elliot_berlin

If this photo was taken for my own family I would think it's wonderful. It's very successful on that level. However, if viewed as a photo in a more absolute, public sense it seems like 1,000,000 pictures I've seen before. I don't see a unique point of view on the subject or anything striking or terribly subtle about the composition. It's a nice moment but no more vivid than many others.
I have to admit that I have a problem with every public forum of this type I've come across. Praise is thrown around like wedding rice, often when a picture is OK but nothing special. I think online critiques can only be valuable to ambitious photographers when a little more tough love is thrown around.
The base issue with a picture like this has very little to do with whether there's a small diagonal element in a corner.

A great photograph is about *seeing* first and executing second. Both are important but the former takes precedence. It's hard for a studio shot to be great because it's more constructed than "seen." For a studio shot to be that good I think it requires first the setup and then the ability to "see" the set up as if it just happened without planning. I don't think this picture quite achieves that.

While it's fine technically, both in terms of lighting and composition, I see nothing unique or special about it.

It's just one more shot of a beautiful woman with a slight erotic undercast.

 

I've been thinking a lot lately about how so many photographers all take the same pictures, with only marginal

variations in what they do. My struggle these days is to succeed in locking on to my own inner eye to take

pictures that more deeply reflect a unique vision and sensitivity. It's not easy to achieve this and I may never

really succeed. I think most photographers have a unique inner eye although it's always hard to access.

 

I struggle with these photos of the week. The lions share of replies are almost always very positive but I tend

to react differently unless there's something clearly individual and surprising about a picture. To me it's

never enough just to execute well on a technical or craft level. What makes a picture truly great is finding

something in a subject that hasn't quite been seen before or presenting it in a way that's either unprecedented

or simply so focused and penetrating that it transcends it's genre. Those kinds of pictures are pretty rare.

The composition is nice, and does capture a sense of urban motion and hurriedness. It is well-timed and balanced. My chief criticism has to do with the quality of the tones. I think the picture would be even more effective if the blacks and grays had more weight. As given it almost looks like it was scanned from a newspaper and rather lacks the solidity and density of a well-printed photograph. If this was a conscious decision on the part of the photographer I would like to hear why that was chosen and if he still feels like that aspect of the picture works.