Feedback Required

Hey Rob,

I appreciate your eye ... but most of the photos are less than professional quality. I use "publishable" as a bar to judge photos and only a few were, IMO, has the impact and quality to run in a major market newspaper or magazine.

Music: Back lighting is wonderful ... but rarely did you expose for the faces, thereby leaving the subjects dark and without detail. A few shots like these is okay for mood ... but you had too many. Most of the shots lacked contrast and looked muddy, a few were not sharp and you had way to much repetition of similar images. The problem with repetition is dilution ... problem with dilution is it lessens the impact. If your web site is a marketing tool, it is better to display one stand alone good/geat photo than one good/great photo mixed in with four not-so-good/great photos (back to dilution.)

Abstracts: These are not very abstract in the literal sense. Most lacked high impact and once again most needed more contrast.

Landscapes: These seemed more like time-exposures than landscapes ... too many of the same thing, see dilution above.

Fashion: These were all sharp and well exposed with okay contrast. They lacked variety. Same angle... same lighting ... they lacked the Rob Hearne eye I saw in the music shots.

I liked the flow of the site, but the photos loaded slowly. Maybe smaller files would load faster.

Once again, if the site is a marketing tool for business ... then most of the photos are not professional quality. If the site is just to show the stuff you like through photography ... then I like you eye ... you need to work on exposure, post processing (contrast) and dilution.

Gary
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top