Simple portrait

[Mieke]

I hope you'll like this one.

 

[cauzimme]

Watchout your crop. It's a nice photo, great light, but unfortunately, the top of her hair is crop, it's a shame especially since the hair is in movement.

Fais attention à tes cadrage, c'est une très jolie photo, avec une belle lumière maîtrisée, malheureusement ses cheveux sont coupées et puisqu'ils sont en mouvement, c'est domage

 

[The_Traveler]

c'est domage.

I agree with cauzimme totally but would like to express it in a different way.
viewers get hints about the photo from placement of the content and what you choose to include or exclude - even if it is done by accident they don't know.

in this photo, there is this white area at the upper left that allows attention to drain away, a different toned and large-ish looking hand appearing out of no where and her head being cluipped as she passes out of the frame. This seems like a mis-framing to me.

In this case a 2:3 aspect ratio isn't your friend.
Picture this framing, 5:4 with her lower in the frame relatively, her hair not totally lost at the top and much of the left side distraction removed.

My implication is that now-empty space along the top should have stuff in it.

What do you think?

 

[Derrel]

Would have totally rocked if the camera would have been turned 90 degrees to the vertical orientation. Cropping off her bosom and the top of her head, but leaving a large white expanse of seamless paper background on either side of her is a fundamentals mistake in decision-making: should this be a "wide-framed image", or a "tall-framed" image? The decision is one that matches the subject's pose with the frame orientation. Is she taller than she is wide, in "this pose"? That is what the photographer needs to decide: does the framing match the pose the subject is shown in?

The decision on how to frame for maximum impact is very critical when the camera shoots natively at a 3:2 ratio, as so, so many cameras do these days. With a 4:3 camera, or a 5:4 camera, the decision has a bit less impact, but is still a factor in most situations.

She is a very beautiful woman, for sure, but her square-shoulders in relation to the lens axis do not really help make her look "better", nor does the elimination of the bosom and most of her clothing...the hand with the shirt cuff just comes up out of nowhere...and the hand itself is not feminine in its posing. Again, she's a very attractive woman, but there are a number of photographic and stylistic elements that do not make me "like" the image as much as if it had been composed as a tall, not as a wide, and if some of the more sophisticated points about photographic and design elements had been done in a slightly different manner.

This is a delicate area, offering C&C on people's pictures, especially so when they preface the shots with comments that indicate they are searching for or hoping for approval. Many people today use the landscape orientation on portrait images, and show us less person, and more background, rather than the other way around, by turning the camera to portrait orientation, and thus showing MORE PERSON, and less background. You can try to crop to re-do the shot, after the session is over, as The_Traveler has done above, but the final result then will not be quite the same thing as showing more of the person, like the top of their head, or their clothing/outfit.

 

[chuasam]

Cropping off her bosom and the top of her head, but leaving a large white expanse of seamless paper background on either side of her is a fundamentals mistake in decision-making

WINNER OF THE DAY