FLOWING WITH WIND AND RIVER

First the composition is not very pleasing to the eye. The girl really isn't in that great of a pose, and with the lines in the photo being skewed, it really isn't something that I would say wow, I need to keep that one. When shooting someone from behind, there needs to be obvious emotion in their pose, there isn't any of that here. Keep working on it. You'll keep getting better.

Hello Jenny and thank you for looking at the photograph and for your comments on it. Let me explain. I'm not new to photography, rather I consider myself a seasoned veteran. I know far to well what tilted or skewed is. However, IMHO this is what I see in the picture I took. 1) I was standing on a slanted landscape, and by taking the picture "leveled" to the vertical, I conveyed how steep the inclination is. 2) No one was "posing" for me. Maybe for someone else, and I took the photo with all intention without the face of the involuntary model, so as to allow the viewer to immerse him/herself in what was happening. 3) One needs to see neither the pose nor expression when you have such a spontaneous expression of freedom and joy. 4) You appear to have missed the intention altogether, and possibly did not read the title. For me, it was a clear image of the "flow" in the same direction of so many elements, with a feminine figure enhancing the overall environment, the equilibrium for standing on a pole in a slanted plane, letting her body and dress be swept away by the chilly wind, blowing in the same direction of the river. Finally, I did not take the photo to please anyone's eye. Rather, as an example of a true and veritable snap of a moment in time. It is for the advanced photographers that can catch the subtleness and uniqueness of this a moment like this. How often do you see a semi-naked feminine figure, like a statue in a royal garden, feeling the chilly air that should be apparent from the colors of the foliage? It appears you too have much to work on when "analyzing" what the image is trying to convey, rather than just shallowly looking at it, trying to find some technical flaw. The technical flaws, like on​ this occasion, are an integral part of an artistic image. If you continue studying good worth-while photographers in PN (or elsewhere), you will probably also get better in actually "seeing", "observing", "interpreting" and "analyzing". DG

Daniel, I want you to compare this shot with this one that is a more professional photograph. Look beyond the part of you that wants to defend the shot, and take it higher. https://www.trevillion.com/stock-photo-woman-with-flowing-gown-on-mountain-top-creative-image00245116.html

Daniel, I don't know how I missed this one - perhaps a momentary lapse that lasted several days. Quite honestly, the exchange between you and Jenny was educational for me. Clearly, when a photographer goes out to a location like this with a model, he/she can pose the model in such a way as to serve his/her intent. Although, at least theoretically, you could have asked the woman in this scene if she might consider posing as you directed her, you implicitly chose not to do so. I'm guessing that your wanted the resulting image which we see here to have a natural, organic feel. That's how I view it, especially given the spectacular natural background. - - My best always, mhl

Jenny, I looked at the image you mentioned to Daniel, The only salient difference I see between it and Daniel's is that the subject is fanning her dress, probably at the photographer's direction so that it would be at least close to the same angle as her hair. When you stated that this is "a more professional photograph," you simply are begging a serious question. Please understand that Daniel already spoke for himself; even though I follow his work, I do not need to defend him at all.

Okay first of all, if you guys don’t want honest critiques on your work, then why are you submitting them for critique? You don’t have to be the best photographer on the site to be able to give honest and humble comments on an image. If you merely want your egos stroked then this isn’t the forum for that. I’m not gonna try to defend my comments or my approach to critiquing an image. You are more than welcome to stay at your level of photography or you can choose to use the comments to improve your craft. Honestly I don’t know you and could care less which approach you choose.

Jenny, one of the purposes of the Critique Forum is to prompt discussion. I thought that's what were doing here. I truly do appreciate honest critiques. If one of my photos stinks and a critiquer softsoaps his or her comments, I don't learn anything at all from them.. I feel duty bound to point out that harsh critiques can be provided in a constructive way. To repeat a comment I made previously, stating that this is "a more professional photograph," which involves a basic logical mistake, doesn't help at all. OK, I'm done.

Thank you sincerely, Michael, to mediate or buffer this issue, which to me is water under the bridge. Don' waste your time. THIS is how I WANTED TO SHOW IT!

 

Totally aside, And with all due respect, kindly share with me your thoughts on what you meant in your response "basic logical mistake". What is the logical mistake here? Or rather: a) logical and b) mistake. I don't deny there may be, open to observations and critiques. I don't defend my image, as long as the comments are at least a bit deeper with more knowledgeable of Photography.

 

Thanks again for intervening, but please, let it go. We have more productive things to do. Kind regards. DG

DG, in an earlier response, I mentioned to Jenny that her suggestion for you to look at an image she recommended involved begging the question. She never explained why allegedly that image was superior to yours. She simply assumed what she was attempting to prove. Sorry that I carried on for so long with her, but I felt strongly that she should explain her "suggestions" to you.

I apologize, I didn't understand what you were trying to get me to do. The differences between the images are both the foreground and the background and the attention to detail. First the location that was chosen for the background. The trees in your image have great color, but that's about the end of the interest. You have a lot of the wall in the picture, but it doesn't really add to the beauty of the shot. The water in the picture again, is a very highlighted area which draws the eye to it, but it's not what I think you really want people to look at. The composition is too much surrounding, and not enough of the main subject which should be your model. Photographers have a saying, if it bends, bend it. That is quite a lot already. I could go on, but hopefully you will run with that information, and I for one would love to see you do another shot like this using the information and post it with the comments. Just so you know. I wouldn't have given you a critique on the image if I didn't think you had the potential to improve on it.