albertdarmali

I know what you mean David. This idea just came straight from my head out of nowhere while I was sitting in front of my computer, so I needed to make it happen before I lose it.

So, what I did was:

I drew the smiley face using Microsoft paint, and then printed it out, and cut it out. You can even still see the roughness of the smiley face drawing. That's not pixelations, that's my terrible, uneven drawing using mouse. :)

If I bought a proper smiley face clip or something, and a proper surface, it would be even better for sure.

Albert.

Lol! Yeah, seriously, it's interesting. The first thing I thought when I saw this image was a flatline like those heart rate machines in hospital.

So yeah, if it was my picture, the title would probably death.

Come to think of it, this picture isn't that simple afterall. If you asked me to take a picture like this (without post processing), I'd have to think hard how to do this one.

Seriously, not that easy IMO. It's hard to "shine" an object to be that red and maintaining a total dark background. One way I figure is to take a seriously close macro of a LED display in a total darkness, but you won't find a LED that thin. So yeah, if it's no post processing, as embarassing as it is, I have to admit I currently have no idea how you took this, hehe...

PS: And it's so easy for those 3/3 raters to drop those numbers eh? Ask them to take similar picture without PP. :P

Hmmm.. I have to say this line is straight. And red too.

I'm not much of a critique am I?

What's wrong with the neck? I don't see anything wrong with it. What makes this a beautiful photo is the pose, angle, model's expession, and the dreamy background that supports the portrait. The so called "unnatural" neck has very little to do with the portrait.

I think the purpose of portait is apart from documentary, is also to present itself so that the viewer can get certain feel from it (depending on how the photographer wants to and also how the viewer perceive the image). In this portrait, I really see nothing irregular about it, and the moment I saw it, it gave me this: "whoa, what a beautiful, dreamy portrait" feeling to it.

Portraits are not made so that they can be analysed inch by inch in order to find the flaws. It's not a documentary to evaluate an object, and photography is not physics or chemistry where you need perfect accuracy for everything. Perfect picture doesn't make a beautiful picture and beautiful picture doesn't have to be perfect.

This could be an interesting shot, what I don't like is the streak underneath the blinds. Why don't you try using a table; (or box) (so that the glass doesn't need to sit on the floor and you can avoid the bottom of the blinds) cover the table with paper with similar tone as your blinds (grey or white?), and take a perfectly straight shot of this?

If you wanna add more impact, try to find a chess board-like pattern (black&white squares) to cover the table (you can create this and print it out from your computer).

Not sure whether you like the idea or not though, it just came straight from my head looking at the picture.

Albert.

Only a photographer can see and understand this composition.

Strong composition.

I like the colour, tone, and the soft feel of the picture.

However, I think the top part (the part after the model's head) is a bit too tight IMO. But maybe it's just me.

Albert.

Interesting shot. I like the mood of the picture, but I would rather have the moon(?) on the top of the picture to be cloned out though.

Albert.

Lighting and focus wise, very accurate. But frame-wise, I just feel that the shot is a little bit too tight.

Albert.

I wouldn't call David (the photographer) pretty, hehe...

PS: David, my earlier comment was about the photograph (portrait works) overall, not the model. But yeah, she is good looking by the way.

This is probably my favourite of your face closeups.

Albert.