Julie, half submerged, with flowing cloth

[sabbath999]

 

[The_Traveler]

This seems quite an awkward use of space to me

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Isn't that colorful! Nice.

 

[sabbath999]

This seems quite an awkward use of space to me

Interesting... I guess all that talk about the "rule of thirds" is kind of a waste of time then?

 

[Aerr]

Yikes, her eyebrows seem overly plucked.

 

[Trever1t]

This seems quite an awkward use of space to me

Interesting... I guess all that talk about the "rule of thirds" is kind of a waste of time then?

3

I believe the comment implied that you might have done better in Portrait orientation, using the available spqace to show us more of the subject

 

[Josh66]

This seems quite an awkward use of space to me

Interesting... I guess all that talk about the "rule of thirds" is kind of a waste of time then?

3

I believe the comment implied that you might have done better in Portrait orientation, using the available spqace to show us more of the subject

But then the hand would look weird. And it would probably be less of the subject, filling more of the frame.

 

[The_Traveler]

This seems quite an awkward use of space to me

Interesting... I guess all that talk about the "rule of thirds" is kind of a waste of time then?

No, but what seems to be a waste of time is expressing an opinion that you don't want to hear.

 

[sabbath999]

It's not that I don't want to hear your suggetions of how I might have done it better, it's just that your "opinion" is just internet snark.

I don't really pay attention to internet snark.

Say something productive or helpful and I will listen, assuming you know what you are talking about and make sense. I may or may not agree with you. A drive by "snarking"? Couldn't care less what you think.

I think a lot of stuff in your website is fantastic, and some of it pure crap. Should you care about my opinion? Not in the least, because I am just being snarky and am not offering you any constructive ideas. I am not telling you why I don't like the shots, and therefore my critique can be just ignored.

I don't care about your opinion unless you support it with solid data, and I am not going to waste time trying to parse what you are saying as if they are pearls of wisdom.

I am not being in the least closed minded to critiques, just to one-line half-explained snarky comments.

Like the picture, don't like it, couldn't care less. Tell me a way you think I can make it better, could have shot it better, or should look to do it the next time, THAT I care about because that gives me something to look at and consider, assuming you sound like you know what you are talking about.

Or just be snarky, it's all good by me.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

It's not that I don't want to hear your suggetions of how I might have done it better, it's just that your "opinion" is just internet snark.

I don't really pay attention to internet snark.

Say something productive or helpful and I will listen, assuming you know what you are talking about and make sense. I may or may not agree with you. A drive by "snarking"? Couldn't care less what you think.

I think a lot of stuff in your website is fantastic, and some of it pure crap. Should you care about my opinion? Not in the least, because I am just being snarky and am not offering you any constructive ideas. I am not telling you why I don't like the shots, and therefore my critique can be just ignored.

I don't care about your opinion unless you support it with solid data, and I am not going to waste time trying to parse what you are saying as if they are pearls of wisdom.

I am not being in the least closed minded to critiques, just to one-line half-explained snarky comments.

Like the picture, don't like it, couldn't care less. Tell me a way you think I can make it better, could have shot it better, or should look to do it the next time, THAT I care about because that gives me something to look at and consider, assuming you sound like you know what you are talking about.

Or just be snarky, it's all good by me.

+1

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Kewl pic but for the sake of critique -

altho it follows the rule of thirds, it seems to ignore other guidelines of composition (maybe intentionally?) such as balance (arrangement of shapes, colors, or areas of light and dark that complement ), avoiding mergers (black material looks like its growing outside her head), and busy background.

But i'm a nooB, please dis this post as Internet snark, and thanks for the new term

 

[The_Traveler]

altho it follows the rule of thirds, it seems to ignore other guidelines of composition (maybe intentionally?) such as balance (arrangement of shapes, colors, or areas of light and dark that complement ), avoiding mergers (black material looks like its growing outside her head), and busy background.

I think 2WheelPhoto pretty much said it but my initial impression was that the picture was awkward - and I still think so.

At the time I said that I was completely unaware of your absolute requirement that commenters study your every image and provide a full exegesis upon pain of being ignored.
Enforcing that requirement must keep you quite busy.

And then when you said:

Interesting... I guess all that talk about the "rule of thirds" is kind of a waste of time then?

I was just dumbfounded.

Perhaps, I thought, you had confused 'position' with 'composition' (The manner in which such parts are combined or related.) and so you thought that if you placed some parts of the subject on the 'thirds' that would make the picture work.

Well, I really think that composition is really more than that. I think that, to appeal to the viewer, the picture must be coherent, all the parts fitting together in a way that creates a total impression to the viewer.

I look at this picture and see what seems to be a disembodied head lying at an angle surrounded by various intensely colored cloths in shades that pull the eye. Because they are so vivid the edges and folds create lines that lead the eye, at arbitrary angles, away from the subject.

Perhaps if the cloths were in muted tones like the ones that cover where her neck might be, they would pull the eye less. Even if they would have been in colors that coordinated with or reinforced the only natural color in her face - her eyes - they might meld better - but these colors, not so much.

Then, out of nowhere a hand appears - it looks very hairy to me but that might be an illusion because it might be underwater - the only place that water does appear. So we have a hand appearing out of nowhere - untied to anything but underwater. Not even the long graceful fingers but the meaty knuckles and the hand is brighter than her face - and on the third. Does that make it important?

You've cropped this into a 5 x 4 landscape seemingly to be able to include the hand and that also traps some other bright, non-contributory spaces in the upper right that are un-managed.

And, of course the tear (?) running down her left cheek and the dribble from her lip.

That was why I called it awkward.

Since you took 250 words to tell me you were ignoring me, I can't imagine what you'll write now.

 

[bostoncowgirl]

Just from a noobs point of view, I really like the colors, but there is something awkward about the composition. I think maybe its because she doesnt have a neck? Just my opinion...

 

[Patrice]

I just want to add a comment about her eye makeup, it just seems a bit odd. The makeup gives her very noticeable 'bags' or very thick and heavy lower lids.

 

[Destin]

For one, it looks like a floating head. As a general rule, showing the head without the neck is a bad idea. Rules are meant to be broken, but they shouldn't have been in this example.

Her skin and face look plasticy and overprocessed.

In all honestly, to me, it looks like a poor snapshot of a girl floating in a pool with a deflated innertube around her.