Portrait of a friend

[H4X1MA]

^^ What you said. It seems that whenever someone tries to post an "artistic" picture on these forums they just get torn apart. I think most people who hobby shoot are probably going for an art look anyway, which sucks because they get scared away from these boards fast.

As for the image, and the experimenting, I think the vertical would have been a better idea, not because of the crop but because of the blur. When I look at this d00d all I see are those post apocalypse goggles. I'm not sure if that's the look that he's going for here, but I think if you did the blur at the bottom, and left the goggles crisp, that it would be more intense.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I love this. And at the same time I hate when people refer to "rules" in any form of art. Art has NO rules

You can do whatever you want. You are the artist.

We oughtta' put Schwetty's Rule to music!!! There actually are a number of guidelines, which are just that, guidelines, relating to portraiture. There are basics that will make your images look good, such as allowing enough top space above the top of the head to present the face within the frame and not cause awkward visual tension. Also, the line of gaze (gosh, there's one of those doggone ART concepts showing up again!) of the subject, if going off to the side, needs to have more room to "look into" than the side of the head that is opposite from the eyes...if the eyeballs are centered within a typical aspect ratio vertical frame, they will appear to be far, far too low within the frame...etc.,etc..

The idea that a beginner, with no understanding of the elements and principles of art can "do whatever he wants" because "he is the artist" is preposterous. Sorry...but that's like telling a rookie race car driver that he can take a corner, "Any way he wants to, because you're the driver." Uh...sorry, but no, that's not right. It's a recipe for disaster.

.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I love this. And at the same time I hate when people refer to "rules" in any form of art. Art has NO rules

You might be right. When the great artists create a new fad, there probably weren't many rules to guide them...for instance, Rembrant Lighting. Rembrant probably didn't have a set of rules in front of him when he created his art. But then again, he is also considered one of the greatest painters of all time. Heck, some of us still model lighting off of things he did over 400 years ago.

You're right, we can safely ignore what the masters have done before us, and they aren't hard and fast rules, but then again, in 400 years, how many so-called 'artists' will still be remembered? Yep, you can ignore composition. You can ignore the vast knowledge that has been passed down to you by the masters. You are free to create whatever crap you want and call it art.

Heck, in the lobby of one of my buildings, there are three rubber bags half full of sand leaning on each other. It's behind a glass display case. The 'artist' convinced one of the largest companies in the world to pay for it. It's still crap. Behind another display case is a piece of iron that is twisted into a coil. It's crap, too. In another lobby is a picture of a hallway and a bathroom of a rental home after the occupants moved out...complete with trash and everything else that was left. It's most definitely crap.

It's not art. It's not even pleasing to look at. It's more of a curiosity...kinda like, why the flip would somebody make it, and why would somebody pay for it. That's about as much interest as it gets. In a few years, it will all end up in the dumpster.

You can create whatever you want. You can ignore all the lessons that have stood the test of time. You can ignore the masters who paved the way.

Regardless of how many Ellsworth Toohey's proclaim something as art, doesn't magically turn crap into art.

 

[dakkon76]

I can pretty much guarantee that ZERO of the images featured on this forum will be remembered in 400 years, so thats a ridiculous argument. Not even Darrel's gems of technical perfection. This forum is not an art gallery or time capsule; it's a method of learning, experimentation, and peer critique.

Let's not kid ourselves... The "real" pro's don't sit on these forums and bicker back and forth pushing out their barrel chests... They have nothing to prove by belittling others and would quickly tire of the pointless rants and drama that plague these forums. There are way too many self proclaimed know-it-alls on here that rarely do anything shy of trolling for the sole purpose of finding someone to put down to brighten their dull, dismal day.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognise greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept – and you stop the impetus to effort in men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. Laugh at Roark and hold Peter Keating as a great architect. You’ve destroyed architecture. Build Lois Cook and you’ve destroyed literature. Hail Ike and you’ve destroyed the theatre. Glorify Lancelot Clankey and you’ve destroyed the press. Don’t set out to raze all shrines – you’ll frighten men, Enshrine mediocrity - and the shrines are razed.

.

 

[dakkon76]

No one suggested that we enshrine mediocrity here... I think the point was that the OP needed some constructive criticism rather than some pretentious rip on the work he'd submitted.

 

[dakkon76]

And not to stir the pot, but posting a quote without giving credit is the literary equivalent of posting someone else's image.

 

[sweetp]

i like it, it sort of has a cyber-punk / lady gaga feel to it. and i suspect the subject is a hottie

dentist in nuevo progreso mexico mexico dental prices tijuana dentist reviews

 

[kundalini]

I haven't read the other posts, but I wanted to say that I like this idea. Did you use post processing or alter your lens to achieve this effect?

My nit would be that the lower half (below goggle) of his face is not as focused as the top half.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fender5388]

I haven't read the other posts, but I wanted to say that I like this idea. Did you use post processing or alter your lens to achieve this effect?

My nit would be that the lower half (below goggle) of his face is not as focused as the top half.

:thumbsup:

the lens was actually off the camera. and i had it tilted ever so slightly to get the selective focus. and skip the rest of the comments, its just arguments.

 

[kundalini]

the lens was actually off the camera. and i had it tilted ever so slightly to get the selective focus. and skip the rest of the comments, its just arguments.

Cool, your efforts are not in vain. I either skip the arguments or throw myself on the pile. These days seem to see the latter over the former and soon to be extinguished for a while. Good Luck.