jdsmall

I love the photo, but hate the frame. I prefer to see photos online with no frames or just a minimal thing.

 

Back to the photo, I love the colors; they feel so true to life.

This is a great shot! I haven't seen anything exactly like it before.

 

It is true that there are lots of photographs made by projecting (or Photoshopping) images on to the human body. Still, complete novelty at that kind of general level is basically impossible. Relative to the novelty of images around here, this one certainly stands out.

 

I looked at the work of that Robert Alvarez. It is great too, but it's probably less novel than yours, and I just can't fathom how anybody could call your work a copy of his. The guy who said that must never have seen any work in this genre before, so he must have thought that Alvarez invented it.

 

At any rate, the more I look at photos, the more I realize that I must do my best to express myself and create powerful images, but not expect to bring something completely new into the world. Also, I think people should keep in mind the difference between originality and novelty. It's original if one has never seen something before and comes up with it on his own, whether it's been done before or not. It's only novel if it's never been done before, whether one has seen it or not.

I feel like I've seen this shot before. I can't remember where exactly...but very nice technically. Congrats.

Nice job. I've done a lot of this kind of thing with trees, myself. I find a really good flashlight quickly panned over the surface of the tree works best. A little practice and you get it very even with a single exposure.

Looks fine, but it has been done way too many times before.

This is a great portrait. Don't re-crop it or darken the background.

I assume you are practicing at taking photos for ads. Of course, the competition is very stiff and the devil is in the details. I say this just as a "consumer" of such images and not as a professional, myself.

 

So, here is what I notice about your photo that I think isn't quite right:

 

1. Depth of field. Everything doesn't have to be in perfect focus, but that is generally the best bet. When something is out-of-focus, it shouldn't be just a touch out like the back earpiece.

 

2. The reflections in the lens and on the base glass do not look like they have been carefully thought out. The reflections on the base glass need to either be gone or more definite.

 

3. I'm not sure what's causing them, but the white streaks/blob on the top right look weird.

 

4. The frosting lines over the red patch are too strong.

 

5. I'm not sure the placement of the red patch relative to the glass quite works.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps. I'm trying to be helpful and give my personal opinion, without claiming expertise. I might suggest you look at the websites of the large sunglasses manufacturers to see how their product shots look.

I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my ratings of this photo by finding photos of mine you don't like and giving them low ratings.

 

I'm sure doing this has considerably improved your skills as a photographer and taught you valuable lessons about dealing with criticism and the variance in people's taste.

 

Still, going forward, you must know that my rating of this photo represented exactly what I thought of it, without any bias for or against you. However, I can discount all of your ratings entirely because I know they just express you displeasure with me and not the actual photos.

As you mention, the photo is quite lacking in originality. That said, it's quite well done. The only thing I would say is that I might like to see the top of the foreground tower too.

Knowing that nobody was particularly injured in this accident definitely helps me appreciate this photo. It's quite entertaining. Although you can't do it for a new photo, the guy standing behind the SUV kind of hurts the lines, in my eye. He could be easily removed, should you be of that mindset.

This photo seems pretty good, but I find it too puzzling. Am I supposed to draw some connection between the scooter and "Knitting Hands?" If I'm not, then the "Knitting Hands" text is far too strong an element of the image.

The composition is great. The color of his hat and jacket play off well against the kid's pale skin.

 

After awhile looking at the image, I wasn't sure how I felt about that light spot in front of the child's face, but I don't know. You might see how you felt about the photo without it. Otherwise, the photo seems quite perfect.

A great photo. I love the colors and the blur. I'd hate to see it more saturated. I would, however, like to see the frame gone.

I love the photo. It's a great portrait. However, I dislike the frame and the caption on it.

I dislike the frame, but the photo is quite nice.

Kim, no offense, but your version feels too contrasty to me.

This is a fine photo. I don't see anything the least bit sexual or "graphic" about it. Frankly, how do we know it isn't a boy with long hair?

While the colors do look "neat" and I'm glad to have the explanation now, the colors still look "funny" to me--which has nothing to do with whether the colors were "there" or were fabricated.

It's a nice portrait. The strange combination of the cat, peppers, and cross amuses me.

Would be a little nicer if I could see better what that thing was on the right bump. Still, strangely compelling. I'd lose the "Mid-Life Crisis" thing, but that's just me.

This photo is superb. It is not at all too dark. I love the richness of the deep colors. I can find no fault with it.

The lighting and color just don't appeal to me at all. The hair blocking her right eye also doesn't work for me.

I've seen so many waterfall photos. This one just doesn't have anything in it that grabs me. Also, the "sample" thing is quite distracting. People on photo.net just don't post stuff with such prominent copyright-type messages. If you're that worried about people stealing your work, I would not bother asking people to rate it.

Beautiful shot. Of course the yellow isn't real, but it's doesn't disturb me. I've been taking a whole series of photos of trees at night and would love to know what you think of them.

 

Recently, I've been experimenting with putting the light sources in the photo, as you have here. I like the affect.

Wonderful. I Love the way the dark patch of cloud mirrors the shape of the bush on the left and then the way the shaped of the foreground in mirrored in the bright arc through the clouds. Finally, the chairs play off well against the trees toward the right.

 

Am I being too simplistic in trying to see how the different parts of the photo tie into each other? I don't start with such analysis, rather I use it to try to understand the impressions that I get when I just "look" at the photos for a few minutes.