What's new

Selfie Sunset Portrait

I by no means think that only technically perfect photos are worthwhile. See for example, this thread of mine:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...anybody-ever-tried-homemade-fresnel-lens.html

But there are usually some pretty clear "technically good" sorts of things, and I do assume that until/unless otherwise mentioned, people want to get their photos closer to that, because about 80% of people (or more accurately, people in individual situations) do.

When I say "If the OP likes it specifically for it's faults though, then okay." I mean it. Go to town, shoot exactly what you think looks pretty. That's exactly what you should do.
 
When I say "If the OP likes it specifically for it's faults though, then okay." I mean it.

That's *PRECISELY* the problem. The implication that we take away from your comment is that you feel all photos are judged based on the exact same set of criteria, and that's bunk. The criteria that you would use to identify "faults" in a studio shot with thousands of dollars of camera and lighting gear is absolutely not the same set of criteria that you would use to identify "faults" in a selfie taken from a 3" device with no display.

Going back to your terribly house analogy, you wouldn't judge a $50,000 home and a $5MM home on the same criteria. Sure you could critique the $50,000 house for not having marble floors and granite countertops, but it would be out of bounds to expect those things in the first place and that's exactly what you seem insistent on doing with this photo. It's perfectly possible to have a very nice $50,000 house and that's exactly what this photo is. Don't go saying it has faults because it doesn't have granite countertops. Get over it.
 
It's a "fault" in the sense of ways in which it differs from a "technically perfect," by the books shot. Any additional implications are imagined, and I think that the OP already perfectly well understood the intended meaning.
 
My only feedback is that the placement of the sun is really distracting and I agree with Gavjenks that it looks terrible, but the idea of expecting someone to use a reflector or a gelled fill flash for a go-pro selfie shot is outrageous. How is that even relevant? Then again, arguing with anything Gavjenks says is a pointless endeavor as he can never be wrong.
 
Next time you frolic in the country don't forget your strobes, umbrellas, 3 extra photographers and someone holding a fly swatter to chase the bugs away!
 
I think I'm getting old! what is QFT?
 
I'm not crazy about it myself, because it looks like something took a bite out of the guy's face as if it were a sammich.
 
That's funny!
 
By the way Dan I just checked out your website. Your images are stunning dude!
 
I like the photo for what it is. It looks like a fun, spur of the moment shot. I also appreciate Gav's criticism along with everyone elses. I dont always agree, but most of the time it helps me see things I dont before posting, and my next shot improves because of it. There are plenty of sites out there that praise you no matter what you post, I'm here to learn, and I dont think that will happen if nobody offers their input. Maybe Gav's suggestions dont work here because the lack of equipment or timing but if I wanted to try to recreate this type of shot with the equipment and time, I feel I know a little bit more about how to make it happen.
 
Could you recover any detail in the face/chin in post or is it too hot? Even toning down the sun flair on the face a little would probably help. Otherwise love the picture.
 
I love the shot, maybe should place the sun more towards the middle, not overlap with your cheek. Looks like part of your cheek was cut out.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom