peter_wang6

The lighting is head-on and not diffuse; that's why the subject lacks contrast. You can tell by seeing that shadow cast by the earring is very sharp. Add on the fact that the background has the same tonality as the subject, the image is B/W, and you've cropped it REALLY tight, and the result is almost...uncomfortable to view. Perhaps that was the intent--to create a certain mood ("paparazzi" comes to mind), or to evoke a certain sensation from the viewer, in which case the image is successful. But if that is not the case, then ask yourself what it is about the subject that you wish to convey. Begin with that and see what kind of photographic techniques you can apply to help bring that forth.

 

So the question becomes, why did you make the particular choices you made with this image? Why did you use frontal flash with no diffuser? Why did you choose to render the subject in B/W? Why did you crop the photo so close that her eyelashes are touching the right edge? What led you to those particular technical and aesthetic decisions, because it is important to understand that they are not in of themselves "wrong": such choices can only be evaluated in the context of the intent of the photographer.

 

This photograph makes me wonder what's in our genetics that causes us to respond so positively to bunnies. A lizard, no doubt, would not elicit the same response. A very thought-provoking image, at least to me.

I am very partial to this one...it is all about the feelings it evokes. The absence of a specific locale gives the impression of total accessibility, as if beauty such as this could be found anywhere if you look closely enough. I do wish the edges were a bit sharper though; it seems like there's some blue fringing in the foreground but whether that's due to lens/camera effects, or focus, or whether I'm just seeing things, I cannot tell. But I would say I like this one the best out of the 40-odd photos in your portfolio. It takes me somewhere.

The composition is just right. The whole idea of avoiding subjects that are not "novel" is

rather ironic, considering that the very precision of the photographic medium means that

no subject is ever captured twice in exactly the same manner. "Okay, so I've seen a sky."

"I've seen a sunset." And maybe for some, "I've seen those plants, just like that." So what

if I've seen them before? Novelty and interest are two distinct concepts.

 

The photograph is interesting because of the play between sky and earth, how the pattern

of the clouds are echoed by the sun-dappled plants. The use of color is interesting as

well, and the photo is an excellent example of how good technique reinforces aesthetics.

Remove the sky and you remove the harmony of the scene. Remove the color and the

mood is lost.

 

From a conceptual standpoint I might have preferred that no mention of the time of day be

given, leaving the viewer to wonder if the scene was sunrise, or sunset, as it could be

either. So it is appropriate that the title makes no mention of time, leaving one to think of

how there really is no distinction between the two...and so is timeless.

 

Truly, a fascinating image, and worthy of discussion.