kristen, bright, and fun!

[dangerwoman]

 

[AprilRamone]

That second one would be awesome with some minor touchups and PP. I would at the very least use the curves tool and brighten it a bit.

 

[rezzy]

Maybe I dont understand what makes a quality picture. But the first one is awesome.

 

[dangerwoman]

Maybe I dont understand what makes a quality picture. But the first one is awesome.

ive noticed a trend (on the internet at least) of people needing to have a picture fit certain guidelines and rules to be a good photo.
i think technical stuff is definitly benificial BUT if you look at a photo and it looks good, then thats good enough for me


thanks !

 

[dangerwoman]

That second one would be awesome with some minor touchups and PP. I would at the very least use the curves tool and brighten it a bit.

thanks. in regards to brightening do you mean the second or the third? i agree that the third could be brighter but i like the naturalness of the second

 

[The_Traveler]

i think technical stuff is definitly benificial BUT if you look at a photo and it looks good, then thats good enough for me

No, the important thing is if the viewer knows why it looks good. A 'wowie' from a person who's unused to judging photographs is essentially meaningless to the photographer. It may mean that it is really a good photo, it may mean that the viewer just loves the content - irrespective of the picture. (like grandchildren photos)

IMO, these pictures (#1,2) would be better if the limbs hadn't been amputated.

 

[dangerwoman]

No, the important thing is if the viewer knows why it looks good. A 'wowie' from a person who's unused to judging photographs is essentially meaningless to the photographer. It may mean that it is really a good photo, it may mean that the viewer just loves the content - irrespective of the picture. (like grandchildren photos)

IMO, these pictures (#1,2) would be better if the limbs hadn't been amputated.

i dont think that a person has to be well versed in the area of photography to look at a photograph and like it. the viewer doesnt need to know Why it looks good. i dont make photographs for other photographers.

i dont think the "rules" are as important as whether the photo looks good.

in #2 i cropped it exactly how i wanted it to, it wasnt just an accidental careless "amputation"

thank you

 

[The_Traveler]

i dont think that a person has to be well versed in the area of photography to look at a photograph and like it. the viewer doesnt need to know Why it looks good. i dont make photographs for other photographers.

i dont think the "rules" are as important as whether the photo looks good.

in #2 i cropped it exactly how i wanted it to, it wasnt just an accidental careless "amputation"

Sorry I meant 1 & 3.
IMO, 2 is quite nice.

Photography is no different than any other art. The simpler pieces are usually accessible by anyone and not for the reason that they are 'good' but because they are understandable. So grandparents love even ugly pictures of their own grandchildren. Most people like pictures of puppies playing - just because the subjects are pleasing and the pictures are easy to like - and there is a connection between the content and them.

Do 6 year olds have the same tastes in food or wine as you do? Probably not, you have grown to like and appreciate newer, more sophisticated tastes - the new 'rules'.

In the same vein, don't you like the pictures you take now more than the ones you took 2 years ago? Don't you 'like' pictures taken by skilled photographers more than the snapshots taken by the average guy next door? Why is that? Aren't Victoria Secret ads more appealing than Sears Catalog shots? Why is that? It is because the photographer is more skilled. The photographer is shooting more according to the principles that people enjoy - the 'rules.'

As viewers get sophisticated, as with any art, the viewer can appreciate - and like - images not only because they like the content but because they are 'good.'

If Annie Leibowitz liked your pictures, wouldn't that mean more to you than if your trashman or an anonymous cab driver liked them? Why? Because you correctly expect Annie to have a better understanding of what is good.

'Good' pictures fulfill certain innate feelings of composition, balance and harmony that we try to codify as rules. When we look at images that have content that doesn't resonate with us on a personal basis - no babies, puppies etc. - the only way we have to judge the image are those 'rules'.

Do the colors, contrast, tonality make sense with the subject?
Does the composition place the important things in the prominent places?
Are not important things removed or in not-important places?
Is the sharpness appropriate to the desired impact?

You are going by the 'rules', whether you admit it or not.
If you didn't want to get response, you wouldn't post anywhere.

 

[Alex_B]

if you do not know (or do not tell) why you think a picture looks good or bad, then you do not help the photographer in improving next time, or staying on the track.

I am not saying that a WOW without explanation is not nice to get ... the same way as a "I do not like it" does not feel nice. However, if either of them come with an explanation, then both positive and negative critique are useful for the photographer.

 

[TCimages]

I wish the folks on this forum were more open minded about the fact that photography, like any other type of art is very subjective.

Are there ways to make photos better, of course. But better for who?

I like #2. I don't believe a critique is necessary for every response

 

[Alex_B]

I wish the folks on this forum were more open minded about the fact that photography, like any other type of art is very subjective.

Are there ways to make photos better, of course. But better for who?

I like #2. I don't believe a critique is necessary for every response

I did not say so, not for every response. But I think it is important that I get some likes/dislikes which are explained then in the next few lines.

Of course many things are subjective, but still I want to hear them, that does not mean I always follow them, but they will help me develop.

 

[Anelle]

I like the idea of these and if the posing suits the personality of the subject I'm sure she would love these.

The cropped limbs do bother me whether you intended it or not, but in the 3rd one the dark shadow really draws my eye :-(. It you intended for such a dark shadow that is fine, but I still find it distracting. Also I think it is slightly underexposed.

All in all though these are great in terms of colour and fun! I really like the 2nd one.

In terms of the other issues raised in this thread:
Here is the thing, it is kind of a given to me that when you post here you would actually like some feedback from your peers... I mean, If I wanted a "well done, these are FANTASTIC/AMAZING" I would show my photos to my mom

I think knowing the basics and the rules are imperative BEFORE you start breaking them. (Dangerwoman, not saying that you don't know the basics, just a general observation)

As photographers we need to strive to improve - even old pros will tell you that.

Anelle

 

[dangerwoman]

I like the idea of these and if the posing suits the personality of the subject I'm sure she would love these.

The cropped limbs do bother me whether you intended it or not, but in the 3rd one the dark shadow really draws my eye :-(. It you intended for such a dark shadow that is fine, but I still find it distracting. Also I think it is slightly underexposed.

All in all though these are great in terms of colour and fun! I really like the 2nd one.

In terms of the other issues raised in this thread:
Here is the thing, it is kind of a given to me that when you post here you would actually like some feedback from your peers... I mean, If I wanted a "well done, these are FANTASTIC/AMAZING" I would show my photos to my mom

I think knowing the basics and the rules are imperative BEFORE you start breaking them. (Dangerwoman, not saying that you don't know the basics, just a general observation)

As photographers we need to strive to improve - even old pros will tell you that.

Anelle

i never said i didnt like the critique, and i do welcome it. and i definitly do know the "rules" and im always striving to improve (i go to school for photography. i wouldnt be doing that if all of the above werent true.)

i was just pointing out what i have noticed, that everyone jumps to point out what is "technically" wrong instead of whether the picture just Works. people who dont know about all the technical stuff dont do that, because they dont know how. they just know how the photo makes them feel. and alot of the time, what makes a photo good to a person who doesnt know what theyre talking about IS the sucessful application of technical abilities, they just dont know that thats why. and sometimes its emotion, or color, or whatever, but like someone said before, photography is subjective.

i didnt meant to seem like i didnt want critique, or that i didnt think your critique was valid. i was actually responding to someone who said "i dont know what makes a quality photo but..." and yeah, i dont think you need to be a photographer to know what makes a quality photo.


im sure annie leibowitz likes and dislikes photographs for things far beyond "you chopped off a limb, the horizons not straight" etc etc. i dont know the lady but i think its a pretty safe bet

 

[The_Traveler]

I do agree with you about the inappropriate pixel peeping. Many people confuse accurate reproduction with picture 'quality'.

OTOH, you can't depend on uninformed opinions because you don't know why the person actually like the picture.

That's a great picture of a horse (I love any picture with horses in it.)
That's amazing. (I can't do that.)
That's incredible. (That's a baby, I love babies, it looks like my baby)
Really sensuous and well composed. (I can see down her dress almost to her nipple. wow)

IMO, the photographer can take the lead in this by asking specific questions of vague responders. That will actually get them to think, and learn.

 

[JerryPH]

I will read the comments after I post... that said:

- sharpness is nice!
- colours are vibrant and alive
- emotion is displayed very well
- good amount of work placed in setting up the lighting, and it shows

- I am not a big fan of limb or face or shoulder cropping. Always make the pic look strange to me. Art and reality are rarely in sync, but for me, my people have faces and arms and legs and my pics reflect that unless there is a reason (ie: table in front of legs, asthetics, hide a "fault" or distracting element).

- For my taste, the pics are about a third of a stop off in brightness on the subject.

- The eyes... I would tend to want to sharpen them a little more and I love catchlights, that REALLY makes a picture for me. They are the entraceway to the soul in portraiture and in the cases above, could be touched up on.

- Hairlights, sometimes appropriate, sometimes not... in this case, I find myself wishing it was there in 2 out of the 3 pics (not in the jumping one)

Overall shows a level of promise and attention to detail that denotes a photographer with more than 10 minutes time behind the eye piece... lol.

Nice!

Edit: Ok, read all the comments... interesting, seems my comment on art and reality rung true once again. The critique and comments are not all that important if YOU do not want to take them as being important. If YOU are happy wit your artistic vision, and what was in your mind was accurately transposed to your photos, they are a success and if not, they failed. Thats all part of the learning process and at least to me, the biggest source of pleasure.