I usually love the photos of your daughter (particularly one at the beach stands out for me) but this one doesn't really interest me. I like the look in her eyes, but the harsh sunlight and centered composition just don't work for me here.
remrf - nice portrait. Studio portraiture is not really my cup of tea but I do enjoy the sincerity in this picture. I love the lighting, although as said above, a bit more detail in the hair would add to it. The light and the b&w combined are really good at accentuating her eyes and lips, which are really beautiful. Did you push the Tri-X a lot? Doesn't matter, I think the grain works here. Very nice portrait.
Dracotype - I'm a big fan of environmental portraits, and I will disagree with remrf and say that they usually say more about a person than a posed portrait. However, I must confess this particular image doesn't really do it for me. The contrast is too harsh, there is too much detail in the background - my eyes can't rest anywhere in the photo. Despite the negative sound of this comment I do think you're on to something and continuing experimenting with documentary styled environmental portraits should eventually get you there.
Greetings
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Raid- As you may remember I am not a fan of portraits shot outside in harsh sunlight as the contrast is too great between highlights and shadows. Also the catchlights disappear in her eyes. I am not sure what all of the black specks are in the out of focus areas of the photo. I also have the feeling that Dana is "Bullseyed" in the center of the photo like a 10x ring on an archery or pistol paper target. The Nikkor lens does a good job of obliterating the background into out of focus.
I honestly think you posted this photo as a teaching tool for others as a "What not to do for a portrait". You have so many others of Dana that are much better. Your window light ones and the ones shot on the porch for example.
Remrf- This appears to me to be a scan of a print as there looks to be some scanning artifacts acting as grain. I could be wrong though as I know very little about scanning. I really like the lighting pattern on her face, it is classic with the nose shadow forming a loop toward her upper lip and the triangular highlight on her right cheek. The lack of shadow detail does not bother me as much as the position of her eyes in their sockets. I wish she had them slightly to her left which would show less of the whites of her eye. If I were to offer any other advice it would be to raise the camera height about 1 foot and use a slightly longer lens in the 85 to 105mm range. Very pretty girl.
jvx- Pure gold. Hollywood portrait right on the money. Well composed and lighted; with the bad boy cigarette prop too!!
Dracotype- Hmm, sorry but I had trouble with this one. I had to study it for a little while to figure out what I was supposed to be seeing. You want to remove all doubt about what the subject is when doing portrait work. Perhaps a more open f-stop to eliminate more of the background to bring out your subject. Also I think your subject is underexposed by about 2 stops. The background would tend to get “blown out” with the overexposure but it would not be a bad thing in this case. I had a hard time with the small size of photo also.
I think you are on the right track as far as environmental type portraits, you saw a "decisive moment" and made the shot. So your vision and timing are right on. You just need some technical tweaking at least on this image. I tell all of my young student photographers that the main difference between a professional photgrapher and themselves is that a pro has a very much bigger waste basket where he throws away the thousands of mistakes that he makes.
Wayne
I honestly think you posted this photo as a teaching tool for others as a "What not to do for a portrait". You have so many others of Dana that are much better. Your window light ones and the ones shot on the porch for example.
Remrf- This appears to me to be a scan of a print as there looks to be some scanning artifacts acting as grain. I could be wrong though as I know very little about scanning. I really like the lighting pattern on her face, it is classic with the nose shadow forming a loop toward her upper lip and the triangular highlight on her right cheek. The lack of shadow detail does not bother me as much as the position of her eyes in their sockets. I wish she had them slightly to her left which would show less of the whites of her eye. If I were to offer any other advice it would be to raise the camera height about 1 foot and use a slightly longer lens in the 85 to 105mm range. Very pretty girl.
jvx- Pure gold. Hollywood portrait right on the money. Well composed and lighted; with the bad boy cigarette prop too!!
Dracotype- Hmm, sorry but I had trouble with this one. I had to study it for a little while to figure out what I was supposed to be seeing. You want to remove all doubt about what the subject is when doing portrait work. Perhaps a more open f-stop to eliminate more of the background to bring out your subject. Also I think your subject is underexposed by about 2 stops. The background would tend to get “blown out” with the overexposure but it would not be a bad thing in this case. I had a hard time with the small size of photo also.
I think you are on the right track as far as environmental type portraits, you saw a "decisive moment" and made the shot. So your vision and timing are right on. You just need some technical tweaking at least on this image. I tell all of my young student photographers that the main difference between a professional photgrapher and themselves is that a pro has a very much bigger waste basket where he throws away the thousands of mistakes that he makes.
Wayne