robert_kennedy

Tricia - I'd love to check back, and I will. I think there is quite a bit to explore here. I'd really like to encourage you to experiment with different films and different types of lighting within this type of genre. Personally I really like the contrast of the chrome and vinyl. There is something about "black-shiny" and "bright chrome-shiny" that works together very well. You also seem to have a good eye for unusual framing. Which is great! Too many times you see people only take pictures "straight-on". This picture is nicely framed here. I might change the angle a bit, but that is just my preference and taste. I'd like to see what you can come up with here. You certainly are doing some interesting things. And that is what really matters.

The pose is very relevant. As I and others have pointed out, it isn't a great pose. To me, it does have a "Biker Slut" feel. Look at the way she is layed there. Stiff, legs apart, arms out. Looks like something from "Easy Rider" magazine. Nobody here is bringing up character, merely CHARACTERIZATION. There is a huge difference. A picture is a picture. Nobody here cares about this model's character or is trying to defame her. Her pose though makes it look like she is drunk or in some sort of stiff, almost crudely sexual pose. The point of the Critique forum is to help YOU take better pictures. This is valuable feedback on how the picture comes across. See, the idea is that NEXT time you'd snap the picture when she is in a better pose. You know what would probably look great? Instead of her "stretching her back after a ride", how about her leaning forward and resting her head on the handlebars in an expression of exhaustion? That could be a GREAT shot. It would add a lot of humanity and feeling to the picture and show a nice dichotomy. On one hand the model is in vinyl fetish gear, but on the other she is engaged in a very human activity. That with the right lighting could make a GREAT picture. At least I think so.

 

Again, this is a learning forum. People here are just helping you so you can take a better picture next time. And a better one than that the time after and so on. I thinkthe subject matter has some great potential. You just need to hone your technique a bit. Something we all need to work on continually.

Maybe more light on her belly. The bottom of it is a bit dark. Something in me doesn't like the idea of the belly being in the dark like that. Probably since it means the baby is in the shadows. Some sort of subliminal feeling. Make that tummy glow with life! But otherwise I like it. Nice soft feeling.

I dunno. Too "Biker Slut". The pose seems to hold no "passion". It is very stiff. The lighting really needs work. Shot on something like Ilford Pan F, and developed for fine grain would really work with the chrome I think. Also, a change in lighting would work better. Maybe light for highlights on the chrome (right now they are too directional...), show more of the chrome, and give it a more even light and I think it could work. I mean the idea is there....it just needs some work. The vinyl skirt could also use some better lighting. It needs to pop a bit more. The deep black vinyl contrasted with the bright chrome could really look nice.

I tried shooting this sunflower in a different way. Usually they are

shot "full on". So I tried here to get more contrast...and I

dunno...a different feel to the whole shot. It seems more sombre to

me with just a ray of light hitting it. Does this work though? Is

it too dark?

So, does the one yellow dog in the corner work here? Should I re-

crop?

I dunno. Having lived near Pike Place for a couple of years, I think this shot doesn't do the place justice. Maybe if the Photoshopping wasn't done... Also, the whole glory of the place is it's vendors and people. Shooting just the sign doesn't seem right in this context. Now the sign AND the vendors and people would be interesting.

 

Keep in mind, I am biased here.

This is a great shot! I am very familiar with Penn Cove, since my family owns property up there. Very nice. It captures the cove very well.

Perfect.

Here here! Trust me, when I have posted similar pictures, I will max out at around 250ish. Regularly. Note the almost 600 views here.

 

Also, nudes ALWAYS get super-high ratings compared to anything else. I've seen crappy, blothcy, awful shots of some guy's wife in the shower with hideous flash use get a 10/10.

 

Simply because of the nudity.

 

BTW - I love this picture. I have a couple of similar shots of doors I've taken. The textures and colors really work. Very nice.

Hmmmm......I don't see much going on here. Very bland and the rock seems to blend in with the ocean. Everything is dark blue.

 

This could be great though with some action. Crashing waves, etc.

Frogs can be tough. I tried something similar once and I always had trouble with the skin being "too shiny".

 

Stupid mucous.....

 

Very nice though. I like it. I find the pattern on it's back to be the most interesting.

O.k. I'm just wondering about one thing here....And that is because I like astrophotography and want to get into it more.

 

I'm GUESSING we are looking at a couple of minutes exposure time here. Just guessing from my (limited) experience. I say this because of the way the stars are just slightly oblong and not fully "trails".

 

How did you get the moon to look like it is standing still though? I've always figured that the moon tends to travel fairly quickly. How did you get a shot that didn't show this travel?

So, does it work?

Ummm....hard to have it "face" into the frame as it doesn't have a face. It isn't a skull. It's a vertebrae. Do you mean have it turned towards the right?

See, for me that is the appeal. The eye starts in the corner and THEN sees bone. But I could be fooling myself (has happened in the past).

I posted this a few onts ago and then changed it as suggested. So

here we go for round two with the changed image. I cropped it a bit

tighter, and did some dodging and upped the saturation.

 

So now it is your turn to tell what you think.

 

Personally I like the soft glow of the tiles on the bones and the

diagonal positioning of the bones vs. the light.

That isn't a hummingbird. It is some sort of finch.

 

I like it though. Very good.

 

BTW, THIS is a hummingbird...

So how did you get this? Is the subject lit entirely by the light bouncing up from the grinder? Or did you use supplemental lighting?

 

Actually the tombstone itself is leaning to the left. The picture is straight the subject isn't. On this trip I had a LOT of problems with that. I did a few church pictures, and it took a while to realize that many 500+ year-old buildings no longer have straight walls!

Note to self - get wide angle lens for Bronica.

Personally I like this one, but I wonder if it is too cluttered or

too contrasty. Does this work or should I play with it some more?

 

TIA

I like it, but I think a few things might make it better.

 

1) Tighter framing. The background is distracting.

2) Maybe less DOF. That penguin in the background is distracting. But then again, this may not be possible with the lens etc. It's an iffy change.

3) Warmer tones on the feet. I think the feet are the key to this photo. It is very monochrome. Which is to be expected. But the feet are orange. Not to be expected. If you could warm up the feet a bit. Kind of make them stick out a bit more color wise I think that would be great.

This is another in my recent 1-roll experiment with cross

processing.

 

My question is, does this work or should I crop it? I'm kind of

torn. I like the colors that the larger image gives me. But the man

seems "small".

 

 

Rate it and tell me what you think.

 

Please...

 

Pretty please...

 

Pretty please with Dextol on top...

 

:)

 

TIA

And yet another one....