jimknowles

not sure I get why the drape over the kids head??? nevertheless, this is an extraordinary looking image of a child. somewhere there are some pround and joyful parents. it's like a miniature Mona Lisa. just don't dig the head drape thing. but don't worry, not going to let that affect my rating of this gorgeous portrait.

the wet head is dead. nice skin tone. too close to the background for me. don't understand what this is about except to say she has a nice dancer's body and perky breasts and that you make good exposures in the studio. what if you bring her away from the backdrop about seven to ten feet, use a wider apeture or longer focal length, or otherwise do something to reduce the DOF so as to have less detail in the background? what if her hair were styled somehow so as to make it more aesthetic? anyway, honestly, i truly LOVE most of your pictures. this one just isn't up to your own standards, Igor. just my stupid opinion though.

sorry mauricio - just mi estupido opinion - but this photograph is very ordinary. i understand you may like this girl, but as a model, she is ordinary. the stairs are old and interesting but ordinary. the lighting is consistant with open shade combined with a wee bit of reflected light from nearby. the pose is contrived and ordinary. it's just a beautifully exposed, plain & simple, technically perfect, ordinary shot.

 

sheesh, i hope you won't take this personally? thank you for sharing your work.

i personally like the way you shot this better with the matador out of focus and the bull the focal point. however, technically this image is not very good as far as exposure. the floor of the ring is blown out (at least it is on my monitor) and the contrast is too high. also, the "moment" just isn't here. there's no real drama in the look of the bull - he looks like a cow chewing on his cud. hardly the dangerous animal our mind tells us he must be.

okay picture of a wall. in this critique forum I have no way of knowing if it was made with a 35 or 4x5. imho it's just a decent picture of a wall.

To me, this picture would have much more impact were the bull the focus point and the matador OOF in the foreground. Otherwise it's well composed and a technically good photo.

and am not familiar with your portfolio - yet. But this truly IS a VERY STRONG IMAGE!

 

Here's what I dig about it:

1. The composition as cropped is absolutely perfect, right down to using the father's (assumption) tattooed arm to hold the image together there.

2. The combination of freckles in the faces and the grain (even if that grain is fake - who cares!) the grain adds a gritty realism to this image. And the added grain also adds extra tonality in the skin tones, not to mention helps hold the contrast up.

3. The girl touching her face in such a way as to suggest she's concerned about the guy pointing the camera at her, but still comfortable in her dad's arms, along with those clear bright eyes - adds up to a truly penetrating image when combined with the father's direct gaze into the lens. Easily could have been a portrait, except I sincerely doubt you would have been able to get that look in the child were this posed. Which is why I am very glad for you ( and you should be too) that you did NOT ask permission to shoot this image!

4. Sheesh! Are you kidding?!!! If you're going to go around and only shoot pictures of people who not only are aware you are shooting them, but ask their permission as well, you're going to exclude most of the best possible photographs of people. Just look at Bresson's work. Imagine if he'd worried about getting permission to shoot all his subjects? Where would photography be today? Naw man, you gotta be willing to nail what you see when there's a good picture to be made. They won't always be this good, but don't put such limitations on yourself.

5. The double whammy of the father and daughter's eyes looking right straight down the lens is almost over powering! Fantastic! Truly one of the most powerful images I've seen on photo.net!

6. he does look like tom waits!

 

Very well done! Glad you dug this out so everyone can see it!

you had access to photograph this school. just my opinion - you seem to have weighted your composition heavily to get details in the wall above the boys and in so doing you have them walking right out of the frame at the bottom, indeed cropping off one kids foot. the door frame is centered in the frame, but ican't see why? the right of the frame is overexposed (your meter seems to have made an excellent exposure on the center boys face) - which leads me to believe you didn't have time to compose this as it was happening, perhaps? or maybe you were expecting a better exposure on the details of the wall on the right? and lastly, the wall above the boys, in the context of the image of the boys being the primary focus, seems to also be a bit superfluous. do you think this might work better if you were to crop in from the right all the way to the right side of the doorway and down from the ceiling to just below the painting of the wall above the door?

Pretty macro flower picture. Dig your other work too, Leslie. Keep the images

coming!!!

 

ps... that "sheesh" quote has me ROTFLOL! "sheesh" "sheesh" "sheesh" ... I'm

adopting that one!

you were to shoot something like this with a smaller light source, which may render smaller highlights and deeper shadows? Or maybe put the light source above and behind and use a fill card to kick back light to keep the image soft? .... Just thinking out loud as I look at this lovely image. A real classic. Very well done!

DUDE! I love what Ican see here. But ya need to fix it. I'm assuming you're scanning using a flatbed? Not a neg scanner? Clean your flatbed. Make an excellent print. Make sure you get a good scan - then upload it.

 

I see (what appreat to be) dust spots and junk all over the image on my monitor - and it's old and feeble. Can't imagine how bad this looks on a nice new monitor.

 

Also, just going by what I CAN SEE here, this print is to flat -meaning too low contrast - the highlights are blown out which means it needs to printed down some, at least in the foreground. The sky would probably look okay - or at least you could hold it back if necessary while printing if it starts to get too dark.

 

If it were me, I'd go up a grade in contrast on the paper and try printing until you get a winner. But then my taste runs towards snappier contrast in general.

 

Soon as you fix it, I'll rate it.

Great shot of a real personality type - the Hard Core Granny Museum Trooper! (Note the pants, boots, coat, and purse hidden where no one can snatch it ; -)

 

Love the composition. The cross / "T" of the floor tiles, the angled bench paralell to the cross hatches in the diamond shaped floor pattern. EYE CANDY. (But hardly a paparazzi shot! - for that, look at last week's camel - hee haw ; )

It can be very difficult to shoot during a performance - but to get a frame like this? Almost miraculous. Wish it was a higher quality scan. Dig the "split background" - see, such things actually do happen in real life! I too thought at first this was a studio shot. Nice work.

STRIKING / EXQUISITE / SUPERLATIVE / SUPERLATIVE...

Great exposure with so much black! The eyes just KILL me! Magnificent!

Lovely simple portrait. And your model has the most perfect head shape I've seen in a long time! Nice skin tones / great exposure.

...as they say back home. Can feel the texture of the leaf, feel the warmth of the sun. 'nuff said.

Obviously it's all been said already. Nevertheless, I want to say to you Seven, that this is truly a remarkable image. The fact it's a photograph and NOT a painting makes it that much more significant. From a distance this picture would draw people to it. Once up close, seeing the detail in the sand and sea (as well as the hawks) would bogle the mind. Imagine how awesome this would be as a mural sized print! BRAVO!

Vlad - GOOD JOB! I agree with the comment above regarding the perspective from this low angle. It really adds drama and impact. I know you're working with less than ideal film and camera, and who knows how you are able to process your film? Just the fact you're out there shooting something like this is cool. Next time you are in a situation like this Vlad, TRY (if possible with your camera) to overexpose just one stop and then, if possible, pull your developement one stop. Remember, exposure controls DENSITY (so you usually want to expose so you get detail in the shadows) and developement controls CONTRAST (so if you overexpose to get better detail in the shadows, you pull the development a bit so you don't blow out the highlights and make your contrast too high). In this case, my guess is, your neg could be printed better by taking some time in the darkroom while printing. You just need to burn down the cattle and far background about 15% more, but leave the shpherd alone. GOOD JOB!

'nuff said.

Dig it. This is the sort of image I prefer to leave to my imagination as to HOW you did the background. Unique and fun!

Somethiing about photographs of old alleys and arched doorways seems so inviting. Very high quality image. Did you make it with a view camera? If so, good job keeping the lines straight; and excellent DOF.

This image (and the entire shoot) has been touted here as being worthy of

National Geographic. Anyone who's ever worked with NG would know this shot,

indeed this entire folder, would hardly get a second glance from a NG picture

editor. It might if it were in color and lit differently. This style of fill flash is not

real popular at NG. Far too obvious. But then, this isn't National Geographic, is it?

 

The very thing so many seem to think "makes" this picture is something most

picture editors would reject out of hand - the eye contact with the camera -

which makes it look posed. As if the photog said to the man, " hey, look over

here!"

 

Don't get all riled. I'm not saying the photog did that. I'm just saying the facial

expression says that. Evidently, a lot of people agree something is not quite

right about the guy looking into the camera. I'm just going by many of the other

comments above and my own opinion.

 

As to the ethical dilema of putting down the camera to help a dude save a camel

- I'd say, hell yeah - IF you define ethics as what's good for the greatest number

AND, IF you need that camel to ride out of the desert AND without it you'll die on

foot, AND IF this photog were the only other available help around; then MAYBE

you stop shooting. OTHERWISE - if you're there covering a story as a PJ, you

shoot and keep shooting. (I wonder where the pictures are of the results of this

fiasco?) IF IF IF it were a drowning PERSON, who would otherwise die without

YOUR HELP, then you put down the camera. A camel in a sea of camels with a

river of camel jockeys? No way! Just shoot.

 

But there ARE better pictures from this folder. And NONE of them are exposed

with fill flash like this, so they all appear muddy and washed out. My guess is,

this one "reads" online better?

 

I guess I disagree with the majority here. So goes the war.

You've captured that look - the one where the eyes follow you no matter where you are in the room? You've nailed it! Great open shade portrait. The way you cropped the hat adds tension - where as one's eye wants to travel out of the frame off the top of the hat - but the EYES bring you right back IN!

Just goes to show ya, a rose is not just any rose.

YEaH.