okay, thanks! So Cameron 2012 would work or no title at all even... I'm thinking of a series of images of my boys - would I title the series and not necessarily each image? Thanks for the advice- I'm learning.
okay, thanks! So Cameron 2012 would work or no title at all even... I'm thinking of a series of images of my boys - would I title the series and not necessarily each image? Thanks for the advice- I'm learning.
Jessica,
Please don't get the impression I think of myself as any kind of authority or expert -- I'm simply voicing my personal opinions, and you should feel absolutely secure in ignoring me completely. What the hell do I know?
My view of protecting web images is controversial, to say the least, and certainly not shared by many others. My view is that online images are generally low quality (low resolution) and not really competitive with an actual print, or any commercial usage other than web based. If someone wants to go to the trouble of disseminating one of my images, I have no real problem with that, but that's just me, and I respect opinions to the contrary, even if I find the arguments for them unpersuasive. And besides, if someone is willing to appropriate an image, they're probably equally willing to remove a signature, right? So, the negative impact on the image the signature represents is not balanced by any meaningful protection of the image, and so the signature can only be seen as self promotion, and that tends to decrease my appreciation of it.
Titles and captions are a sore point for me. I see so many really nice images cheapened by cutesy, pretentious, or generally depreciating and cringe-worthy titles that add nothing to the viewing experience. If a title must be included (and when is that the case?), I find simple, descriptive titles, like -- Des Moines, 2012, or slightly less preferrably, Boy with Found Antlers, etc., least intrusive. These kinds of descriptive titles serve a purpose in cataloging and identifying works with a minimum of distraction from the image. If you think a title will add value to an image, I urge you think very long and carefully about how and why you think this is true.
Again, all of the above are only the personal opinions of a non-expert, so don't give them undue consideration. I mean no disrespect, but just the opposite, and I hope you take my comments in the spirit they are intended. I like your image very much!
Thank you! more for me to think on for sure! Thanks for all the information and your thoughts - I appreciate it.
Very nice, Luke. Well done.
Excellent portrait, Luke. I like how the subject's face is turned slightly towards the light yet making contact with the viewer. The curl in the collar is also nicely supportive. I think I'd crop the shoulders out to strengthen the collar, but the polaroid edges are hard to give up...Originally Posted by Luke79
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
Hey, Scott! I've been wondering when you'd show up again.
Beautiful portrait of your son, as always.
I'd love to share some photos of my daughter here, but they're in MF; she moves too fast, which forced me to buy a Mamiya 645 with autofocus.
My first LF portrait. Feel free to criticize and/or advise
Guapissima Olga by L'Eidolon, on Flickr
Chamonix 45 and Caltar 210mm. Ilford fp4+
Bonjour, Arnaud
Please take my comments as the opinions of a non-expert, and nothing more. I like the sharpness, and the depth of field seems to be just right, to my eye. Your portrait appears competently executed, but to my taste, a little thin, flat, and cold. Something is missing from the skin tones, like I sometimes see in digital conversions, and the pose is a little stiff -- she almost appears to be holding her breath. It looks like it could be the first image from a shoot that could have become productive, when the model and photographer loosened up a bit. LF portraiture is challenging, to an extreme, but you're off to a great start, and I look forward to seeing more from you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks