iconoclastica

please your comment

A bumble bee on a bunch of blue flowers before a blurred green background. The bb is in a vertical position right of the centre, vertically in the middel. Light, I presume sunlight is comming from the left top, somewhat from behind.

The green background is framing the core of the photo. It is of bright colour and has some distracting lightness detail in it. I'd recommend a tighter crop. Without the framing the viewer is more directly involved.

The photo suffers from two technical problems: light, and sharpness of the bee. To some extent they are related.

It's quite hard to make such pictures in direct sunlight. I think the best advice is to entirely avoid it. If you can't, make a roof. A white umbrella, a piece of paper, an assistent with a hat in his hand, there are many ways. The subject is small, so it won't be too difficult to shade it. The harsh light is most disturbing on the flowers, so as soon as you'd feel confident, you might try differential shading, leaving the bb a bit more of light.

The bumblebee itself is the main point of interest. it's eyes must be tack sharp. It is blurred, by motion I think. Faster shutter is the way to do that. If the light doesn't allow that, wait for an even darker hour and use a flash. Have the flash in a natural position, so somewhere above the bee and not on the camera. Then you can shape the depth in the photo.

 

This is a rather more directive critique than I usually give, but I hope it answers your question this way...

 

A fly on a grass/corn leaf, a shoot pointing up, one hard light coming from the front-top-right.

I like the lighting. The single light source gives natural shadows underneath the legs and well differentiates between the upper and undeside of the fly. Yet despite the hard light, no details are obschured by it. How much less depth would there have been in the photo if you had used a pair of flashes next to your lens, or worse, a ring flash. But the hard shadowing alse adds a dark bar in the very front on the corn leaf. If makes a strong contrast with the rest of the leaf, as if it's the shade of the camera. While it could be argued that this is a base line, I thin just a hint of it would have been enough, or even already too much.

The leaves are framing the insect, which is nice, as if you tried to get them onto the lines dictated by the Rule of Thirds, which doesn't work. If you insist on using that rule, place a pint of interest onto one of the cross-lines. Perhaps it was not intended at all, but then more awareness of the composition should prevent me from perceiving it thus.

I suggest that reframing would make both the composition more interesting and at the same time solve the dark bar in the foreground.

 

Personally, when I make pictures like this, I treat the insect the same as I do when portraiting humans. I wouldn't easily make a portrait of someone looking away and turning me the coat (unles it'd be a fashion photo, of course...). Where is the main point of interest, is it the wing, or is it the eye? Thet seem to be competing for attention. My impression is that the wing got the focus and the eye is behind, but I know insect eyes can be tricky in that respect. If you'd have turned the camera a bit more towards the face, there would have been no doubt about it.

This is a rare portrait of an insect that shows character. Obviously, the character is in the eye of the beholder, but those are the only eyes we've got. The slanted eyes of the animal, the mischievous grin, the Pan-like horns: they all work together to achieve an expectation of some prank that's going to happen.

The lighting is good, maybe a bit on the soft end. The least point of this photo is the optical weight of the raptorial leg. Informative, but unbalancing the image. I'd suggest tighter cropping to get all attention to the head.

If I would have been there, and had seen what the photo shows me (both unlikely), then my impression of the scene would most prominently include the colours of the clothing. Therefore, I can really appreciate Randy's choice for bright and saturated colours, for that's what should be told. Who needs reality?
But the photo should be credible too, and there I am experiencing trouble because of, as Mike put it, 'the general "dirty grey" look of the sky and the trees in the background'. The sky seems near clear despite the general diffuse lighting, yet it is dark as if a too strong exposure gradient has been applied. The background trees are too subdued compared to the foreground, even if it would be a natural phenomenon (which I do not think it is). Seen with the foreground covered it is a beautiful pastel background, though.
I cannot see the child looking into the camera, as someone said above. But the central woman is, and this little sign of contact makes me feel more present into the scene.

The yellow lichens and the bright sky on the horizon on the left are competing for my attention. Either could work, but both together don't. When I cover the dark cloud with my hand, the photo looks much better. Did you darken the cloud? That wouldn't be my choice. Apart from this, I quite like the landscape.

A parody on the 60-ies household glamour style. The stripes continued in the clock is humour! The vac - it's not that it should not be there, but the left side is unbalanced.

Contrary to most of the well saturated landscapes I could look at this picture for a long time. I'd encourage you to continue in this style!

Both beautiful and unrealistic. This is not what clouds look like at flying altitude, nor does the light convince me. Nice touch though to take it from the rear: it's is going away (and will never be seen again - suggestion).

I cannot see this surrealistic image without being struck but its attmosphere and its painting-like palette, but the perspective-mistake gives it away. The parallel sides of the landing define the horizon below the boat. Even if the platform 'd be sloping down, the boat at that positing photographed by this wide angle would be minute. This is analysis, but I started that because my eye wouldn't accept what it is seeing.

I think the image deserves this to be corrected.

Congratulations Joanna!

 

You have achieved the feeling of a true painting here. The combination of the softness, the somewhat-flatness, and the intricate details of clothing and adornation seem to do it. I never would have thought about leaving the hotspot right of the head, but it is taking out some contrats there as well as leading the aye out, just as if it were a veritable young lady: I never dare took look straight at her for a longer time...

 

It also is the best of your "paintings" collection. Since you are apparently trying to bridge the distance between photography and painting, I do not know what intermediate stand you'd like to reach at. But judged as if they were old paintings rather than photographs, I think the attitudes of the models are too modern. There are persuading the spectator to look at them, or even say: look at me, cool! Subjects on older paintings frequently transfer a look of disdain, they are proud and don't have to show that. (Of course you're looking at me, because [fill in]).

 

Signing with admiration,

 

Wim