wayne_haas

" I think it would look great printed on black velvet."

A not too subtle backhanded 'compliment' there don't you think Dean, hmmm?

This image is not kitch at all; actually it is one of the stronger mask/carnival type portraits I have seen in a long time. The close cropping of the face at the right, and the space towards the left, work to make the direction of the figure's gaze that much stronger -- adds mystery and engages the viewer. The busy-ness of the costume towards the left works against that quality, however, and would be far less distracting if the bottom left quadrant were darkened progressively toward the left hand side (in other words, you may want to consider selectively vignetting that corner, Mg).

Overall a good shot technicially (lighting, exposure, and use of depth of field for separation). But the bottom 1/4 needs to be cropped out, and the top cropped to either to a point where the model's head isn't crowded or a bit further down so that the top of her head is just out of the frame. This would result in a tighter, more dynamic horizontal composition that would play on the triangles formed by the model's pose.

The background also needs to be significantly burned-in, since it distracting. This may need to be done selectively, since the curve of the model's back and shoulders is continued on by the rocks sitting underneath the rectangular grayish-blue rock just to the right of the model's head (it's roughly in line with her hairline). That curve has a lot of potential composition-wise, and if you choose to do some burning to emphasize it more, you may not need to crop the bottom as much as I have suggested.

I generally do not comment on shots that do not capture my attention, and this one certaintly did. As I said, you have a good shot here; with some editing it has every potential for being a fairly powerful one. When viewing your work (or your subject just before taking a shot), try squinting so you only see the broad tonal values and shapes: this will often indicate how well the composition is working, and what it may need to work better.

My thoughts mirror Charlie Crawford's -- one of the better 'homeless' studies I've seen in quite a while. It illustrates, with rather poignant elegance, precisely how these people generally feel in respect to how they are treated by society.

If you feel inclined, render the man, bench, and his belongings in b&w, and perhaps push the contrast a bit. This would separate him further from the colour of the background, and enhance the picture's import even more.

Follows the fairly common graphic theme re. 'breaking out of the picture plane'. Reading left to right in succession, the poses in the first three frames really do not fit the concept, and appear contrived, stiff, and incongruous when compared to the sequencing of the last three in which a narrative sequence is readily apparent. You may want to rethink the the content of the first three frames. In short, you have two incomplete pictures and they are working against the other.

The colour scheme works quite well though (particularly in mirroring the model's colouring), and helps to provide unity to the piece.

If you are inclined the concept you are trying out here is well worth exploration -- e.g., clothed to nude, nude to clothed, different colour schemes ... the list is endless and has the potential to be a lot of fun. Be playful and surprise yourself ;-)

The quality of light, shading, and contrast on the trees are the strongest aspect of this shot. Another strong compositional element is the effect that the pinecone(?) in the foreground has in establishing an implicit line with the trees that leads the eye into the picture.

Conversely, the overly contrasty, light tonality of the foreground attracts too much attention and detracts from the trees; and would have effectively hid the pinecone if it weren't for the latter's shadow. The thin diagonal streak (cloud or contrail?) on the right center margin is also distracting, and tends to lead the eye out of the pictorial space. If this were a silver print, I would burn in the foreground and spot out that streak; chances are, I would also print using a lower contrast paper.

The cliffs in the background lack a degree of separation from the foreground elements, and thus fail somewhat as middle ground. At first I thought they were rocks, much like the one to the left that separates the two trees. The lack of detail in the shadow of that rock, and the high-key detail in the face of the cliffs, together not only effectively flattens the image but also makes the pictorial space ambiguous. In short, the depth clues in the picture are working against each other.

As I mentioned before, this shot is compositionally strong. If it were possible to reshoot, I would move inward slightly towards the left and at a slightly higher angle while keeping the camera level. It should be possible to do this without altering the compositional placement of the trees. The purpose of this slight change in angle of view is to offset the foreground, rock, and cliff faces and thus visually separate them, and to establish an implied line that sweeps the eye logically into the depth of the scene. This would complement the depth set-up by the trees, and also serve to anchor the viewer in the composition.

First, in reference to mondiani's remark that the centre panel should be the 'centerpiece' of a triptych: this isn't necessarily so: for a triptych to work it should do so as a complete unit unless the intent was otherwise and is made to work that way. Sounds sort of catch-22, but to break conventions it is best that one first knows how to work within conventions -- otherwise all you have is a happy or unhappy accident that one has very little actual control over.

The individual panels of the piece are interesting in themselves, particularly in reference to the atmosphere and sense of mystery conveyed. Conversely, the poses allude to a subdued sense of the dramatic but are curiously static and lack a sense of dynamism -- sort of as if the subject(s) are statues rather than people capable of motion. Unfortunately, the size on the screen can neither convey the full impact of the work nor the actual quality of the images.

Given all that, in my opinion the panels do not work very well as a unit despite the stylistic similarity of the panels. This is partially due to the fact that the edges of the side panels appear vignetted except for the top right corner of the left panel which looks curved out then bent inwards, which serves to separate the panels from the centre. This is further emphasized by the 'center piece' whose shading on both edges make the image look like a convex panel. This prevents the eye from naturally moving through the piece and perceiving it as unified whole.

Often it is small details like those that can be a detraction which takes away. The irony here is that it would take very little work on those middling little details to make this a far stronger work. In short: push this theme further to the edge, be aware of those small details that may not be readily apparent (it's easy to miss them) and you may develop the punch hiding away somewhat timidly in there.