Balance in confinement

Hi Scott,
As noted by few people, the blank space behind the subject does not quite work for me. In your effort to post process, you have overlooked the fact that the shadow behind the model's legs is thinning out and merges into the corners. With the light source from the opposite direction, it should have been the contrary. Also, a small dark patch separates the two light spaces behind the model. Although this gives a sense of depth, this is a give away of post processing. Perhaps a tighter crop would have accomplished what you wanted to convey. Overall, well conceived and executed. Murali

What I didn't mention before were the positive points: I think the light, color, expression, pose, and shape are all beautiful...stunning. In terms of technical quality, I don't think this could be better, and I never would have noticed the smudging in the lower-left if it weren't pointed out to me. This is an excellent image.

I like it except I think she's on the wrong side of the frame. It would give a much more comfortable feel if she were at left & the empty space in front of her. Presently she appears crowded with a great deal of free empty space behind her.
I like the effect of standing on her toes, the pose & lighting. Good choice

I think the compositon works for several reasons:

a) fresh and does not follow "the rules";
b) in not following "the rules" you add uniqueness and tension;
c) if she were to fall over it seems likely that she would fall backwards into the void as it were so forward is not necessarily the direction of implied motion; and
d) the extra negative space to the left gives more attention to the lighting on the face.

I wouldn't change the composition and despite the foregoing comment I do agree that a more peaceful way of viewing it is that she could float there forever and in support of that interpretation I might be inclined to go more high key overall.

Great photograph -cheers, Terrance

It is not the space behind the subject which bother me but the space infront of the subject.
I beleive there should have been more space in the front and less much space in the back of the dancer to balance the image composition, where is the rule of third ?

Scott, you violate every rule of composition and for some this is a good thing. Not so for me. My high school art teacher drilled into us the fact that a person or object should not lead out of the picture, but rather move into the picture. After viewing your photograph of this interesting egg shapped girl I couldn't have agreed with her more.

If it were possible I would give the girl a 180 degree turn from where she is keeping her toes where there are. This would give me the view of how this photograph should have been made. The lighting seems good and the thought behind the photograph seem correct. I just cannot look at this photo without thinking of a physical therapist who said to me, "Next week we'll work on posture." Somewhat indignant, I asked what is wrong with my posture and she answered with the phrase: "You don't have any."

I feel much the same about your composition in this image, you don't have any. . . . .

Willie the Cropper

Not only the model but light and shade are excellently balanced.

Would question the subject so far right, although the model's torso is in the middle. I suppose it's open for interpretation.

I would be very interested in the technical aspects. You used f28 stop? What was exposure time and lighting arrangement?

The point at which her eyes are focused should be within the frame.

This point, her head and the shadows behind her would constitute the balanced triangle.

I like it, Scott, but I, too, am a bit puzzled by the position of the figure in the frame. Since it has been offered to us in a sqare format, could you perhaps show us the original file downsized to 511 pixels wide so that we can see what cropping options you had--and thus perhaps help us to understand why you chose this one?

Thanks.

--Lannie

I am a bit torn on this image. When I first opened it up, I was taken back a bit by the composition as it doesn't really "fit", but as I have looked at it more it bothers me less. But first, some other comments.

For me, the image is really lit rather well. There are some little issues with the retouch that have been mentioned before, but the primary light and the fill work well together to give us a good range of tones and allows us to peer into the shadows. If there is a problem with the light for me, it would just be the loss of color at her knee. A long time issue with digital, this area just looks so plastic to me (a few other areas are on the verge of going this way as well) and it makes me wonder if some selective use of hue/saturation or even selective color might not be called for here--or some method to resurrect the humanity. The lighting is certainly not edgy in any way, but is very classic and possibly even predictable--but nicely done.

Now, as to composition, no it doesn't follow the rules--what rules? For me, I do think it is a bit too far to the right (maybe just a little bit), but I also think that the heads position makes it even more of an issue. Had she been looking down a bit more, focusing inside the frame, I think this crop might have worked a bit better. As it is, it just adds to the pull out of the frame. That kind of tension might work in some images, but definitely not here. I don't think her head position would have been an issue if she were back just a bit but the problem is exacerbated by this placement. But in the final analysis, cropping is in the purview of the creator. It either works for us or it doesn't--maybe even if we think it is a failure it can at least make us think.

As to the title, I think it is better to leave these things subtle and just more descriptive/objective. I think the image should be allowed to speak for itself and thus avoid discussions over the effectiveness of a title to what the image presents. We create images, right?

Let's lay off with the comments about cropping. I think Scott's had enough.

As to the title, you definitely go out on a limb by giving a title to an image. If you give a title, that becomes a large part of the meaning that people take from the image. No title, and each person will try to interpret whatever he wants.

I believe that the people who understand subjects such as composition and lighting will also understand why I question them (although of course they may not agree with me).

I think the lighting is poor. It works on her face but not on her neck, her knees or her legs. If the photographer is happy with it then that's fine, he has no need to please me, but I am entitled to feel that it could have been done much better.

Same with the composition, and other people have the same view or the opposite view to me.

 

I like breaking the rules and I like a clever crop however in this instance it just does not work for me. It seems to have been done out of an effort to be clever and serves no visual purpose. Sometimes awkward is ... well just awkward. The photo-shopped background blur is obvious and could use a bit more work. The entire image seems soft in terms of focus with nothing in the frame truly sharp, perhaps this is intentional, either way it detracts for me. Scott has a host of very well executed dance images in his portfolio which are a pleasure to view. This photo is way down my list of of choices of Scott's photos to be on this page.

Scott, I reread your comments and I agree with what you said about tension. I don't feel tension from the pose either, which is interesting to me. I'm sure some of it is from the calmness she shows, some from the softness, but I really feel like I should still feel tension from the pose alone. I like that it tricks me. Again, well done.

the lighting and the browns are lovely, but the photograph seem to hang on the balance she is able to achieve, that, and her apparent ease, especially in the motion of the hands, elevates the imagery to the cerebral.

Thanks everybody again for the interesting conversation about this picture. I know the elves do not always pick the best pictures on the site for POW. I am guessing this flawed image with its bad photoshop and questionable cropping, still has some impact and originality going for it. Gary, thanks for the updated critique. I was a little bummed that there was not much in the way of explanation in your first post. It seemed to be the exact opposite (counter?) from the comments that preceded yours. A lot of those are the sort of flickr love fest type comments which seems to be not very helpful if you are looking for a critique. -But, what they do say in between the lines is that picture did have impact on them. A cool, powerful thing when it happens. Fact is, you can do this with ten minutes, one light (my only studio light at the time) a $56 dollar roll of white seamless, with no forethought or planning (it does sound poorly executed when I put it that way) and still have an image that will move people. -Just not everyone. I have learned over the last 5 years or so that this medium is so subjective. People will surprise you when you show them what you think is your best work and they will say it doesn't work for them. My old school f8 flash on a bracket photography friends hate my wedding pictures. Most the brides seem to like them though. It took a while to figure this subjective thing out.
Anyways, I break a lot of rules and its hit or miss. I've never taken a photography course or an art course (I would like to take an intro to art sometime). I have a friend that will copy pages off my website and email them re-croped them so they fall into the thirds or the center or whatever he learned in school to be technically correct. It must be how my right brain works that I do shit backwards a lot? Like the the brides, only the schooled seem to notice. The basic rules are a great idea to get pleasing images, but I've found that after taking the safe images, try some things. Work it for a while if your subject is willing and patient, you'll get pictures that no one else is taking and people often like them. Just don't expect everyone to! These are my thoughts, sorry for the rambling....
-Scott

Scott,
You're right, I should have gone into detail about the things I am unhappy about, I tend to go into great detail when replying to beginner questions but tend to use shorthand when talking to people who I assume to understand lighting.
Subsequently, you said "The light just happens to be pointed toward her face, because thats what I do when I light most subjects in a portrait."
I didn't know that when I decided that there was room for a lot of improvement in the lighting, but your words do disappoint me, because IMO there is no right or wrong type of light, or position of light in a portrait, and therefore no normal position. Other people may think your lighting is great, they are entitled to their views.
To reiterate the point I made earlier, I was very happy to see that the Elves had chosen a picture that was real for once - not photoshopped to death - although I have absolutely no problem with good photoshop work that enhances a photo rather than just changing it, but disappointed that they had chosen this one, which I believe is far below the standard of some of your other dance shots. I suppose I should be glad that they chose a shot in which the lighting was actually created rather than just found or faked on the computer. That's just an opinion of course, presumably the Elves, whoever they may be, have expertise that I lack.

Dear Scott,

 

Pay no attention to what any of us say about this, and, please, continue listening to your own heart.

 

Thank you for sharing, this is perfection.

 

Regards,

 

Dug

Her egg - shape adds to the concept. I like the fact she has no shadow, only the spot where she touches the ground. I would give her some more space but that would not contribute to authors idea...Balance in confinement ..let her rise in the air.

Well, I guess most was said above in terms of crop, photoshop, etc.
Nevertheless, this is a nice effort and a very nice idea. Despite all said above, it still conveys a sense of precarious balance. Thus, even with all the flaws mentioned above, in my opinion this is a successful photo.
And yes, I also would have liked a different crop, but enough of that now ...

Very beautiful image. Great colour tones and excellent lighting. My only observation is to leave more space in front of the model and less behind her. Congrats.

My first reaction is not technical but sort of empathic with the painful discipline of ballet. As in"Ouch that must hurt." It does not have any flow, as ballet poses typicallly do and is somewhat discomforting at least to me. Confining in its location in the frame. Confining in the tightness of the arms around the knees and even the curve of the back. (Geneva Convention would not allow it :-).)

Love the composition and the lighting... your model's concentration is superb!
I liked the original, rather than the centred crop... initially when I looked the whole balance seemed to be off but then I realised that was the intention (I hope!)!
I think I'll need to try some balance shots with my next model!
How many did you take to get this one and did you do any in the classic ballet pose?

Gotta think this would be a great book cover!

Stu

So so. The pose is compelling and the composition is interesting; the execution isn't so great. I think the shadows could have been worked into something more dramatic and the biggets flaw, she doesn't look so sharp to me.

Rashed's configuration is much more appealing at least to me. It still has a floating in space unergonomic body position, but it is balanced and fits the frame. The color and lighting are now evident because one doesn't have to suspend judgment on the odd placement. Odd in a sense one must either like or not like. An off center position is sometimes very dynamic. In the original case it did not, as some have said, work. This is to say intent is important,yet receptance is the final story in the Photo of the Week. It has to be an improvement of vision project, and I think Rashed has done just that? What do you say, Scott? Can you dig the new composition of your original?