Photo of the day

[vandal]

Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.

 

[thereyougo!]

I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad?

Because it includes to much stuff in the frame that steals attention fom your intended main subject.

It also make your subject smaller in the frame giving the main subject less visual weight.

The #1 guideline in photography is 'Simplify'. Ensure your main subject doesn't have secondary, tertiary, or quantenary image elements competing for the viewers attention.

I suspect you've never taken an art appreciation class, or other any art classes for that matter.

Humans have been doing visual art for several thousand years now, and through those several thousand years have discovered which compositional guidelines work, or don't work.

Of course, you could spend the rest of your life re-doing several years of trial and error to rediscover a small portion of those guidelines on your own, or you could undertake a study of the visual arts and from those several thousand years of trial and error mistakes avoid the compositional pitfalls rather than repeating them.

Freaking snobbery. And wrong. Just plain wrong. Landscape mode is very useful in portraiture, it just takes a bit more attention to things to make sure it works well.

There's nothing wrong with landscape portraits and I like what he's trying to do. A whole bunch of options exist to make that picture work better within the Landscape mode, or maybe he can try square, with the subject on one side and something to try and build the magic triangle. Maybe he can try an aperture with a shallower DoF to bring more focus on the subject but still have some surrounding stuff. Maybe he can try fill flash. A lot of options for suggestions other than "you've obviously never taken an art class" which makes you sound like a boob.

Perhaps rather than name calling you could provide your own example of a portrait taken by you in landscape orientation to demonstrate what you mean. That may show Elizabeth the way. Very few of the landscape orientated shots posted have worked as there is too much dead OOF space. As I have said, landscape orientation CAN work, but it must have a compositional reason or else it doesn't work very well. Cutting off body parts to get a landscape orientation never works. Keith isn't showing snobbery, just applying the principles. Your self righteous attitude helps no-one.

 

[vandal]

Because it includes to much stuff in the frame that steals attention fom your intended main subject.

It also make your subject smaller in the frame giving the main subject less visual weight.

The #1 guideline in photography is 'Simplify'. Ensure your main subject doesn't have secondary, tertiary, or quantenary image elements competing for the viewers attention.

I suspect you've never taken an art appreciation class, or other any art classes for that matter.

Humans have been doing visual art for several thousand years now, and through those several thousand years have discovered which compositional guidelines work, or don't work.

Of course, you could spend the rest of your life re-doing several years of trial and error to rediscover a small portion of those guidelines on your own, or you could undertake a study of the visual arts and from those several thousand years of trial and error mistakes avoid the compositional pitfalls rather than repeating them.

Freaking snobbery. And wrong. Just plain wrong. Landscape mode is very useful in portraiture, it just takes a bit more attention to things to make sure it works well.

There's nothing wrong with landscape portraits and I like what he's trying to do. A whole bunch of options exist to make that picture work better within the Landscape mode, or maybe he can try square, with the subject on one side and something to try and build the magic triangle. Maybe he can try an aperture with a shallower DoF to bring more focus on the subject but still have some surrounding stuff. Maybe he can try fill flash. A lot of options for suggestions other than "you've obviously never taken an art class" which makes you sound like a boob.

Perhaps rather than name calling you could provide your own example of a portrait taken by you in landscape orientation to demonstrate what you mean. That may show Elizabeth the way. Very few of the landscape orientated shots posted have worked as there is too much dead OOF space. As I have said, landscape orientation CAN work, but it must have a compositional reason or else it doesn't work very well. Cutting off body parts to get a landscape orientation never works. Keith isn't showing snobbery, just applying the principles. Your self righteous attitude helps no-one.

I'm sorry, but I find it snobbish and condescending to say that someone has never taken an art class. My self righteousness helps me. Kind of the point, huh?

Kathleen Connally's Photoblog - Landscape & Portrait Photography :: Durham Portfolio


Brad Young Photography :: Professional Portrait and Landscape Photography


Fine Art Photography on Etsy - Abstract, portrait, landscape photography

Careful with the absolutes.

 

[Ron Evers]

I looked @ the first link & found she has many of her models looking out of the frame rather than into it. Rather offputting to me.

 

[Elizabeth30]

Cutting off body parts to get a landscape orientation never works.

WHAT?? Not true!
Cheeky Smile | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Grace | Flickr - Photo Sharing!http://www.julia-franzosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/chicago-northshore-childrens-photographer.jpg
http://www.londonnewbornphotographe.../best_newborn_photographer_sevenoaks_kent.jpg

 

[vandal]

You guys seems to look at photos with a checklist and if something doesn't fit you summarily dismiss it. Sometimes a subject looking off can ruin flow. Sometimes not. But you dismiss the work because of it? She admits that her page has some that work and some that don't. But most of the portraits shot in landscape mode do work. And the ones that don't, have little to do with them being in landscape mode.

If you want your photos to look like everyone else, go ahead and follow the pedantic rules. If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.

 

[vandal]

Here's my advice:

"While most photographs don't aspire to be art, ultimately their value to us depends on something that art teaches us: direct emotional response. Develop that and, rather quickly, your gear and your expertise begin to feel a lot less important than your subject and your relationship to it. "

In the great postmodern tradition, however, it's not mine. I sampled it.

 

[KmH]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/269733-educated-art-not-2.html

My biggest peeve is all the talk of breaking rules, as if it's the holy grail. It's bull ****. It's ignorance. It's lack of understanding. And good photographers perpetuate it, which makes the mind boggle.

When you talk about an images succes, there is more to it than the art/composition side.
Like you give examples of, MLeek, there is also the human element. There is the historic element. There is the STORY element. The emotional element. These can very often trump the importance of composition! Content can trump composition. BUT, an image can be successful, relying on composition alone!!!

But, people are coming here to learn to do better. If they have no desire to actually learn about elements of design and composition, and they poo poo them out of ignorance, and believe they can break their so called rules and be awesome, then they better have some much, much, stronger content than ducks.

Elements of design and composition are TOOLS, not rules. They are tools to be used to communicate intent. You want to make an image that makes the viewer feel calm? There's a line for that! You want to express nervousness and anxiety? There's a line for that. You want to portray power? There's a friggin' line for that too! You want the viewer to feel alone? Theres a color for that! you want them to feel reminiscent? There's a color for that! You want to give the viewer a sense that they are dreaming, there's a condition that will portray exactly that! You want to instill a sense of vertigo? There is a perspective for that!

Rules.


*pffffft*

The tools of the trade. Ya gotta know how they work to use them effectively.

Camera, lens, light, design, composition.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.

Then you and Elizabeth should stop posting for CC, and carry on inventing your "styles".

I don't understand how someone like Elizabeth, who doesn't really know much about composition, can post someone elses work and tell us that what they do is fine. If you can make those authoritaive judgements about someone elses work, you should be able to make those decisions about your own work, and again, why bother posting here for CC? Seeking validation?

Just because you link to someone who is selling their work, doesn't make it good.
I can say this as I sit here repairing the sh!t work of another jeweler that has been in the business longer than I have.
People use him because he is cheaper than me.

 

[Dominantly]

You seem to be putting a lot of obstacles in your own way inadvertently.
Shooting out in the snow where the light is mostly in the upper range with little in the way of shadows or nice distribution of tones - and is cold toned by definition is very difficult. Additionally the very bright background competes with the girl for attention.

RULE 1: the brightest spot in a picture should either be the subject or be part of some design element. You don't want to attract the viewers' eyes from what you want them to look at.

If you don't understand histograms, read this

Now I think one can make this a bit better by
1) adding some more lower tones
2) lowering down the brightness and the focus of the backgrounds a bit
3) warming up the tones on the girl.

but you need to get to that later.

Shoot in more controlled situations where the light isn't fighting you.

Lew

Lew, how do you feel about that edit? Do you truly think that enhanced the photo?

 

[MTVision]

WHAT?? Not true!
Cheeky Smile | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Grace | Flickr - Photo Sharing!http://www.julia-franzosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/chicago-northshore-childrens-photographer.jpg
http://www.londonnewbornphotographer.com/wp-content/gallery/rhyse/best_newborn_photographer_sevenoaks_kent.jpg

I only looked at the first 2 links but - even those aren't comparable to what you posted.

You cut off a girl at the knees. You can chop body parts but you shouldn't do it at limbs. Also, the backgrounds aren't competing with the subject like yours are. You have bright white snow and some ugly Building/houses. You also have a fence cutting through the girls waist.

Landscape can be fine but it has to add something or be part of the story. Shooting portrait would've gotten rid of all the ugly distractions like the buildings and telephone poles. You can't really point at someone else's work and say it worked for them. It didn't work for you this time and it didn't work in the other post when you were trying to get the crazy Lensbaby shots my4hens has taken.

 

[cgipson1]

I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad?

Because it includes to much stuff in the frame that steals attention fom your intended main subject.

It also make your subject smaller in the frame giving the main subject less visual weight.

The #1 guideline in photography is 'Simplify'. Ensure your main subject doesn't have secondary, tertiary, or quantenary image elements competing for the viewers attention.

I suspect you've never taken an art appreciation class, or other any art classes for that matter.

Humans have been doing visual art for several thousand years now, and through those several thousand years have discovered which compositional guidelines work, or don't work.

Of course, you could spend the rest of your life re-doing several years of trial and error to rediscover a small portion of those guidelines on your own, or you could undertake a study of the visual arts and from those several thousand years of trial and error mistakes avoid the compositional pitfalls rather than repeating them.

Freaking snobbery. And wrong. Just plain wrong. Landscape mode is very useful in portraiture, it just takes a bit more attention to things to make sure it works well.

There's nothing wrong with landscape portraits and I like what he's trying to do. A whole bunch of options exist to make that picture work better within the Landscape mode, or maybe he can try square, with the subject on one side and something to try and build the magic triangle. Maybe he can try an aperture with a shallower DoF to bring more focus on the subject but still have some surrounding stuff. Maybe he can try fill flash. A lot of options for suggestions other than "you've obviously never taken an art class" which makes you sound like a boob.

And who are you? just curious?

 

[Elizabeth30]

If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.

Then you and Elizabeth should stop posting for CC, and carry on inventing your "styles".

I don't understand how someone like Elizabeth, who doesn't really know much about composition, can post someone elses work and tell us that what they do is fine. If you can make those authoritaive judgements about someone elses work, you should be able to make those decisions about your own work, and again, why bother posting here for CC? Seeking validation?

Just because you link to someone who is selling their work, doesn't make it good.
I can say this as I sit here repairing the sh!t work of another jeweler that has been in the business longer than I have.
People use him because he is cheaper than me.

My apologies! I didn't mean any offence. I am very unskilled in the sense of taking the photos but I have looked at thousands, maybe millions and some of the best photographers have landscape shots without the whole body and I have never thought, "gee if only more of her head where there, or maybe her hand shouldn't be cut off" So I'm not skilled enough to critique anyone but BEFORE I started learning about photography I loved these types of photos and still do. Who are we trying to impress? Other photogs? OR isn't it more important to impress clients?

You talk about rules.... well who made these "rules"? I have had so much conflicting advice in past few days I have no clue which way to go. The only certain advice that everyone has agreed on is learn the basics but after that? Isn't creativity a persons OWN UNIQUE style and tastes? I may like the way one film maker makes his movies and hate the other?
If I take a great shot of my child and the focus is there, exposure is there, atmosphere, then the composition is the enhancer, it's art through the artists eyes.
I really think there are some GREAT photogos here who have given great advice but I really really am serious about learning and it's so hard when I post one photo and have everyone argue about what the "rules" are and why or why not the photo works..... how do I know how is right?

 

[jaicatalano]

don't listen to the too much white idea people have... Peter Hurley built a career off of pure white portrait backgrounds with subjects off center. He is one of the best in the biz.

 

[Dominantly]

My first impression was I like the shot. Her eyes are clean and not hidden in shadows, her skin tone isn't bad (the shadow under her neck is a bit curious), her hat is amusing and well exposed. For the crop, yes didn't manage to get her feet into the shot, but you did avoid cutting her off at the knee which I find key (although you are close). I feel as though when you are cropping/chopping body parts, it's best to avoid joints; so a crop at the thigh to me is better than a crop at the knee. I probably would have brought it in just past the telephone pole.
For the background- I think the fence is perfectly fine, enjoy the color and the fresh snow that has fallen on it. The tree is the same and has good contrast to the red fence (feels very holiday).


If you had showed less snow people would have said it lacked context, if you had cropped tighter, they would have said it didn't have any breathing room.

I just say if you are really just starting out and learning, this is not a bad go out in the snow.