DELETE THIS ACCOUNT

For me the mood this image conveys is very appealing. Nicely shot.

Another take on this same image:

Had to almost run down from a hike in order to escape a sudden and

powerful thunderstorm that quickly replaced what had been a brilliantly

bright day. On starting the walk up to "la grotte" I'd been through this

cemetery perched on a knoll, and on the way back was rewarded with

interesting light at the edge of the storm which had just overtaken me.

Very little manipulation other than a crop and conversion to b+w - I

visualized the scene as a silhouette and shot accordingly. Not the

sharpest image but I like it nonetheless. Percé and the surrounding area

offers plentiful landscape opportunities and the odd street possibilities as

well. Food here is excellent!

First impression: portrait is nice enough... then I looked at the title, and laughed along with you.

Interesting portrait to be sure; seems as if your scanning process needs a quality check - line down the negative (is that on the original or only in the scan), dist specks but more importantly ... heavy pixelization / patterns in the "larger" version make the image look much less sharp than perhaps it is on film.

Now that's one bug I really don't want landing on me... impressive.

Can only assume you've done some post processing and altered colours somewhat - the result looks fairly unreal (water in particular). Almost looks like a transparent tree trunk in red, midddle, upper.

 

Aside form the unnatural colouration and apparently post processing defects, the very light and hazy far distant background is so much at odds with the rest of the image that it would detract even if you had the balance of the image under control.

 

Perhaps you should post the original image along side any future versions of this, in order that people with CS2 experience can chip in ideas?

I find myself wishing that some details in the background are even more indistinct, or that the image was cropped to avoid their inclusion - in particular at the edges of the image a) left side, a dark area left of her temple; b) the dark line dropping down from roughly the centre top of the frame to her head.

 

Another (completely subjective) impression I get from the subject's pose is the angle of the head may be a little too great, tending to leave a different impression - an exagerrated position some might use along with "will you hurry up and press the shutter??".

It *appears* as if you've coloured eyelash or piece of fur. I really am growing to intensely dislike spot colour on b+w digital images. Its been done to death; sometimes when done EXTREMELY well, it can be fun or even stunning. When done poorly, I want to click immediately and move on. No doubt this might catch the eye of someone who'd not seen the effect before.

Very nice... that reflection is one of my favorites to explore in both colour and black and white. Good timing with the tour bus - it certainly fits the colour palete of the shot.

Lighting in this shot works an order of magnitude better than in the other I commented on.

You have some lovely portraits in your gallery but in my mind this isn't one of them. Its striking but not in a good way; almost a bit cartoonish but that's likely the influence of the subject's makeup and red nose. I rather like the perspective view in the background - a different model, and pose, might have done very well there.

 

The only comment on lighting I'd make in the context of this image specifically is that it makes the background look like a false backdrop even more by creating a very different set of light values than exists in the location. I see some other images which appear to be in that same location which use light a little more naturally - these are far better in my opinion.

I think I would have recomposed this in the viewfinder to focus on the church, some water in the forground, but eliminating the hydroelectric tower and wires (and thus anything to the right of those in the foreground as well).

 

Or do as best as can be done from whatever vantage point(s) are available, and crop post-exposure.

Raul, welcome to Photo.net. Keep shooting and posting more - some people will take the time to not only rate but also provide constructive criticism (feedback). Here are just a few thoughts:

 

Shooting this as a silhouette - was it by accident or intentional? At any rate, not a bad choice but since the land is a silhouette, ideally we'd want to see something of interest outlined. Your position or lens doesn't add much to the lines there - trees are too small to have any real impact. The foreground water has a reflection, but there's no real drama in it. In this image, the sky has the most drama.

 

What you'll need to develop is a sense for what components of a landscape are most important and you'll find yourself overtime composing within the viewfinder differently. Many starting out along this road have a temptation to frame scenes and subjects in a very "centred" manner - horizons at or very near the middle of the frame, key points of interest dead on in the middle...always... when frequently there are more dramatic compositions available.

 

Ignoring for a moment that the foreground and silhouette are not all that interesting visually, the image feels somewhat off balance (to me at least). I find myself wanting to shift your camera lens to the left to explore that darkness. You might even want to consider a square crop from this image, exploring how moving the square from one side of the image to the other (crop and make new copies of the image for comparision) change the "feel" or mood of the image.

 

You may also find it helpful to look into neutral density filters, and graduated ND filters, which will allow you to darken the sky areas while allowing closer to normal exposure in the foreground. If you browse the gallerys where with the Landscape keyword you'll see many examples of using these techniques.

 

Slower shutter speeds might provide a more dreamy looking water surface in the foreground -- again, experiment. If appears you are using digital - so experimentation is cheap and instantaneous.

 

I'd also recommend looking at other people's work, in large quantities. Its really helpful to see good and bad examples from a diverse set of people to help our own eye become more critical of our own work.

 

Not at all clear what you are trying to impart with this image.

There are two large areas which are almost featureless - the shadow area at bottom, albeit including some tree and road side fence silhouette, and the sky which has little drama - that's a lot of the frame. Looking at this without title nor your own commentary, a new viewer would not likely be able to see what point you are trying to achieve with this and likely would pass on rather quickly not having found the point on their own.

Kilian - this is an excellent first upload; very nicely done in high key lighting, tight in close to the child's face, not a dead on centered composition as so many tend to be. Initial reaction: very well done. Second reaction: a bit eerie perhaps due to the prominent eyes (don't take that as a criticism, just a possible observation) but no doubt the parents of this child would find this to be a keeper.

My mother in law would like this - she has a thing for distressed tree photos although she might want to see a square crop eliminating the house. Interesting location - had there been some special light on the tree or parts of the hill or tilled area this would be more interesting - perhaps a location to keep in mind for future tries.

If you were aiming for humour and a completely unrealistic portrayal, then perhaps this image hits the mark. If not, its a big miss. This sort of work either appeals to someone or it doesn't at all. I'm in the latter camp on this one.

On a technical level there are two major problems with this - your rendition of reflections in the lake looks artificial.. not only should there be more patterning but the reflections are not inverse as you'd expect.

Here's a lovely photo (one of yours) for an example of how reflections ought to be portrayed.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4420817

Quite possibly this displays better on your display than either of mine but there's so little easily visible detail that I just shrug my shoulders on this one and move on...

Nicely caught environmental portrait, well composed.

Pretty chrome. Wondering if you have a shot without the point of land included (at horizon to right) or from different (perhaps lower?) camera elevation. This shot makes me wish I was there mucking around right now.

Very interesting; I think a crop which exludes the right most bit of house might help a bit; am torn between this and the colour version. Believe this needs a bit more post processing work to turn up the value levels somewhat such that there is somewhat more luminescence off of the faces of the houses.

 

Might also possibly work as a square crop, houses near the 1/3 mark, lots of sky above.

Funny, although if this were in focus I might have been more sure of what I was looking at before "viewing larger". The weapon should be sold to Dr. Evil, might make a fine prop for Austin Powers IV...

 

Maybe a shot going around a corner...?

Boot seems blurry; I find my eye distracted by that and wish I could see what you've chosen to expose with a little more crispness. Interesting idea.