Gorgeous Kathleen! Should I have fixed these things?

[DGMPhotography]

Well alrighttttyyyy then!!

How fun! I'm glad my post could garner such entertaining discussion.

First off, Pixmedic, please take down that picture immediately, it burns my eyes.

Second, Apaflo, I really appreciate your thoughts on art. Art truly is subjective thing, and I think you have some valid opinions. I think you would enjoy conversation with my art professor, Stephen Alcorn. Check him out! The Alcorn Studio & Gallery

However, I do realize that my image is far from perfect. While I personally like the image, I was only asking if I should clean up some of the hair in post, not any other aspect of the photo. I know that it's best to get the shot right in-camera, but I'm not going to pick up every strand of hair on her head and position it the way I want it. I do think I could have done with a little deeper depth of field. I will admit that I am allured to the all-magnificent wide-open f/1.8. I should experiment going past that. I'm not really sure why I had my ISO so high.. I was using flashes. However, I did need to get the background out of focus because it was wrinkly... yes, I know I should have ironed, but I didn't. And the space we were shooting in (my room) didn't leave a lot of room for maneuvering.

Thanks for the feedback so far, everyone! I did like your edits on the hair, Apaflo, which is what I was specifically asking about. And I appreciate the critiques on the image itself from everyone else as well.

And here's some better dof, for comparison purposes..

View attachment 65027

Argue on!

 

[pixmedic]

not a fan of the beach eh?
oh well, there's just no pleasing some people. ;-)
the green screen does catch the occasional persons fancy, and its lots of fun to work with.
plus, I can charge extra for picking your own fancy background. its win/win!
but I digress....


i like this shot much better.
(just MY opinion....im not an art guy...dont want to offend anyone)
the hair is better placed, the DOF is more appealing, and the lighting is more even. (evener? evenest? whatever)
her expression is great.

my only question would be, why the space on the right as apposed to the rest of her head on the left?
I dont think that choice detracts from the photo mind you, I was just curious as to the thought process.
very nicely shot.

 

[Braineack]

That picture would have been better with more dof.

It is valid to say that you would like it better with more depth of field. But it is also valid to say that others would disagree. It's not a case of it would or would not be better, just a case of a style that will appeal to some and not to others.

Photographs are not "better" just because we individually like them. Look at all the folks who claim Rhein II by Andreas Gursky is a bit of garbage they would put in the trash, yet anyone who actually does understand art will explain that it is great art (and the proof is clear enough, it sold for $4.3M). The significance is that we shouldn't grade art by whether we like it, but by it's qualities as art. That is true even when we distinctly dislike the style.

I would like that picture better if it had just a slight bit less DOF. Note that the edited image I posted did exactly nothing to "fix" any lack of DOF, but rather did the opposite. My point however was not to better emulate an illusion of reality, it was to clarify the beauty that is visually communicated by the image in order to heighten the viewer's persception of it.

To quote Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Blurring part of the image can make the concept much sharper...

BS, the DOF was perfect. that was an objective statement.

 

[DanOstergren]

I like the lighting. Both the light and shadows seem soft, and there is more than enough detail in the shadows to where I personally don't feel that fill light was needed. To me it looks like you used natural window light, so I'm impressed that you were using flash. I do feel that the hair could be cleaned up a little, and that perhaps a little more room on the left side of the image would have complimented this shot; a little too much of the side of her head was cut off in my opinion.

While I enjoy the shallow depth of field and don't feel that it makes you look like a newb photographer, if you feel that you want a slightly deeper depth of field and a little more sharpness, try stopping the aperture up to f/2.8 or 3.5.

text

In my experience, this forum is not for art. I would go to deviantart.com if you like art photography; there are much less stubborn people there who actually understand why it's important to break rules and don't immediately say "needs fill" when there are shadows on the face and dismiss a photographer as a newb simply because they shoot with their lens wide open or because the photographer doesn't intend to capture both eyes in focus. This forum is stuck on "rules" and will quickly encourage you to stick yourself in a box rather than be creative or think differently than they do. Derrel is a perfect example of this; if you disagree with his opinion he descends to insults, sarcasm, and attempts to make others look like fools in order to make his opinion seem correct; eventually you will end up on his ignore list if you disagree with him one too many times. Subjectivity is something that is almost completely rejected here, so it's virtually impossible to get others to understand you or to let go of their ego if you go against the grain and think outside the box.
Funny how the day I come back to post something here I am immediately reminded why I stopped coming here in the first place.

 

[apaflo]

And I have shown another image, which clearly has to be called "great photography", that uses exactly the same basic style!

Now, you don't have to like that style, but your arguments are a rant rather than logical.

wait, i get it now...
by your exact logic...

you HAVE to accept this photo as "great", because it uses a basic shallow DOF style.
now your arguments are just a rant.
see what I did there?

That is exactly the opposite of what I did say.

You apparently failed to notice just exactly what the image I linked is. It is one of a small set that Nikon uses in promotions for their rather well known 85mm f/1.4G lens. As I said, you don't necessarily have to like the image or the style, but if one of the world's foremost makers of lenses chose that image to promote the lens most famously associated with that style, it is great photography by definition.

 

[Derrel]

Anything seen in an advertisement is the truth. Bank on it. If it's in an advertisement, it is The Gospel. You know, "by definition".

 

[DGMPhotography]

Lol, but I like Derrel! We have the same name (though not in spelling)! And cutting off on the left just came naturally to me. I don't like my shots to be centered usually, and I wanted her to be looking at something so I gave her some extra space on the right.

 

[apaflo]

Anything seen in an advertisement is the truth. Bank on it. If it's in an advertisement, it is The Gospel. You know, "by definition".

The validity, or lack of, in the advertisement which used the image has nothing to do with this discussion.

Lets try to use at least a little common sense, eh?

 

[DanOstergren]

Lol, but I like Derrel! We have the same name (though not in spelling)! And cutting off on the left just came naturally to me. I don't like my shots to be centered usually, and I wanted her to be looking at something so I gave her some extra space on the right.

Doesn't make him any less rude or completely childish when you disagree with him. Just look above for a perfect example.

As far as the crop, it's ultimately at your discretion; just telling you how I think it could work better.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Lol, but I like Derrel! We have the same name (though not in spelling)! And cutting off on the left just came naturally to me. I don't like my shots to be centered usually, and I wanted her to be looking at something so I gave her some extra space on the right.

Doesn't make him any less rude when you disagree with him.

As far as the crop, it's ultimately at your discretion; just telling you how I think it could work better.

I appreciate your feedback, but I was actually answering Pixmedic's question, not trying to argue with you.

 

[DanOstergren]

Anything seen in an advertisement is the truth. Bank on it. If it's in an advertisement, it is The Gospel. You know, "by definition".

Assuming that we are talking about Nikon using an image specifically to sell a lens, they are hands down going to choose a good image to represent that lens.