DSC_4830x

I need help with critiquing this guys. I love it, but it got a low rating and

wanted to get some feedback on what I needed to correct. Please Please

be honest and you don't even need to be constructive..

I like the basic composition and use of DOF ... but the lighting on the face seems to emphasize the cheeks and nose and hands ... and not the critical eyes ... the lighting on the hair near the eyes also doesn't help ... maybe some selective development?  Thanks for sharing with the PN community

No shortcomings here, six!

Best regards

PDE

I like the dynamics of the background. It's lively and colorful. Her pose and expression are the opposite, staid and a bit forced. Her hands don't feel like they are genuinely meant to be where they are. She's not fully touching her cheeks, as if posed for the camera only. The light and focus do both center on the end of her nose and, though I never mind softly-focused eyes, they need somehow to reach out a bit more toward the viewer. The lighting on her feels a bit flat, again especially compared to what's going on behind her. The division of the frame is also a bit static, her hood taking up a bit more than half the frame and the other half occupying the background. I find it a little more dynamic when a bit is cropped off from the left side, just a bit into the flower. It draws me to her face more and provides a bit of energy. I'm also not sure I would have used quite so narrow a depth of field, allowing the background to more slowly recede and make her a bit more part of it than so separated from it. I think it needs a bit more personality which would probably help its reception from others. Don't worry too much about ratings as the best of photos often get low ratings here. As you browse through the top-rated photos you'll notice what's popular is within a very narrow range of expression, heavily sharpened black and white old people, super saturated landscapes, thin nude women in black and white, perhaps with heels on. Stay true to yourself and think mostly about the character of your portraits.

THIS ONE of Sarah and Jake is quite nice, because of your perspective and the way the camera helps create a strong dynamic between the two of them. This is gestural, in that you've gestured with your camera to influence their relationship. In the current portrait we're discussing, you've remained much more neutral and out of the picture and the picture itself is not speaking loudly enough.

THIS SWIMMER SHOT is also nice because of the relationship between subject and background and also because of your perspective and the environment you've been able to convey. The way the hands grip the bar is real and offers energy. It doesn't seem posed (even if it is to whatever extent). Using the strong foreground hardware as an intro to the photo has a boldness to it that matches the grip of the hands and the determination of a swim match. It organically all hangs together. The whole shot feels very authentic.

I don't rate but what catches my attention is the slightly washed out subject, almost like light flare.  Perhaps some selective contrast and burning on just the young lady would make it snap (especially the eyes)... Mike

Many ratings on PN are given by the same group of photographers in the few hours after the image has been uploaded. Among them, some are talented or even very talented, and they somehow rate others' photos properly compared to their work. Some others are anything but talented (although they think they are if you read their biography) and are probably frustrated by the ratings they receive, so they depreciated others' work. At least it's my perception.

I'm always surprized to discover s.o. on PN who gave average ratings around 3 or 3.5. Maybe these persons decided to rate only the photos they don't like... which would be a strange approach. Maybe they belong to the 2nd category described above. Or maybe they consider that the majority of images posted on PN should by definition be rated as average (4). So there should be also many 5... and 3. Average rating here would be different than the average mark at school (where most students get marks above average).

I'm quite sure that some award-winning famous photographers would get mostly low ratings if they posted their images on PN. Many raters here want clean, sharp, colorful, glossy photos (add a nude woman and ratings may increase fantastically). I have nothing against that... My photos probably meet these criteria. But there's less room for other styles sometimes.

Personally I always ask for ratings. I find it helpful to identify the good images. But I try to avoid paying too much attention to low ratings. For a recent (amateur) exhibition about Iceland I mostly chose images rated >5 or >5.5, but also a few photos with clearly lower ratings... simply because I loved them.

Concerning your photo: I like the composition, exposition and global tones (cross-processing?). Cute model, and the background brings well the Christmas mood. In my opinion there's a lack of sharpness on the eyes, and they are a bit too dark. My attention tends to be caught by brighter or sharper parts (hair, white hood, center of the flower, fairy lights in the background). I'm a bit puzzled by the model's facial expression which I can't really define. Just my humble opinion... This is the kind of photos I usually rate with a 5 or a 6 because despite its flaws, it is above "average" in my opinion.

Take care, and keep posting in 2016 ;)

Alain

This is a lovely image, do not be discouraged by the ratings. I looked at your raters and immediately laughed, Michael Lipakis is not to be taken seriously, he rates everything low,  I think he is bitter and envious and rates hundreds daily, he especially is not to be taken seriously, you have maybe one or 2 in the bunch that might be worth listening to, but without comment the ratings are meaningless.

Yes there is always room for improvement, no image is perfect!  

Cheers and Happy Shooting from the 'Phantom".