joseph_coalter

When I first saw this photo, I thought the composition was odd, being an open rebellion against the conventional. While I find his use of blank space to be daring and thought provoking, I would like to see a more conventional version (cropped the top and left side, retaining the square format, with emphasis on the lady and the window) for comparison.

I don't just don't feel the depth of emotion projected by some of our viewers comments. To me, this simply looks like an opportunity to catch a good sunset while driving by. Unlike some other images this photographer has uploaded which are presented in multiple compositions of the same subject, I don't see any other shots of this subject, which would indicate to me that this was the first shot taken, as later shots would have even darker and less effective. The darkened foreground would indicate to me that the photographer couldn't get set up in time to catch the light on the rocks. Such magic highlights (if they were ever there) on the foreground would have made the image more interesting. It's a very nice photo, which also looks good (maybe even better) cropped.

I thought I would like this photo better when cropped on each side, but after looking at the cropped version, each photo has it own strong points. This is a nice capture of a magic moment, but I think the "7" ratings are way too high.

Alexei, yea, send it in two versions, one un-cropped for the "squares", and one cropped for those of us who think the world is round.

Postcards sell because they are based on good photography, better than most people could hope to match. Do you crop your postcards into a square? The original photo is interesting, because it begs the viewer to figure out what is wrong. If the crop creates a better composition, but also produces a photo you find less interesting, then some of the earlier comments about this photo being nothing special may have merrit.

Go back and compare the original with the crop. In Worf's crop, the eye is drawn to the view down the avenue, and the fiqure and trees on the right become more dominant. That's good, because they are the better parts of the photo. In the original, the additional sky draws the eye up and away. The crop is better.

I like this photo for its composition , where the tree tops on the left divides the photo exactly on the diagonal. Such division rarely works, but in this case, the treeline on the right adds enough counterbalance. I am bothered by the inconsistent clarity, and the lack of interesting subject matter. The overall effect of forshortening and mild contrast is somewhat abstract, and adds to the photo's success. I promised Jeremy Stein I wouldn't rate any more photos, so I'll just comment.

I am compelled to critique two photos so far tonight and both are yours. In comparison to your B&W Carter, this image, while very pleasing, lacks the snap of the Carter piece. I think you would benefit by adding some highlights to the wolf's face (left side of frame)to match the dancer's facial highlights, and perhaps you could add some highlights to the left collar also. As is, my eyes retain transfixed on the dancers eyes, and I don't get the benefit of my eye wandering across the wonderful wolfs head which should be an important part of this image. Also, you have "framed" the subject with abrupt dark area which could benefit from a little more gradual blend of light and dark. Another very interesting image.

This is art. The subject is interesting, and there is struggle within the composition between the directional orientation of the hair, beard, and neck jewelry drawing the viewers eye outward while those penetrating eyes draw the viewers eye back into the photo. All the while, the stark contract holds ones attention. I would like to see what this looked like before you cooked it in photoshop, because I'll guess the a side by side comparison would make your efforts appear even more impressive.

looks washed out. next time don't use flash, and block light from one side, to add some contract.

weak.

Hurts my eyes.

Not at all interesting.

Poor subject, weak composition, and washed out color.

This photo served its purpose of providing a subject which provoked a good deed of comment and discussion. However, the 5-ish rating is about right, as it is not a great photograph, although it is technically well done. The comments regarding the possibility of it being faked or staged are valid, as the circumstances presented by the photo ask many questions. Regardless, it is not a "6" or "7", as it is not a photo one wants to view time and time again.

Looks like a mistake.

Bad composition.

Poor composition.

Just doesn't work.

Where's the beef?

This is poor composition.