Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,944
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
1: it's a horizontal and it's a poor composition. The woman is cropped off badly, and the big,huge, useless empty space on the left appears to have been left for nothing other than space to put in your large,flowery logo. The big, burned-out highlight on her shoulder shows that your technical fundamentals are weak.
2: The subject is unrecognizable, and the shallow depth of field makes absolutely no sense. This is the weakest of the four shots, and it's extremely weak. The bullet-shaped thing is the only part of the scene in good focus, and for what reason?
3: The cracked board is in focus. The child is out of focus. You are accidentally using an old landscape painting technique of placing your logo, in dark, on top of a very bright background location, thus magnifying the emphasis of BOTH areas, which makes for a very attention-getting logotype, and totally kills this shot. The dark-overlayed-atop-light logo placement and the out of focus child combine to make the equivalent of a photographic double-tap.
4: the OOF grass in front of her eyes is somewhat distracting, yes. It makes me want to NOT look. But notice here how the unified logo, brown, overlayed on tan, makes the logo much less gaudy and garish? How it makes the logo sort of sublimate, rather than vibrate? The best part of this shot is that it shows how one can make a logo that does not call undue attention to itself, as is the case in photos 1 and 3.
2: The subject is unrecognizable, and the shallow depth of field makes absolutely no sense. This is the weakest of the four shots, and it's extremely weak. The bullet-shaped thing is the only part of the scene in good focus, and for what reason?
3: The cracked board is in focus. The child is out of focus. You are accidentally using an old landscape painting technique of placing your logo, in dark, on top of a very bright background location, thus magnifying the emphasis of BOTH areas, which makes for a very attention-getting logotype, and totally kills this shot. The dark-overlayed-atop-light logo placement and the out of focus child combine to make the equivalent of a photographic double-tap.
4: the OOF grass in front of her eyes is somewhat distracting, yes. It makes me want to NOT look. But notice here how the unified logo, brown, overlayed on tan, makes the logo much less gaudy and garish? How it makes the logo sort of sublimate, rather than vibrate? The best part of this shot is that it shows how one can make a logo that does not call undue attention to itself, as is the case in photos 1 and 3.