brendan_turner1

I hear you. Scanning is an art unto itself. I gave up on it myself as I could never really nail it down...

that's not the meaning of the word critique

I totally don't get it, sorry. (well maybe you should be sorry for me...)

A nice angle and pose!

I kind of wish the dress at the bottom of the frame wasn't blown out like that. The eye is always drawn to the lightest point in an image, and here it's the dress instead of her face. The hands framing her face do make up for it in some way, but it would still be stronger without the blowout.

An interesting look. But It's a bit confusing in my opinion. I might try changing the transparency of the different layers a bit... maybe make the legs stand out more?

A very intriguing image. It caught my eye right away!

 

I'd only say that it's a little disturbing to me. His expression seems so blank... almost dead. But that's still a cool thing. Others may get a different feel from it though.

Thoughts?

When you call this photo "motion" I kind of think you're talking about the ghosty people walking across the street there?

 

If so, it doesn't quite work... you need to speed up your shutter a bit ( stop or two, IMO) to get them to register well. As it is, it's a yellow balanced shot of a truck.... which, as a people and fashion shooter , isn't that interesting (although I KNOW the gear-heads out there will crush me on... lol!)

Love her shape in this...

 

but you missed the ball :(

 

I bet you're wishing you had a camera that shot 10 frames per second like the guy in the back there... lol!

(don't worry, he's not making the "big bucks" anyway...)

 

BTW, I was just talking about Fiji and Tonga with someone tonight, and was very happy to see your snaps!!!

Calif.

IMO it doesn't work with this subject matter. You're doing an X-Treme! zoom, so you need something equally X-TREME! at the middle of it all... an oncoming train, a screaming person, a race car, etc... anything fast and loud really. I just think your lovely (and I honestly do mean that!) daughter is a bit at odds with the effect... it might work though if, God forbid, she was crying or something....

 

It IS a cool effect though... I've always wanted to use it for something!

Thoughts? Is it too "dark" to you?

Thanks for the crit. I'll try without the floor there... I think you might be right about it... just didn't want her to be "floating" too much...

Darren,

Wasn't really going for "meaning" here. What do you mean by "looked like of 'stupid'"? Her expression? I don't understand...

Thoughts are more appreciated then ratings :)

Amazing tones. I love this!

I couldn't have said it better myself!!

My only suggestion would be, if you've taken this digitally it would be easier, to use composite images to create the final. it would get rid of a lot of the flare, which is IMO quite distracting from what is otherwise an otherworldly image!

Try using different exposure values for each individual light source by only shooting with one on at a time and compositing the images together in PS....

 

But then, some might like the flares... they are kind of "ghost like" ... maybe more flares would be good too...

 

It's your vision, just some suggestions...

What a joyful image! It's very eye catching!

I love the color in this. If anything, I might say that as it is already kind of abstracted by the pose of the bird, it could be even more so. I could say that it could be cropped down a bit to the bottom right a bit... but that would loose a lot of the great color contrast. So, I'd say it's perfect the way it is!

Just looking for your critique of this image. Please don't hold back :)

hmmm, I think the flower might not be the right one for this look, I tried to make it

look more like an anemone, but it's still a bit off?

the best resource i was able to find in google is

 

http://goldennumber.net

 

It has a lot of interesting stuff in it...have a look.

This and the Yellow sun type shot in my fashion section were composed according to the golden mean...see the image here.

It's very interesting that in both cases I've seen comments that it's hard to tell what to focus on. I guess it's a more powerful formula than I'd though. Perhaps I can figure a way to tame it a bit...

The hand was moved in PS to fit the formula, bit my "feel" is that it should be closer, although not mathematicaly...very interesting...

the wide angle is the first thing I notice here...it's different for fashion and although it distorts the model, it works with the pose well.

 

Then I notice the rather androgenous looking model. It might just be the frame here, but I can't figure him/her out for certian...perhaps the wide angle adds to this in a way, I'm not sure.

The gausian blur you put in there is dizzying. I know this will sound harsh, but looking at it for too long gives me a headache....also, if this is fashion...why blur the clothes.

Yes, many rates, few comments. Strange really, I thought people might actually have something to say. Oh well!

 

When I printed this, I did take the yellow circle down a bit, but it's still quite overpowering. It's an experiment using the golden section as a guide for the composition, i.e. the circle is the centre of a square with a larger square taking up most of the bottom of the frame, etc. If you know the golden section, you'd know what I mean. If you don't look it up on google...it's quite powerful. I guess putting the cirlce right there just makes it too dominant in the frame...no matter how bright it is.