A close up for critique

[o hey tyler]

If you lives in alaska the sun rises in the NE and sets in the NW and spends most of the day in the southern sky.

I do not disregard your comments, but my photos look they way they so on purpose. Im mostly looking for what you like about the photo and what you think about the compoaition. Im pretty much set in my exposure formula. I dont see where any of my photos are out of focus though.

I hear that a lot from amateur photographers, "I made my photos look that way on purpose." I understand where you are coming from, if you hadn't wanted the photo to come out that way on purpose, chances are you wouldn't have posted it for critique. It's the fact that your original intent of the image doesn't "work" for a number of unbiased viewers.

Photo 2 and photo 3 are both lacking adequate DoF. You need to shoot less at f/1.8 and start stopping down to f/2.2 AT least for that range of camera to subject distance on 35mm format. I shoot a lot of f1.4 primes and they are never less than a stop down from wide open.

 

[laurenvictoria]

They're cute!

 

[AJev]

Since when did the sun come from the south? The last 4.5 billion years or so, it came up in the east and went down in the west.

Also why do you ask for comments if you just reject them and defend your poor choice in camera work? I'd hate to see how you react to C&C on the wedding photos you've taken.

Photo 3 is essentially entirely out of focus. Photo 2 lacks sharpness in the face. Photo 1 has had plenty of comments so far that I am on the same page with.

If you lives in alaska the sun rises in the NE and sets in the NW and spends most of the day in the southern sky.

I do not disregard your comments, but my photos look they way they so on purpose. Im mostly looking for what you like about the photo and what you think about the compoaition. Im pretty much set in my exposure formula. I dont see where any of my photos are out of focus though.

#3 I guess if you were taking a picture of a red truck and a child happened to be holding it, I can see the composition of the 3rd one, but you say you don't see where it is out of focus...look at his feet.

#2 The composition is good but my personal preference would have been to see his face. When you look at it full size though, there is a tremendous amount of noise which really makes the focus look off or perhaps it is a crop of a much bigger picture and you lost detail?

#1 I actually like the composition on this one, minus the leaves, but I would prefer it to be darkened just a bit so there was definition to that side of his face but that is a personal preference I think. I see a lot of Photoshop actions that do that on purpose, just wouldn't be my choice.

 

[3bayjunkie]

#3 I guess if you were taking a picture of a red truck and a child happened to be holding it, I can see the composition of the 3rd one, but you say you don't see where it is out of focus...look at his feet.

#2 The composition is good but my personal preference would have been to see his face. When you look at it full size though, there is a tremendous amount of noise which really makes the focus look off or perhaps it is a crop of a much bigger picture and you lost detail?

#1 I actually like the composition on this one, minus the leaves, but I would prefer it to be darkened just a bit so there was definition to that side of his face but that is a personal preference I think. I see a lot of Photoshop actions that do that on purpose, just wouldn't be my choice.

Thanks for the comments. #3 the truck is the only thing supposed to be in focus. His feet are supposed to be out of focus. Thanks for the critique.

#2 its 400 iso film. Its film grain not noise. It is the effect i was going for by using film instead of digital.

 

[AJev]

Ahh, film - that explains it!

 

[3bayjunkie]

They're cute!

Thank you

 

[ababysean]

are you asking for cc or what?

 

[3bayjunkie]

are you asking for cc or what?

Yeah pretty much, where have you been?

 

[Tuffythepug]

Ok then.. to recap

1. You are seeking comments from people who agree with your own viewpoint
2. Anything that might be criticized by an impartial observer was an intentional artistic choice by the photographer
3. The way the sunlight in Alaska is different and harder to deal with than the sunlight in other locales
4. You want to hear what we like about the photo and the composition; not what we don't like or what we feel could be improved.
5. Your exposure formula is set; no need to discuss that aspect; your photos look the way they do on purpose
6. Focus means different things to different people

Relax, I'm just having some fun with you. But I hope you realize that there's some degree of accuracy there. Reasonable people can disagree about everything from politics, to religion, to artistic vision; even what is and what isn't art. There's room for all opinions. The bottom line is that you are basically happy with the photographs you produced
and posted them here for us all to admire. Unfortunately not everyone shared your artistic vision on this set. You have a very good model who I'm sure will have many many more shots taken of him. I'd like to see what you come up with next. And remember nobody gets by easily on this forum. Everybody takes a few lumps when they post pictures here. But sometimes the criticism has merit and good pictures can be made into great pictures.

 

[ababysean]

well then it seems everything someone says, you disagree with. I had that problem too. before I learned they are really trying to help. Thank them for their time and think about it before posting a response.

 

[3bayjunkie]

OK, I wasn't going to post this one because I cut off his feet. However I think his posture and facial expression is more appealing than the #2 on here from earlier. Does anyone have any opinions on this one compared to the original I posted?

 

[kundalini]

Well i like it despite of the lighting. I cant control where lighting is coming from if im taking a picture from a top looking down, it was in the shade as well.

If you have decided that you can't control the light, continue snapping away and be happy with the results. If you would rather for your snapshots to closer resemble photograhs, I suggest you delve into the subject of how to control light, regardless of its source or position. Good luck.

 

[SCraig]

... I do not disregard your comments, but my photos look they way they so on purpose. Im mostly looking for what you like about the photo and what you think about the compoaition. Im pretty much set in my exposure formula. I dont see where any of my photos are out of focus though.

OK, I wasn't going to post this one because I cut off his feet. However I think his posture and facial expression is more appealing than the #2 on here from earlier. Does anyone have any opinions on this one compared to the original I posted?

Umm ... nope. Nothing you are interested in hearing anyway.

 

[Tuffythepug]

I doubt that you will get much further comment on these photos

 

[Derrel]

I think the photo of the boy on the railroad tracks is the only one of the three shots that really "works". It has a sort of "Instagram-like" or Low-Fi feel to it. That is a style that many people are not willing to accept. The first shot, of the boy with his arm outstretched toward the camera looks kinda' like a Facebook selfie some teenager might have shot! I have only glanced at the other replies in this thread, but I see that you're being brutalized by the usual suspects...to be expected.

The entire genre of Diana/Holga/Lomo/Low-Fi/Instagram/Hipstamatic/FX images drives many photography newcomers and many stodgy old-timers insane...

Keep the faith. Read their C&C's and move on. Be willing to listen, and also willing to let inane comments go in one ear and right out the other.