Model bailed on me 30 mins before shoot! Had to do a selfie instead!

[Bossy]

Too slow joe I already edited my comment.

 

[Bossy]

Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"

 

[LightSpeed]

Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"

?

 

[Bossy]

Meaning, is there a reason I can't just say I like the image even though it breaks "rules" and not give any further critique-

 

[molested_cow]

"C&C Welcome", means he welcomes BOTH comments and critique. And being welcomed also means it doesn't have to be C&C. Seriously, stop being retarded.

 

[molested_cow]

I like the way the subject is being cropped out. It must be pretty tough for you since you are both the one clicking the shutter and jumping. Remote or timed release?

Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph.

My problem with the photo is the spacial relationship between the subject and the background. It seems that the relationship needs to be either closer or further.
For example, the depth of field can either be more or less, but just not what it is now. I think it will be more interesting if you used a larger aperture to further offset the focus, or use a small aperture to capture all the details. Right now, it's borderline "out of focus" or "shaky hands".
For the color tone, I enjoy it because it does create a certain mood that goes well with the context. However, I do think it also flattens the image, which goes back to my previous point of confusing spacial relationship.

 

[blackrose89]

"C&C Welcome", means he welcomes BOTH comments and critique. And being welcomed also means it doesn't have to be C&C. Seriously, stop being retarded.

I think Light was just trying to make a point that everyone jumps on the bandwagon with CC on "good photo" "bad photo" without giving anything to back up why they feel what they feel about a photo aside from everyone's approves/disapproves. When one person says something, a flock goes with it.

I personally LOVE the background and think it has an insane amount of potential, but not really sure as to what a random, poorly framed subject jumping through it adds to the photo.

 

[Josh66]

Did you make it? Looks pretty far, lol.

Cool Shot.

 

[rexbobcat]

Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"

?

You know what he's referring to.

 

[LightSpeed]

I like the way the subject is being cropped out. It must be pretty tough for you since you are both the one clicking the shutter and jumping. Remote or timed release?

Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph.

My problem with the photo is the spacial relationship between the subject and the background. It seems that the relationship needs to be either closer or further.
For example, the depth of field can either be more or less, but just not what it is now. I think it will be more interesting if you used a larger aperture to further offset the focus, or use a small aperture to capture all the details. Right now, it's borderline "out of focus" or "shaky hands".
For the color tone, I enjoy it because it does create a certain mood that goes well with the context. However, I do think it also flattens the image, which goes back to my previous point of confusing spacial relationship.

You have to be kidding me with this.
You take that thing and hang it in a conference room and the board members are gonna be sitting there thinking someone was drunk when they took that photograph.
Finding artistic value in something is subjective and has nothing to do with a good photograph/image or a bad photograph/image. If I sit in a room with 10 people, all of us viewing this, I might say......" I find this image inspirational and artistic because I can tell what the rest of the body is doing without it being in the photograph, defeating the purpose of an image...........that's right an IMAGE, which is meant to be SEEN and that's why it's called an image...........8 people are gonna look at me like i'm crazy and then there is always gonna be one nutball who knows nothing, so will agree with anything. And then to suggest that I'm retarded, and delivering this load of CRAP in nearly the same breath, to justify the image. I mean that just takes the cake.

Depth of field being incorrect has nothing to do with this. Depth of field looks good to me.
There were NO "SHAKY HANDS" because it's a self portrait and was probably timed off a tripod.
I may be wrong, but I think that's what it is.

As to the color tone creating a certain mood that goes well with the context??
What context might that be? The head being chopped off, or the viewer wondering what size shoes he wears?
Since you can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, WHY NOT JUST IMAGINE THE REST OF THE PHOTO THE WAY YOU WANT TO SEE IT and leave no critique at all?
Or leave totally imagined critique.
I mean since you can imagine something you can't see, why not imagine something you CAN see?

That settles it. Artistic value apparently means, it doesn't matter what the image looks like. We can all just imagine how we want it to be and then justify our imaginations while giving critique on an image that's not there.
We don't even need cameras anymore. We can just type what we imagine and let the image form in our heads from thin air.

 

[LightSpeed]

Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"

?

You know what he's referring to.

Proof or it didn't happen.
EDIT:
What I meant to say is no one pulled you chain.

 

[LightSpeed]

To the OP:

I looked at your image site.
What I saw was a guy who knows how to handle a camera.
Many of the images you have there are far FAR better than this, which was my point.
I'm sure that this was something you were doing just goofing around, for the fun of it.
Believe me, I would never try to take the fun factor out of photography.

I humbly apologize if you feel I have been harsh.
It's just that, to see this falling over backwards stuff with the silliest critique that I have ever seen, prompted me.
I've seen much better images get destroyed here, and some of it seems to be , the who's who of who made the first stupid comment that was then followed by..well, the followers.

I took an objective look at this image. I'm no student of finer art, obviously.
The technicalities of the image look good to me. Good exposure, good depth of field etc etc.
In other words I could tell that the person who captured this image, knows what they are doing.
Then I thumbed thru your flickr, before I ever made comment. And that's when, I was like, " why did he post this?
I figured it was for fun, after having seen some of your other works.

Anyway, I thought I'd explain myself to you......
Figured it was the right thing to do........and sometimes that's hard to do.

Take care.

 

[Bossy]

I think Light was just trying to make a point that everyone jumps on the bandwagon with CC on "good photo" "bad photo" without giving anything to back up why they feel what they feel about a photo aside from everyone's approves/disapproves. When one person says something, a flock goes with it.

I personally LOVE the background and think it has an insane amount of potential, but not really sure as to what a random, poorly framed subject jumping through it adds to the photo.

Or heaven forbid some of us just like the photo. From my view Light doesn't want to make a point, he just likes to try to moderate what others post. Its immature. Constantly piping in and speaking for others is also immature. Don't be a toady.

I really suggest you take some art history classes, as well as some documentary and contemporary. Or read a book. Some of the worlds technically ****ty photos are also the most interesting. Not everything has to fit in a perfect box for someone to appreciate it or find it interesting. The picture isn't about the background. Its about the man jumping 5 feet over a creek. Its about some alternate place hes found. It has a story. You don't have to relate to it, or find it interesting. Berating someone for having an opinion other than your own isn't going against the flow, its just being closed minded.

 

[LightSpeed]

I think Light was just trying to make a point that everyone jumps on the bandwagon with CC on "good photo" "bad photo" without giving anything to back up why they feel what they feel about a photo aside from everyone's approves/disapproves. When one person says something, a flock goes with it.

I personally LOVE the background and think it has an insane amount of potential, but not really sure as to what a random, poorly framed subject jumping through it adds to the photo.

Or heaven forbid some of us just like the photo. From my view Light doesn't want to make a point, he just likes to try to moderate what others post. Its immature. Constantly piping in and speaking for others is also immature. Don't be a toady.

I really suggest you take some art history classes, as well as some documentary and contemporary. Or read a book. Some of the worlds technically ****ty photos are also the most interesting. Not everything has to fit in a perfect box for someone to appreciate it or find it interesting. The picture isn't about the background. Its about the man jumping 5 feet over a creek. Its about some alternate place hes found. It has a story. You don't have to relate to it, or find it interesting. Berating someone for having an opinion other than your own isn't going against the flow, its just being closed minded.

This coming from someone who jumped on a bandwagon , harping about drama queens.
I think I've made my point fairly clear with regard to the silly critique. If you feel you've been singled out, you might want to read above.
No need to delve into that any further.

The picture is about an alternate place someone has found? What?
Are we talking different dimensions in time and space now?
Jeez. It gets better.

Rose , just don't argue with her. It's pointless.
Yes Bossy, you're above Rose. I mean suggesting that she read a book. How benevolent of you.
You're obviously a professional photographer , making your living with a camera, and far be it from me or anyone else to challenge
your complete and absolute knowledge of photography. I bow before you and ask forgiveness , for ever mentioning the term " critique."
I know now that I'm not fit to stand in the same room with such photographic prowess.
Please accept my apologies for ever doubting you.
I think I speak for all when I say, " Just having you around makes us better photographers.
Thank you Bossy, from all of us, to you. We couldn't have done it without you dear.

 

[thepaulreid]

I like it...it is weird, but I like it for it's weirdness.

Me too. Any color work done on this? Really like the blue flowers/veg.

petto, colour work... you wouldn't believe it. I will post the original for you.