Untitled

A portrait with simple house lighting

'simple house lighting'

 

sorry but it looks like it. too harsh blown highlights. you could pick up some cheap floods bounce the off the wall, or use a shower curtain as a diffuser. if you want to impove get a book on lighting. not a bad first try keep at it.

Unfortunately the series is about their environment not bringing in soft boxes, strobs, snoots, scrims, reflectors etc. I personally like the higher key effect of this piece which actually looks interesting in the Tif image at 3000 pixels on Archival 230 wieght matt paper. But thanks for your advise and comments. Regards Randall

Really appealing elegant pose. Here the overexposed areas are also to me a little bit distracting.

This photo is overexposed, for head, cheeks, nose, and it ruins it for me IMO.

It is our artistic license which gives us the freedom to present how we wish. it is also our right to share constructive opinions with others. Everything is subjective in terms of content and style. Here is a rendition possibly more understood and acceptable for those who construct their work through the guidance of books.

I do agree with Paul about the freedom of style, it helps not to have standardize works. I also do agree with Paul about the right of sharing constructive opinions.

This community suffers of lack of innovation, the most popular pictures are often so similar and standardized that I cannot remember them 3 minutes after having seen them.

But saying that people construct their work through the guidance of books just because they don't like this picture is arrogant. It's like saying: "it's a matter of taste my dear, your taste is wrong". Not all new works/styles/techiniques are good by definition but a good innovative work is more appreciated by me than a good standard work. So keep on experimenting :)

If you post it too, i`ll vote it about 6/6 - it`s really nice to look at.

Hi Richard I suppose it is a choice. But again the effect here on the web doesn't quite cut it as opposed to the print. Which shows much more detail. It was shot in RAW then converted to Jpeg so I get allot more clipping for the web version. I worked in Italy for around a year and a half and I suppose I was indoctrinated into less conventional styles of imagery. By the way I looked at your work and you have some great pieces. I am from Oregon living in New Zealand now for a while. May be returning in March after being away since 1972. Regards Randall

I stand by my comments that the blown highlights don't add to the concept you laid out and makes it look amateurish. I suspect most other professional photographers would agree with me. I hold no animosity towards you and respect your right to do whatever you want but your reaction reminds me of what I used to hear in during a college critique. It's an artificial reason that is being used to explain an unsuccessful technique. I.E. saying it was done on purpose doesn't change whether it works or not on a visual level. Doing something in the face of conventions to set you apart is the worst of all reasons. It's not an awful picture and I think the idea of the series is an interesting one unfortunately the blown highlights don't work. This is a critique after all not a pat you on the back party.

Peter when you demonstrate work to back up your critique I will listen. But for now I will do what I want, how I want, when I want and continue to diversify and apply my expressions. Unfortunately here on Photo.net you have only demonstrated amateurish critique and loose emulative blow from some sort of books you have read. I do not consider you a professional to any extent all and I laugh that you even consider yourself or liken yourself to that league. I do not apologise for what I demonstrate digitally here as I rarely put film work on the web. Also I have fun here contributing here bad or good and I do know the difference but what the heck! I look at works of Justin Grant, John Peri. M.H and a host of others for serious critique. I suggest you visit their work...you may learn something. Sorry for this arrogant retort to the others as this is not my nature but Peter you are a sham and I suggest you give others the respect they deserve. Your critiques are constantly negative in a blowhard manner and your ratings are the lowest I have seen. You are not a constructive individual nor a valid member here. Get with the spirit here or leave. regards to all and apologies for my rant. RP

Sorry you feel that way. Yes my critiques are to the point and aren't sugar coated. I noticed instead of addressing my criticism you're trying to make this about me. You're too invested to your work to keep an open mind and accept any criticsm. Strange that you requested a critique, I'll be sure not to comment on your work again. Pity you're so angry and full of yourself.

 

edit: Ha I just looked at your portfolio, now I see whats behind your reaction. You wanted me to give preferential treatment based on your status as fashion photography. Shame on me for judging the photo solely on its own merits.

RANDALL, GREAT SHOT, I LOVE THE WONDERFUL TONE.