Impromptu Portrait C&C

[exemplaria]

Was actually photographing birds out back when I pointed the camera at my wife and got a "please stop that" type response. However when I went to look at the photos I was intrigued. Inpiried by this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/306612-beginner-how-emulate-style.html I set out to touch it up in that style. For some reason I see a bluish tint on Flickr that I don't see in PS. Thoughts?



Nikon D7000, 1/200 at 55mm, F/4.5 ISO3200

 

[fjrabon]

why are you at 1/200 at 55mm with ISO 3200?

generally shots where it looks like the person is blinking are not considered flattering, and having the face being the darkest part of the picture is a faux pas unless you have a good reason for doing it.

 

[ManualMode]

My first reaction is that it looked like a picture of a girl talking to someone else, who you caught in mid-gesture/blinking. She also has a pole growing from the top of her head
I would have deleted without a second thought, sorry!

 

[exemplaria]

why are you at 1/200 at 55mm with ISO 3200?

"Was actually photographing birds out back" with a 55-300 lens. I'm looking at birds out in the forest, she's sitting next to me. I don't know recall if I put the view finder to my eye, this is actually cropped from a landscape format.

If you see blinking, well that's what you see, but I see someone turning away from the camera and saying "please don't" or perhaps someone blushing from an unexpected compliment. The left side of her face is darkER than the right, but it's not dark in an absolute sense.

 

[The_Traveler]

why are you at 1/200 at 55mm with ISO 3200?

"Was actually photographing birds out back" with a 55-300 lens. I'm looking at birds out in the forest, she's sitting next to me. I don't know recall if I put the view finder to my eye, this is actually cropped from a landscape format.

If you see blinking, well that's what you see, but I see someone turning away from the camera and saying "please don't" or perhaps someone blushing from an unexpected compliment. The left side of her face is darkER than the right, but it's not dark in an absolute sense.

the role of the photographer, if he wants people to see what he sees, is to speak the visual language of the viewers.
typically, in a successful image, the eyes of the viewer should not be drawn to unimportant bright areas unless there is an artistic reason.
here, the back of her head, the side of her face and her hand are all brighter than the front of her face - and that serves no purpose.

you may love this because it resonates with your feelings towards your wife when you took it; it isn't successful with an unbiased viewer, I think.

 

[tirediron]

Pictures to which one has an emotional attachment are never the best for critique since your investment in them goes beyond a simple photograph. While I can see the emotion you're describing, I agree with Lew that it's not really a successful image in so far as there's no impact with the viewer. I find the crop rather awkward too in that it appears that someone is reaching in from image right to choke her.

 

[NorthbyNorthwest]

Agree with about posters. Nothing here for an average image viewer. No real draw. But, glad you like it.

 

[fjrabon]

why are you at 1/200 at 55mm with ISO 3200?

"Was actually photographing birds out back" with a 55-300 lens. I'm looking at birds out in the forest, she's sitting next to me. I don't know recall if I put the view finder to my eye, this is actually cropped from a landscape format.

If you see blinking, well that's what you see, but I see someone turning away from the camera and saying "please don't" or perhaps someone blushing from an unexpected compliment. The left side of her face is darkER than the right, but it's not dark in an absolute sense.

See, the problem with your analysis is that you are the photographer, who knows the situation, personally. I am a viewer. Any viewer of this image will not see what you are seeing, that's a relatively unreasonable interpretation, though possible. The most likely interpretation is simply blinking. Occam's razor and all. And if you want to make photographs that other people, ie viewers enjoy, you have to understand how a viewer who wasn't there will take in the image. You can't tell a viewer "well, that's what you see." You're right, that IS what I see, but if you're making photography for anybody other than yourself, what I see IS THE WHOLE POINT. I'm a viewer.

 

[MK3Brent]

I would have deleted without a second thought, sorry!

Me too.

Someone is trying to strangle her! (floating hand)

 

[exemplaria]

Thanks all. Taking it down as I don't think she'd want it floating out there.

 

[ManualMode]

I'm totally in agreement with the follow up.. if you have to explain the photo, then it doesn't work. The reason why you see something different is that you are privvy to what happened directly before and after the split second that the photo was taken.. in this sense.. every photo is taken "out of context" so needs to be very clear. cheers