View Full Version : Request for critique (or a simple poll about a specific image)
arkady n.
8-Oct-2007, 07:59
I hope that it is ok to ask for critique of specific images. Moderators, please let me know, I would like not to violate any rules of the forum...
I would appreciate any thoughts you have about this image and/or a simple click on the poll buttons.
http://www.nemerovsky.com/me/photos/4x5/2007_07_13_VI_fr03.jpg
arkady n.
8-Oct-2007, 10:23
This was taken with Kodak Ektar 202mm on Graphic View 4x5
Not sure what kind of critique you are looking for. Technical? Compsition? Aesthetics? Does the pic depict what it was meant to?
IMO, focus and OOF balance is kinda cool. Clarity of detail is good. Tonal balance is acceptable levels.
What is the picture about? There is nothing that ties the picture to anything. To me, it appears as a snapshot, meaningful only to the person taking it, and the person in the pic. Was he hit by a truck? Fall off a bicycle? Bad rugby matchup?
Trying to critique as opposed to criticize helps if you know what it is you are looking at.
What with and where was it shot? Is this 35mm, or 11X14?
Details, please.
Brian Ellis
8-Oct-2007, 11:28
How did you get to photograph Tiger Woods' older brother? : - )
I'm not a portrait guy but it looks good to me and I would have been proud to have made the photograph. If I were making it after having seen yours I think I think I would have removed the necklace chain. The chain is the brightest thing in the photograph and the first thing my eye went to. I'm not sure about the head placement, partly because I can't see the entire photograph at once on my monitor, but I might have framed it so that his eyes were a little closer to the top (i.e. a little less background above his head). But I don't know, these are things someone more experienced with portraits than I am can talk about better than I can, I thought it was a very effective and interesting portrait.
I'm not a portrait guy either--- one reason is that it's outside my comfort zone.
i voted that i'd be happy to take such a picture. not so much because i think it's a "good" picture, whatever that means--i like the picture, but i'm increasingly wary of things that automatically look like "good shots."
i'd be happy to have taken it because it represents a kind of open, human rapport between the artist and the subject ... a connection that's more of a challenge (or at least a more interesting challenge) than the purely photographic ones.
one day i'd like to take on a portrait project.
I'm a wedding/portrait photographer by profession so please excuse my opinion.
The photo has too much empty space above the head that doesn't serve any useful purpose. The lighting is bad, needs fill flash and has no separation from the background (far too flat). As a portrait the shoulders are slumped, the pose too flat on. It is not off center enough for that to be part of the composition or on center enough to work. As an enviromental portrait the picture tells me nothing about the context.
Sorry.
The photo has too much empty space above the head that doesn't serve any useful purpose. The lighting is bad, needs fill flash and has no separation from the background (far too flat). As a portrait the shoulders are slumped, the pose too flat on. It is not off center enough for that to be part of the composition or on center enough to work. As an enviromental portrait the picture tells me nothing about the context.
this is why i'm increasingly uninterested in "good shots."
it's always a cover for saying an image complies with a bunch of rigid, predetermined standards. in other words, it means that it looks like a lot of stuff you're used to looking at and liked, so it must be good.
trouble is, there are so many "good shots" that are empty and pointless, and so many great works of art that specifically fail at complying with old and hardened standards.
when someone tells my one of my pieces is "good," 9 out of 10 times they're giving it the thumbs up as a successful cliche; they're not looking at what the work actually shows them; what it points to; how well it says what it says.
I'm a wedding/portrait photographer by profession so please excuse my opinion.
The photo has too much empty space above the head that doesn't serve any useful purpose. The lighting is bad, needs fill flash and has no separation from the background (far too flat). As a portrait the shoulders are slumped, the pose too flat on. It is not off center enough for that to be part of the composition or on center enough to work. As an enviromental portrait the picture tells me nothing about the context.
Sorry.
Just remember.... You ask. So... try to seperate the critiques from the criticisms. (even a cow has enough sense to chew up and swallow the hay, and spit out the sticks :rolleyes: )
Concur with Ben. Mostly. The general stance of the individual fits with the overall appearance. Slump shoulders and all. Not sure about fill-flash. IMO it would detract from the "agonized" look in his face. At second look, with the railings in back and the type clothing, he looks like a jockey thtat just got tossed over the rail. :eek: . Comments in my earlier reply still hold, but to go a little further. Even in a "casual" "for me only" shot, I still have the "rule of thirds" stuck in my head. As Ben stated, lose about half the empty space above the head. Move the subject left and up to do so. Don't crop at the joints. Put his elbows and left arm back in the pic.
Frank Petronio
8-Oct-2007, 13:17
It needs something... it is just kind of boring unless you know the guy.
arkady n.
8-Oct-2007, 13:22
Thank you all for your responses. Several of you mentioned the awkward cropping. Would something like this work better?
http://www.nemerovsky.com/arkady/photos/4x5/2007_07_13_VI_fr03_crop1.jpg
domenico Foschi
8-Oct-2007, 13:40
In my opinion, the strengths of this portrait are tonalities and lighting.
The highlights, might need just a bit more work, I would print them a little lighter to create a tension with the shadows and midtones to support the mood you are trying to convey.
I agree that the subject is a tad stiff, or maybe uncomfortable.
Or it could be that you were a bit uncomfortable thus not being able to capture yourself and him in the picture.
You probably need to get acquainted in shooting portraits with LF, which can be a blessing but it require total confidence with the camera at the point you forget you are using it, so that you can concentrate on the subject and yourself.
I love the background and its tonalities, but as it has been mentioned, there is too much on top of the head
Scott Rosenberg
8-Oct-2007, 14:23
i am not a portrait guy, but had i been taking this image, i might have gone for something like this...
Daniel_Buck
8-Oct-2007, 14:54
I like your 2nd crop much better, it loose some of the dead space, and takes his head a bit farther out of center frame.
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/portrait.jpg
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/portrait2.jpg
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/portrait3.jpg
While you guys are at it, why don't you 'Shop some catchlights into his eyes...
vaughn
Well I think it is a decent portrait and certainly an avenue I'd continue down if I were you. The original crop is best in my opinion. Perhaps a little off the top and left, but keep the image proportional to the format's dimensions. The background is a little too blocked up so just lighten it up. The contrast seems decent to me. I'd rather an image not too contrasty. I hope this helps. Keep it up man.
Jordan
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/portrait4.jpg
Scott Rosenberg
8-Oct-2007, 15:56
wow ken... how'd you do that last one? looks great!
Bill_1856
8-Oct-2007, 16:16
It's just a picture of a face, not the portrait of a man.
I did a number of things, but I was just improvising - so I don't have any record of it.
I cropped, and straightened the image with respect to vertical. I removed the light area next to the model's left ear. I adjusted the contrast and brightness, and changed the color scheme in 2 different parts of the tonal range, sort of a split toning effect. I added a duplicate layer, applied some Gaussian Blur to it, and selected Lighten as the layer style. I used the sharpening brush to sharpen some of the areas on the face and neck. I also adjusted the saturation, and did some burning-in here and there. I can't remember the rest.
Since I haven't met the subject, and I wasn't there when the photo was taken, I have no preconception about how the image should feel. Given the starting point of the posted image file, I have tried to suggest, without words, some of the countless aesthetic variations that are possible, while keeping within the realm of standard photographic adjustments.
Scott Rosenberg
8-Oct-2007, 16:32
...I added a duplicate layer, applied some Gaussian Blur to it, and selected Lighten as the layer style...
that sounds about right... nice work!
jenn wilson
8-Oct-2007, 17:24
correct me if i'm wrong, but this does not appear to be intended as a standard sort of portrait. instead of trying to soften him up, go with the lost, forlorn expression on his face. allow his apparent mental state be the context for the textures, crop, etc. work with the dark circles. if you've got a frame where the subject is surrounded by loads of negative space, take second look at it. try various crops again, but keeping him smaller within the frame. works with the sadness. (just one request, though. pretty please don't center him in the frame.)
Turner Reich
8-Oct-2007, 18:48
The eyes are void of information and it looks plastic and stiff.
Ken, I think you made it more generic and less interesting!
Sheldon N
8-Oct-2007, 19:43
More photoshop fun....
More photoshop fun....
Ouch! I was kidding about adding catchlights (but not about the need of them)! I hope the original poster has a sense of humor!
Vaughn
Bill_1856
9-Oct-2007, 05:57
How about adding a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, (James Dean style)?
arkady n.
9-Oct-2007, 08:24
Thank you all for your responses!
I think Domenico Foschi got it right : the sitter was not comfortable in front of my camera, and I did not know how to allay his fears, so I just hurried through the shoot. Discussions on this forum often revolve about technical issues of photography, perhaps we should have a discussion on how to interact with people who we are photographing, especially if they are not comfortable.
As a side point, I think it is very interesting that out of the responders to the survey, nine people said that they would be unhappy if they took such photo, but eight people said that they would be happy if someone took such photo of them.
Thank you again for all of your responses.
domenico Foschi
9-Oct-2007, 10:15
I think that is fine to disregard the rules, when it feels right.
Subject in the center and lobotomy Hannibal Lechter style. :)
http://i22.tinypic.com/11izdpc.jpg
here is yet another way to express this portrait
Andrew O'Neill
9-Oct-2007, 20:59
It's actually quite nice but I would have voted more positively if:
1. It was slightly more high key...that's a personal thing with me.
2. There wasn't that distracting, slightly angled white line in the background.
Other than that, good job for LF portraiture...and this is coming from someone who doesn't do portraiture!
Andrew O'Neill
9-Oct-2007, 21:01
jetcode, I don't think the all black back ground works well. The original back ground with out that distracting diagonal line would have been okay...and too centred.
jetcode
10-Oct-2007, 07:19
I don't think the all black back ground works well...and too centred.
lots of ways to print and experience a photograph - what doesn't work for you works for others - had I left my eye to my teachers guidance I would have become yet another clone - as it stands I expressed this image to my liking - how you perceive it is immaterial to me
arkady n.
16-Oct-2007, 10:54
This was taken with Kodak Ektar 202mm on Graphic View 4x5
I just realized that I made a mistake, this was a Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7 lens
Asher Kelman
16-Oct-2007, 23:37
I felt that the face needed to be better defined.
So I changed the emphasis to his upper face and away from the periphery of the image. The bar behind, normally distracting now provides a base from which he is confronting us.
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/ARKADY_N/2007_07_13_VI_fr03_AK.jpg
© 2007 Arkady Photograph
Not that this is anywhere in the same class of work, but the confrontational non-empathetic pose now reminds of me an exibition running in the Ace Gallery in Beverly Hills of Martin Schoeller's work. The ones I saw include these here (http://www.stern.de/unterhaltung/fot...4392.html&cp=1) but also a lot of additional far less polished, very rough non-sympathetic images.
This is of course not what you had in mind, Arkady, but what your photograph made me think of and which I try to express, before I saw the exhibition.
Asher
BTW, If the original film or RAW file was available, this image could be rendered well. I'd show the various images to the guys friens and see if any of them relate to how they see this guy!
Asher Kelman
17-Oct-2007, 11:17
What was the aperture of Ektar?
Asher
arkady n.
17-Oct-2007, 11:31
What was the aperture of Ektar?
I did not record, but I am pretty sure it was wide open at f7.7
Peter Galuszewski
28-Nov-2007, 14:35
This looks to me like more of a photojournalistic capture than a posed portrait - which is great, but lacking the help of a photo essay or additional content in the photo it lacks context. I have to admit, when I read that this was a posed shot, it took away from my regard for it - not because I have anything against posed, studio or otherwise portraits, its just that I would use a completely different set of rules to judge one than a street or photo j type capture.
All those things aside, and I know that this is largely a matter of taste (not to mention the ability of a monitor to castrate just about any photo, even if it is properly calibrated, which this one probably is not), but I prefer skin tones to be a little higher key, and I prefer more contrast. Frankly, I think I prefer an amount of contrast that borders on incorrect or overboard, but such is my taste:)
Still, its hard to say if I would be happy or unhappy with this shot had I made it - I am still so new to LF that getting a good neg is still an achievement, but taking format out of the equation, no, it would probably not be in my portfolio.
hi arkady
for someone who is not used to taking portraits with a large format camera
of people who are nervous infront of the camera, it worked out nice.
"traditionally" less room above the head, more brightness in the "key" light
less-busy background, maybe more contrast ...
but sometimes rules are a good framework and sometimes best broken.
when i did newspaper work i had to photograph people who hated being infront of
a camera. one thing i learned to do was set the camera up on the tripod,
focus (more or less ) and small talk with them,
away from the camera so they forgot it was there ..
and then when they were relaxed enough i made the photographs.
it takes practice, but once you get the hang of it, you figure out how to blab
while you are getting the camera set-up that even though they are nervous
that you are photographing them, they are relaxed enough to let their guard down.
sometimes opening the reflector and having it smack you in the face,
or making a fool out of yourself works well to break the ice as well ;)
not sure if this made any sense ..
john
SAShruby
28-Nov-2007, 20:35
I believe majority spoke the reasons why I'd be unhapy with this shot. Meaning original picture. There is one excellent compositional picture made by Scott, it gives way better feel. Tonality and softness is also questionable.
It is my personal opinion.Please don't take it personally.
Lucas M
28-Nov-2007, 22:36
I'd be happy to have this photo taken of me. For one, I can't smile good at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.