Portrait of my Girlfriend :)

[charlie76]

Centered would have been better IMO

 

[aavivi]

At the end of the day, to paraphrase Rodney King "can't we all just get along?" One's idea of art is another's piece of trash. I think this forum works much better with constructive criticism rather than starting to debate who has more experience and whose booking schedule is fuller. I do think that some "classic rules" have their place, and sometimes the only way to learn is with trial-and-error. If you ever watch or attend Kelby's training, you'd see that sometimes landscape portraiture, cutting the top off of someone's hairdo, even god forbid tilting the camera can work. Obviously it depends on the subject, the set and the goal of the shoot.

 

[fjrabon]

At the end of the day, to paraphrase Rodney King "can't we all just get along?" One's idea of art is another's piece of trash. I think this forum works much better with constructive criticism rather than starting to debate who has more experience and whose booking schedule is fuller. I do think that some "classic rules" have their place, and sometimes the only way to learn is with trial-and-error. If you ever watch or attend Kelby's training, you'd see that sometimes landscape portraiture, cutting the top off of someone's hairdo, even god forbid tilting the camera can work. Obviously it depends on the subject, the set and the goal of the shoot.

Well, the issue is that these forums are for C&C. It is assumed that people post here for a lively debate and deconstruction of your images. The OP himself seems very open to suggestions, but there are a few members that seem to get offended any time anybody makes a comment that 'disparages' an image at all. Charlie and Derrell gave their thoughts, as did bitter. That all seems fine to me.

I for one can tell you Id love to get this much negative feedback (or feedback of any sort) on most of my images I post here.

 

[Bynx]

It seems to me you took the shot from above her. She seems to be looking up at you which doesnt look right to me. Someone else called it distortion. Either straight on or just slightly below would be better, in my opinion.

 

[Derrel]

Thanks, I am booked out next months and just got a few spot lefts til end of november, so my photography can't be too bad. Good luck to you too!

There are probably two thousand Craigslist and Facebook photographers who are booked almost solid thru December, but bookings do not have much bearing on photographer skill, artistry, or ability. Good composition is not "old-fashioned". Good composition is truly timeless. "Timeless". It has not changed in thousands of years. The elements and principles of design have never changed. Of course, those points are unfamiliar to those who have not studied art, or design, or "serious" photographic technique and theory.

Once again: there is NO SUCH THING as "old-fashioned composition". That statement reveals an immense misunderstanding of design, and of composition. The huge influx of self-taught, uneducated shooters these days has reallllly diluted the understanding of what composition really means.

 

[o hey tyler]

There are probably two thousand Craigslist and Facebook photographers who are booked almost solid thru December, but bookings do not have much bearing on photographer skill, artistry, or ability. Good composition is not "old-fashioned". Good composition is truly timeless. "Timeless". It has not changed in thousands of years. The elements and principles of design have never changed. Of course, those points are unfamiliar to those who have not studied art, or design, or "serious" photographic technique and theory.

Once again: there is NO SUCH THING as "old-fashioned composition". That statement reveals an immense misunderstanding of design, and of composition. The huge influx of self-taught, uneducated shooters these days has reallllly diluted the understanding of what composition really means.

You say this, however it doesn't make it true. It is, again, a large and long winded opinion held by you.

Shakespeare was a true master of linguistics. Creating what many would see as timeless works of literary mastery. Unfortunately, Shakespeare didn't see "LOL" being put into the dictionary in his minds eye, or else he would have been years ahead of the curb.

I don't feel that the composition in the OP's photo helped the image, but I also dont feel that all portraits need to be shot in vertical orientation. Bitter brings up an excellent point about cinematography. Watch some movies, watch a lot of them. You will see hundreds of instances where the tops of heads are clipped, arms chopped off, and centered compositions. Things have to evolve to stay fresh.

What was that thing? Evolution? Natural selection? Survival of the fittest? You don't survive by maintaining the course, look at the DoDo.

 

[Derrel]

"The cinema" has NO VERTICALS. ALL movie screens are oriented horizontally. "The cinema" is never "printed and hung on a wall."

The opinions of those who have no education in the visual arts are not very compelling. Of COURSE, not all portraits need to be shot in a vertical orientation....I have never,ever, ever once said that is the case. GOOD composition makes the BEST use of the entire space. But then, I understand that BASIC concept and the definition of good composition, since I have studied drawing, design, and composition. My comment here in my first post related to the single image posted at the start of this thread. Your overarching douche-canoe statement is probably a reflection of well...your animus toward me...

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, Tyler! It'll help...

 

[o hey tyler]

"The cinema" has NO VERTICALS. ALL movie screens are oriented horizontally. "The cinema" is never "printed and hung on a wall."

Did you figure that out on your own? Or did you have to google it? I'm assuming you used google, or at the very least, bing to derive that answer. Good job, glad you are able to use the internet at your age. I was referring specifically to the DP's discretion when framing a shot. Not always are all the heads in a frame and not chopped. A lot of times, during dialog exchange there are chopped off heads to emphasize a more personal feeling.

The opinions of those who have no education in the visual arts are not very compelling. Of COURSE, not all portraits need to be shot in a vertical orientation....I have never,ever, ever once said that is the case.

No, you haven't gone out and said it, but you are the very first one to point it out, and I never said you did.

GOOD composition makes the BEST use of the entire space. But then, I understand that BASIC concept and the definition of good composition, since I have studied drawing, design, and composition.

Yeah, you studied design and composition in the 60's and 70's. Like I said, times change. Do you not realize that? Are you so thick headed and mentally incompetent that you cannot grasp that? Can you not allow other people from different walks of life to exhibit an opinion that is not stated as if it were fact like every one of your posts? In my opinion, your views, photographic style, and compositions are outdated. Your attitude towards photography is stuck in 1965, and you get SO ANGRY if people don't bend to your will and accept what you have to say as gospel.

Guess what, art is subjective! Apparently you didn't learn that in your 'schooling.'

I had been telling you that I value your input, and opinions on my work because I am a nice fellow that likes to receive critique and different viewpoints. But now I can honestly say that I do not value your input at all. I've seen your photography numerous times. It's a great sleeping aid, because it makes me yawn more than watching a Bosch dishwasher's sanitize cycle. If you produced, and posted images that I thought were good, I probably would change my tune. I don't ever count on that happening because you are far to set in your uninspired ways.

Allow me to reiterate, I DO NOT care about what you think about my work.

Don't even bother C&Cing my work anymore, because your photos speak volumes about your opinions. They're just... plain... boring. Sure, you shot some in vertical, some in landscape. Too bad there's nothing fresh or ahead of the curb. Just run of the Olan Mill images.

My comment here in my first post related to the single image posted at the start of this thread. Your overarching douche-canoe statement is probably a reflection of well...your animus toward me...

Derrel, consistently without fail you are by and large the biggest and most vacuous rectal cavity. You do not allow others to hold opinions without trying to strike them down. You will even go so far as to put words into other people's mouths in a meager attempt to exercise a point. Allow me to point you to this post where I called you out for doing just that, because frankly I've had enough of your BS towards me and other forum members.

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, Tyler! It'll help...

Get some new material Derrel. This shows just how ignorant and uninspired you are. Yeah, I smoke pot occasionally. Big deal. You're a divorced alcoholic, big whoop. Go away.

 

[amolitor]

Are we all having a good time?

Have we considered the idea of maybe growing up?

 

[fjrabon]

The funniest aspect of this (hey< i choose to laugh at life) is that Tyler and Derrel (both of whom I respect) seem to agree that the horizontal doesn't work in OP's image, and that you can shoot horizontal portraits in the right situation.

My ultimate issue here is that from things the OP said, he seemed to have no good reason for cropping off the top of her head, or doing the horizontal composition. He even had to actually look at the original to see if he had cut off the head in camera. That doesn't sound like a compositional choice based on a modern theory of art. It sounds like he just wasn't thinking about it. Same thing for the horizontal orientation. It doesn't sound like there was any thought as to why it might work better horizontally, it was just done.

And while Im all for moving art forward, you have to understand that classic composition tends to work most of the time, and tends to be best in most cases. Only certain portrait images actually benefit from horizontal orientation, and you basically have to almost plan it out if your going to do a horizontal portrait. Portrait orientation became portrait orientation because it generally works better. It's not like photographers in history made an arbitrary choice between the two and just willy-nilly decided they wanted to hold their cameras sideways because it looks cool. 99.99% of horizontal portraits are horizontal simply because cameras are naturally oriented horizontally or 'just because why not?', not because they made a 'design choice'.

 

[manaheim]

In order for one to think outside the box... One must first learn where the box is located.

Way too many people stand behind the excuse of "doing something new and exciting" because it is very safe for their ego. It means they don't have to understand how art "works" to create great art. It is, however, an excuse... And a pretty cocky one to boot.

Why? Simple.

What you are saying is that you are SO good that you just don't need to understand how art works... You are redefining it- redefining the human condition- redefining the way people respond to art.

Now is that possible? Sure. You may well be a visionary. A true shaper of humanity. Perhaps WAY ahead of your time and doing something that won't be appreciated for many years. The very next Van Gogh.

Is it likely? No. The more likely explanation is that you're hiding behind an excuse to protect your ego.

There is a reason why many future artists go to school. There is a reason why they study the great masters. You don't have to do this to be an artist, but there IS a reason why they do it.

Find the box. Learn what it is, what it looks like and why it's there. Once you can tell me what is in and out of the box... Then, and ONLY then can you reasonably tell me what is outside of it.

 

[cgipson1]

Thanks, I am booked out next months and just got a few spot lefts til end of november, so my photography can't be too bad. Good luck to you too!

There are probably two thousand Craigslist and Facebook photographers who are booked almost solid thru December, but bookings do not have much bearing on photographer skill, artistry, or ability. Good composition is not "old-fashioned". Good composition is truly timeless. "Timeless". It has not changed in thousands of years. The elements and principles of design have never changed. Of course, those points are unfamiliar to those who have not studied art, or design, or "serious" photographic technique and theory.

Once again: there is NO SUCH THING as "old-fashioned composition". That statement reveals an immense misunderstanding of design, and of composition. The huge influx of self-taught, uneducated shooters these days has reallllly diluted the understanding of what composition really means.

Thank YOU, Derrel!

 

[cgipson1]

The funniest aspect of this (hey< i choose to laugh at life) is that Tyler and Derrel (both of whom I respect) seem to agree that the horizontal doesn't work in OP's image, and that you can shoot horizontal portraits in the right situation.

My ultimate issue here is that from things the OP said, he seemed to have no good reason for cropping off the top of her head, or doing the horizontal composition. He even had to actually look at the original to see if he had cut off the head in camera. That doesn't sound like a compositional choice based on a modern theory of art. It sounds like he just wasn't thinking about it. Same thing for the horizontal orientation. It doesn't sound like there was any thought as to why it might work better horizontally, it was just done.

And while Im all for moving art forward, you have to understand that classic composition tends to work most of the time, and tends to be best in most cases. Only certain portrait images actually benefit from horizontal orientation, and you basically have to almost plan it out if your going to do a horizontal portrait. Portrait orientation became portrait orientation because it generally works better. It's not like photographers in history made an arbitrary choice between the two and just willy-nilly decided they wanted to hold their cameras sideways because it looks cool. 99.99% of horizontal portraits are horizontal simply because cameras are naturally oriented horizontally or 'just because why not?', not because they made a 'design choice'.

Exactly.... and the majority of them DO NOT WORK! Especially the ones that have other obvious mistakes, under or overexposed, wrong ISO, No fill, junky backgrounds... etc! Mostly done by amateur NOOBS.. even most experienced amateurs seldom do it, unless there is a reason! Sounds like there was little thought given to the OP's decision to shoot that way.

 

[cgipson1]

In order for one to think outside the box... One must first learn where the box is located.

hahaha... that is VERY well put!!!

 

[cgipson1]

I think image is well balanced and works very well.

As Derrel said, vertical would indeed give it a different feel. That means you have a choice to make, and something to base it on.

It seems the majority in this thread feel all close up portraits MUST be shot vertical, and MUST include the whole head. That's bull****.

Take a cue from cinematography. Tops of heads are chopped all the time! Before you claim cinematography is different, and follows different rules, I suggest you start watching movies in a different manner. Moving pictures follow all the same theories of composition and elements of design as still photography. While cinematography is constrained to landscape ratio, if it were important to always include the tops of heads, they could simply back up and do so.

I am all for using different framing ratios when appropriate. I see subjects that definitely work better one way than the other, but I don't see it as such hard fast rule as the majority of you do.

In this image, to me, the subject is really her eyes. They really command attention! The Travel has some "rule" (term used loosely) about cropping out what's not important in an image. Apply that to this image. The top of her head just does not matter. It's not a key or supporting character.

So stop looking at frame orientation as being something that's "proper", something that is either right or wrong, and loosen up a little. Portraits can work this way. Some do, and some don't. But like everything relating to composition, there are no hard, fast, rules, but choices, and decisions that need to be made as a means to an end.

David.. I find this interesting. With your background, you are someone whose opinion I respect. I believe I have heard you state in other threads (in the past) that many/most horizontal portraits don't work well... because there is no thought given to it, too much dead space,junky backgrounds, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

So this one image is balanced.. from either a unintentional good eye, or sheer luck (since it doesn't really sound like the OP put much thought into the orientation... based on the fact he was oblivious to the cropped head, and even had to check the original to see if it was cropped). Cool!

I still feel the shot is almost a caricature with the distortion from the wide angle lens (18mm)! But again through luck or that "unintentional good eye", it emphasized the eyes rather than enlarging the nose / face like many of these shots do (although the more I look at it.. that nose does look odd to me!! And it is very noisy (4000 ISO will do that)... and I am still curious if that was an intentional choice.

She's lovely, and has gorgeous eyes. I would strongly suggest not cropping the top of her head... it seriously detracts from the photo. It looks like there is some barrel distortion from using a wide angle lens. And it is very noisy... did you need to shoot at ISO 4000, or was it done intentionally?