*Alana (3974)

The background was a slope: does the out of level horizon bother

anyone? What about her sweater--is it too bunched up? Does her

visible tummy distract? Thanks.

Very nice work

Okay, it/she's sexy as hell. The demure look is killer. As is the wrap of her sweater and the little tease at the bottom. Ah, to be thirty years younger. :) Proof that soft light is not a barrier to a strong image.

Doug,

 

Nice skin tones, make-up, sharpness, lighting, composition, contrast -- all that stuff.

 

The slanted background doesn't bother me (fields do that). Her bunched-up sweater doesn't bother because of the cute way she is holding it. It looks like it should be bunched.

 

Her tummy does bother me (and not for just the obviously good reasons). Her bottom (whatever she is wearing down there?) does not come together in the photograph. You have cropped above where the sides meet. This causes the viewer's eyes to follow the sides down to... oops... down and out of the picture. They should have a place to stop before leaving the photograph. And, of course, you have your logo across her tummy. I am sorry, I know you think you have to have your name over half the picture, but I personally find it annoying and very rude to the subject.

 

I would like to see catch lights in her eyes. For some reason I don't mind the subject facing straight on to the camera. I know if she was turned a bit she would appear thinner, more graceful and more feminine - but I don't care. This works for me. It must be her infectious smile. I makes me want to run up to her and hug her. She is just too cute.

 

Nice shot,

 

Mark

Doug, her belly-button seems to have herniated.

 

 

Oh, no, I see: it is only your logo.

 

 

This is a beautiful shot, in my opinion.

 

 

--Lannie

Les, you say "Proof that soft light is not a barrier to a strong image."

 

that's a very interesting statement. I've long believed that bright sunny days are photographically over rated, at least for the type of work I've wanted to do. Soft light, either open shade of light overcast, is a joy to shoot in. I guess the real story is that different light works well for different subjects. Architecture, for instance, doesn't come out so good unless there's strong, clear light on it.

 

I agree with the thirty yeas younger, though. What a fantasy that is, huh? To go back to you youthful body with all your aged wisdom?

Mark, There was a tiny bit more room at the bottom, maybe another inch of fabric, but I felt it created too much interest at the edge of the photo to have that patch of skin surrounded (framed) by her clothing. I probably should have cropped even tighter, up to her elbows, eliminating the whole tummy issue altogether.

 

You know, I just thought of something. When I'm editing, I tend to look at the whole image, and feel as if I'm throwing away part of the image if I sense a need to crop. So, I resist cropping and, perhaps in this case, end up not going far enough.

 

What would happen if I started out just looking at whatever my intended center of attention is, and opening the crop a little more until I get what I want? If I go do far (add too much), then I can feel better (psychologically) about not including that extra bit. When I start full frame and then crop in, I am "cutting off" or 'trimming" instead of adding, or enhancing.

 

This is sort of like the butcher's strategy that I remember hearing about long ago. If the customer orders two pounds of sliced meat, the butcher cuts what he thinks is less than two pounds, and then adds more to make up the difference, rather than cutting too much and taking away. The customer, thanks to the way our brains work, doesn't feel like he's getting less because additional meat is added to make up the difference, rather than taken away.

 

A simple analogy, but one that might work for me.

 

re: the logo: I was browsing through the photonet gallery the other day and saw several other images with logos plastered on them. I felt the same way you do. In some ways it ruins the photo. It's definitely distracting, but considering the ease at which images can be appropriated from one site and added to another, it was something I could understand.

 

I was working on an image one night and my daughter, then about 12 or 13, stopped in astonishment at the image on the screen. She couldn't believe it was my photo because she had seen it countless times on Flicker where other members had placed it, without credit, on their own pages. And this particular picture was only on photonet, so I know that's where they got it. I know I can't stop this kind of behavior, particularly from the younger population, but at least I can make it more apparent whose photo it is.

 

And, I forgot the highlight the catch lights in her eyes! Thanks for reminding me.

 

Thanks Mark.

and thanks to you, too, Lannie.

I actually like the sweater effect, since it looks like she is trying to stay warm. I didn't even think about the horizon.

 

I assume that the sweater was put over her bathing suit after your last shot of her sitting on the pier.

 

--Lannie

Lannie, it was more like the sweater was taken off before each shot, rather than put on after, because it was far too cold for swimsuits (55F/13C). All morning I was watching the weather and expected to be rained, or chilled out, but she came anyway, and it didn't rain, so we shot it up. Part of any perceived tenseness in the previous photo might have been due to the temperature.

this is probably a better crop

The exposed skin is great if that was the intention of the shot. It is a seductive way of being sexy with out looking trampy. I like the shot. I do not care for the slope cutting through her head. But that is being persnickety. Thanks