cape1232
-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Image Comments posted by cape1232
-
-
Gracias, Joan. Thanks for the comment!
-Doug
-
"I told you so." ;) So noted. LOL.Interesting perspective. I suppose it is a valid concern that Photo.net could be co-opted by the masses to be used to post vacation snapshots and family albums. It doesn't seem, to me anyway, that we are very close to that. I have seen a few pictures here that are obviously just things that happened to be in the way when someone pressed their shutter button, but for the most part they are few and far between in my experience.
Anyway, I *know* what I have in this shot is still a nice "family album" shot, but I really would like to get suggestions on how to make a baby pic into photo-art. Babies don't really cooperate as models, so you can't do the kind of posing you would with an adult model to get an interesting portrait, like this portrait (warning, it's a nude).
Plus, although there's a world of difference in the artistic and emotional effect you get from my baby-pic vs. this portrait, technically, it seems like there aren't that many changes that you need to make to my pic to make it superficially similar to the reference portrait: sepia tones, tighter cropping. Artistically, perhaps you need more, to get a pleasing flow of line, balance of light and dark, harmony of shapes, harmony between the emotion of the subject's expression and the "look and feel" of the presentation, etc. Those are the kinds of suggestions I'm looking for. Or even just pointers to good baby pics.
If I get a chance, I'll give the following a try. I'll take this "snapshot" and see how similar I can make it to selected other photo-art portraits, by applying the same technique to the image.
So, if my intention isn't just to post this pic so people say, "what a cute baby" (and it wasn't my intention), then I think this is still perfectly valid thing to post on photo.net.
Thanks for the dialog, though. That's what I'm here for. Getting good ratings isn't my goal. Learning how to get good ratings is.
-
Talbert, you gave Slava two things, not just one. Yes, you gave a critique: whatever in particular you meant by "good for the family photo album". It is certainly feedback to say you didn't like it, which is what I presume you meant. But it would be nice to be a bit more constructive by suggesting some way the photo could be improved.
But then, as you did with me, you claim pics like this shouldn't eat up bandwidth on photo.net. That's not a critique, that's grandstanding, pointless, rude, and offensive. Even if one were to judge your taste to be "correct", the fact that a picture doesn't measure up to it is no reason it shouldn't be posted. Photo.net isn't here for your pleasure. People can post as many "bad" photos as they want. You should just skip them.
-
Hmm, why wouldn't it be on photo.net? I submitted this for critique to see if anyone could give me suggestions for improvement.
I don't mind if you don't like it, and I don't mind if you bash it, but to suggest I should never even have posted it is a bit draconian, huh?
Still, I appreciate your taking the time to write. It confirms my baseline premise, that this is a nice, but less than inspiring shot. Any suggestions?
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
-
This is nice. The buildings seem a bit too yellow. It clashes with the blue of the sky and water.
-
This is great. Only suggestion would be to increase the contrast in the dark areas, to bring out more detail. It's a little muddy, at least on my monitor. -
I just liked the play of texture in this one. Any thoughts on what
would make this work better?
-
I was going for a bit of rotational symmetry in this (180 degrees),
and a balance of shape and color.
-
Any PS tips on how to equalize the highlights and shadows without
losing detail? I don't want too much contrast between the two, or
you can only really see one side or the other.
-
I posted the stone textures if anyone is interested.
-
Aha. This is a definite improvement over the original. Too bad about the wings, but can't be avoided. Nice work removing the other planes in the background.
I still like the color in this one. The landscape is all greens and yellows, and the plane reflects those colors on its grey skin to create a very hamonious palette. It's really nice to look at.
-
Nice. So simple, and yet it's way better with what you did. I like that idea. I can already think of lots of variations of ways to deconstruct the image into parts.
One of the things that has always caught my attention is, for lack of any better term, "things that are the same, but different". Your triptyk does exactly that. Each section is overall the same, but they are all slightly different in the exact pattern. I like that kind of thing.
Thanks!
-
Still wouldn't mind seeing other good car shots. I haven't given much thought to how to best capture a car in an interesting way.
I also want to think of ways to keep the "character" of the car. It's like one of those elders you respect so much. Dusty and a bit rusted, but still solid. ;)
-
Cool. I did basically what you did, but I kept the colors that I liked. (I didn't take much care in my outline selections, so it's sloppy, but just thought I'd try it out.)
-
Guess I should start paying attention to the titles, huh? Sorry about that. Knowing the title, the image makes full sense.
-
Bold subject. -
I think the large black area doesn't work well with the rhythm of the rest of the picture. Maybe crop some of it out? -
Why'd you lop off the wings? ;(
The color you achieved is nice, though.
-
Just a little overexposed. Otherwise, very nice.
-
Reflections usually don't work well because there's too much distortion. This one is really nice, though. there's just enough distortion so you know its a reflection, but there's still a good amount of detail in the objects.
Plus, the composition and colors work well.
-
Ohh, just lacking focus on the foreground. And maybe a bit too bright/washed out. Otherwise, this is fantastic.
I like how the busy background is mirrored by the almost as busy color variations in the leaf. It's a nice abstract exploration of rhythm, one a rhythm of color the other a rhythm of shading. And since both parts are busy, the rhythm of the border between them is perfect.
I think this one is worth trying to shoot again. Almost exactly the same, but with better clarity in the leaf, less of a whiteout in the background, and contine the leaf all the way to the top right corner, instead of the gap that's there now.
-
I'd crop out the table, but maybe that's what you thought was interesting. It does provide a contrast to the busy-ness of the background, but it doesn't work for me visually.
The colors are nice, though.
-
Nice technique. What's the point here, though? It feels like you are trying to tell a story, but I don't see it.
-
In my opinion, I'd have liked this better without the sun in the sky, but with just the nice orange backdrop to the silhouettes. It's still very nice.
Thumb up for brushing teeth
in Family
Posted
I know we all can't spend 30 minutes critiqueing every photo, but if someone has a portfolio with promise, as you said of Slava's, that shows the person is a serious photographer, if not yet capable of professional quality, then it is unfair to give the "family album" critique as if that is why they were posting the picture.
Perhaps you just don't like baby/child photos, Talbert? They are often going to be cute or "cutesie". To foster exploration of this, I wonder what the "artistic" difference is between this photo, which is "family album" grade, and these photos, for example. I'm not saying there is no difference. There is. I'm saying it would be useful to articulate why these are better, or at least more artistic.