Still life

[Watchful]

View attachment 117955

 

[sscarmack]

Focus point on purpose?

Maybe try focus stacking or increase your DOF. The focus you selected is very distracting.

Just my 2 cents

 

[otherprof90 32]

Focus point on purpose?

Maybe try focus stacking or increase your DOF. The focus you selected is very distracting.

Just my 2 cents

Yes, on purpose, everything is for a reason.
If it's in the image it was placed there intentionally.
Let me explain the reason. The focus is on the outer orbital bones for 2 reasons, first to symbolically force you to look eye to eye with death and alst to provide a starting point for the viewers eyes journey through the scene. The eye is naturally drawn to areas in sharp focus forst and then wander through the scene. The tiny seed is also there for you to nitice and contrast the remnants of death with the promise of new life to come as you move through.
If you have any other questions about anything else you don't understand, please ask away, there are no wrong questions unless they are unasked.
Thanks.

Since every aspect of the photo is just as you intended it, don't take this a criticism or suggestions about the photo. For me, the focus doesn't work, the cropping pulls me away from the main subject, and the seed looks like an oversight in setting up. Also for me, if the symbolism has to be explained, the communication has failed - possibly through my ignorance or obtuseness, and through no fault in the photo.
Two questions: 1. What sort of response to the photo did you expect or hope for? Obviously you did not want, or ask for, c&c.
2. Does the "If it is in there, it was intentional and just the way I wanted it" rule apply to your written response as well as the image - or is this an example of extra-dry humor?

 

[Watchful]

I am sorry you are too busy thinking to appreciate art.
Take time to smell the flowers instead of counting the petals.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Then I delete my post and leave you forever in peace.

All the very best of shooting.

 

[sleist]

You should really listen to some of this critique.
Your work needs work.
You certainly have not presented photographs that justify your animosity toward legitimate criticism.

TBH, people have been kind.

 

[sleist]

You should really listen to some of this critique.
Your work needs work.
You certainly have not presented photographs that justify your animosity toward legitimate criticism.

TBH, people have been kind.

I listened and I gave it all the consideration it is due. If someone doesn't understand a piece of art, it's not a bad piece of art, maybe that's the creators intention and it worked perfectly.

But you must consider the possibility that it actually did not work, yes? I mean, unless your art was only meant for you, the fact that the message was not received by the audience must mean something.

 

[sscarmack]

My family got it. Thanks for the kind words.

Is your family photographers??

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.........

 

[Ihatemymoney]

LOL
You sure are not making points on this photograph.

Looks under exposed to me, but I am guessing if the exposure was brighter then the polarized glare line on the back left side of the skull would of been a bit to bright.

Color temp looks blue, because the skull if white your best back ground color should of been black or 18% gray.

Not a fan of the sharpness of the skull, picture looks slightly blurry making the photo boring.

I suggest the book light science and magic and maybe a book on photographing glass.
I think you could do something pretty cool if you did a light painting technic on the skull.

Good luck

 

[dennybeall]

If you take photos for yourself only then you nailed it.
If you want others opinions then the first thing that jumps out at me is out of focus, not look at the eyes.
Neither of us is right or wrong, just different opinions of the same thing.

 

[Watchful]

Thank you to everyone for your kind words and nice comments and compliments.