sweathog
Well-known
Ladies and gentlemen, could you please explain to me why I like the following shot. I'm going to make myself a print if I get any time in the darkroom tomorrow. Tell me what you think, and whether it is a waste of paper in your opinions.
Tom
Tom
FrankS
Registered User
Maybe because you like the person in the picture?
Problems that I have with the photo: the face is too dead center, and there is a OOF blob of dark stuff in front of her face (the direction she's facing). You could crop to change the location of her head, but there's not much you can do short of photoshop to get rid of the OOf blob.
Problems that I have with the photo: the face is too dead center, and there is a OOF blob of dark stuff in front of her face (the direction she's facing). You could crop to change the location of her head, but there's not much you can do short of photoshop to get rid of the OOf blob.
I also find the blob distracting, but other than that I think it has some appeal. As Frank says, part of your liking the photo can be your relationship with the subject, but I often find myself liking some of my less then technically correct photos too. Perhaps this is what you saw at that moment, what is caught on film is what was caught in your mind?
vrgard
Well-known
I hate to say it, Tom, but I think Frank is right. As much as I often like shots that may not fit classic compositional norms, this one has some challenges. I would try to crop, as Frank suggested, and then try to print with a lightened face so that becomes more the point of attention rather than the dark blob. Might still make an interesting and moody image. Let us know how it turns out.
-Randy
-Randy
FrankS
Registered User
Tom, this is only an opinion, and it really means nothing. You like the picture, that's all that's important here, so go ahead and print it!
ferider
Veteran
Tom, I am guessing that you know well that you broke some rules and
are wondering why you like the image anyways ...
One thing that strikes me is that, even though the low-lights are so dark,
I can still distinguish facial features, in an otherwise high contrast
contour shot.
Also, there is a nice halo around her face and shoulders, somehow created
by the background ...
Different for sure. Thanks for posting,
Roland.
PS: I am looking forward to trying Neopan 1600 myself.
are wondering why you like the image anyways ...
One thing that strikes me is that, even though the low-lights are so dark,
I can still distinguish facial features, in an otherwise high contrast
contour shot.
Also, there is a nice halo around her face and shoulders, somehow created
by the background ...
Different for sure. Thanks for posting,
Roland.
PS: I am looking forward to trying Neopan 1600 myself.
charjohncarter
Veteran
jshelly
Established
who gives a **** what anyone thinks? If you like it that's all that matters.
I like it enough to keep looking at it, in fact I really like it.
I like it enough to keep looking at it, in fact I really like it.
cmedin
Well-known
It's not my type of thing, but as has been pointed out, what matters is whether YOU like it. I have some shots that probably make no sense to anybody else, but I know the 'story' behind them and they have a special meaning to me. The only one who can judge whether it's a 'waste of paper' is you; unless you're printing it for sale or a show that is, in which case some constructive criticism might be good!
OK, I did a quick crop that I like better:
OK, I did a quick crop that I like better:
Last edited:
nixarma
Established
I like it myself... it has a certain "atmospheric" quality to it that is similar to the aesthetic of much of what I like in art. The light reminds of some scenes from the movie "Winter Light". Her expression is hard to put a finger on and that makes the image open to interpretation, and therefore more interesting (to me.)
Nikhil
(A horizontal crop at the level of the big white speck in the upper left-hand corner would make the photograph even nicer, imho.)
Nikhil
(A horizontal crop at the level of the big white speck in the upper left-hand corner would make the photograph even nicer, imho.)
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
cmedin
Well-known
I think you mean dodging 
thomasw_
Well-known
Tom,
I like the hazy moodiness of the shot. I don't mind the OOF blob as much as the fact that the woman's face is just a tad too fuzzy to contrast enough with the OOF blob.
But, if you love it, or one of your modifications of it, then that is all the justification needed to make a print.
Respectfully,
Thomas
I like the hazy moodiness of the shot. I don't mind the OOF blob as much as the fact that the woman's face is just a tad too fuzzy to contrast enough with the OOF blob.
But, if you love it, or one of your modifications of it, then that is all the justification needed to make a print.
Respectfully,
Thomas
gavinlg
Veteran
Tom, I think it's an excellent image - quite dreamy and has a lot of feeling - not technically great but I can understand why you like it. It's pleasant to look at and invokes a good feeling.
Bryce
Well-known
I'm evidently a little odd, as I don't see the 'rules' or even understand them as others seem to apply them. I'll agree with the others here who say that what is important is that you like the image, that the image has holding power by its dreamy and mysterious feel, and that the facial expression of the subject begs the viewer to ask what he's looking at. Maybe in the same way that it is impossible to truly ignore a baby's cry or someone screaming at the top of their lungs, it is also impossible to ignore a face showing strong emotion?
Printing that is not a waste of paper! Even if you decide you will throw the prints away, you'll likely learn the answer to your question to the RFF crew, and either avoid similar 'mistakes' in the future or find a theme or feel to pursue in the future.
Art I really love is almost all art I hated when first exposed to it. Including my own...
Printing that is not a waste of paper! Even if you decide you will throw the prints away, you'll likely learn the answer to your question to the RFF crew, and either avoid similar 'mistakes' in the future or find a theme or feel to pursue in the future.
Art I really love is almost all art I hated when first exposed to it. Including my own...
St.Ephen
Patronising Saint
Thought "rules" were meant to be broken???
Thought "rules" were meant to be broken???
It's hard for me to discern what so-called rules have been broken with this shot. I'd say the same as another poster, "Who gives a feck what anyone says." After all, it's your moment, that is quite personal to you, therefore any view of it should be subjective.
Thought "rules" were meant to be broken???
It's hard for me to discern what so-called rules have been broken with this shot. I'd say the same as another poster, "Who gives a feck what anyone says." After all, it's your moment, that is quite personal to you, therefore any view of it should be subjective.
sweathog
Well-known
A quick reply before I run off to catch my train to college.
Certainly a lot of mixed opinions here. There seems to be a clear divide between the people who feel 'the rules' should've been followed more closely, and those who don't (generally thosae who like it seem to fall into the latter, although my recently awoken brain may just be making that up). I know that it is up to me, and I like it, but I just wanted to provoke a discussion about a technically incorrect photograph and see what people said.
If I do get into the darkroom today I may run off a few different versions and share with you all.
Tom
Certainly a lot of mixed opinions here. There seems to be a clear divide between the people who feel 'the rules' should've been followed more closely, and those who don't (generally thosae who like it seem to fall into the latter, although my recently awoken brain may just be making that up). I know that it is up to me, and I like it, but I just wanted to provoke a discussion about a technically incorrect photograph and see what people said.
If I do get into the darkroom today I may run off a few different versions and share with you all.
Tom
Sparrow
Veteran
I don’t see that any “rules of composition” have been broken, the light/dark areas split 2/3 1/3, the descending line of foliage to the left of the figure and the ascending outline of the tree to the right frame the figure within the cerebral area of the picture and that holds the viewers' interest on the girl as the subject, it looks pretty conventional to me in terms of composition.
The subject’s expression and pose are a little quirky, and technically it’s a bit iffy but the composition fine.
The subject’s expression and pose are a little quirky, and technically it’s a bit iffy but the composition fine.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Photography seems a bizarre interest for someone indifferent to the viewers’ opinion of their work, from where do you derive any satisfaction, your own praise?St.Ephen said:
St.Ephen
Patronising Saint
Sparrow said:Photography seems a bizarre interest for someone indifferent to the viewers’ opinion of their work, from where do you derive any satisfaction, your own praise?
I take photographs for my own sake, certainly not for some anonymous internet bod to approve or disapprove. Are you telling us that you only take photos for other people??
Ask any decent musician/rock star, and they'll all say they make records for themselves, not for the masses. If they did, there'd be like a Dulux Paint chart where you could choose which kind of rockstar to be, as Robert Plant put it.
If certain photographers didn't break so called "rules", there wouldn't be the famous images that we take for granted.
EDIT: As to the original image, i personally don't like it. (No offence..). But that's not important. All that matters is that Tom likes it right??
Last edited: