Whats wrong with this photo?

[SabrinaO]

Something just doesn't look right. Im not talking about composition because I know things are cut off.. im talking about the colors/saturation. I can't put my finger on it... but I think this doesn't look good at all. '

duhhh... heres the picture! lol

 

[mishele]

Picture please........:greenpbl:

 

[SabrinaO]

Well, to me.. it just looks dirty/dingy. Not the baby haha... just the picture as a whole. I can't explain it..

 

[480sparky68 67]

"Pretty in Pink".

Just too much pink for me.

Pink skin, pink duds, pink wall, pink nose on the kitty-cat hat........ Even the wood floor looks pink.

That, and the baseboard 'chops' the shot in two, right at the kid's neck.

What I can't figure out is how the baseboard is OOF, but the vertical lines in the wall aren't.

The wall also appears to be covered with dust and other matter.... quite in-focus, too.

 

[eccs19]

I'm with Sparky on his comments. Exactly what I thought when I saw the image.

 

[Holydeath]

the background is has a catchy colour, I would put it out of focus. Also, the link is distracting. But everything is good.

 

[flameshots]

I'm going to go with soft focus or you missed the focus all together. The eyes seem soft. That's what stands out to me.

 

[MLeeK]

It seems yellow to me. Did you use the recovery slider at all on it?
This isn't my processing computer, so my calibration could be needing fixed...
Focus is on the hand

 

[sm4him]

^^What Sparky said. All the pink makes it so the only thing that stands out is the black knit cap. Also, when I first looked at, I thought the baby's head looked weird in comparison to its body, but I think it's the baseline intersecting right at the neck.

 

[WilfordSy]

I also agree with Sparky. That's what I noticed first - too much pink.

Another thing worth mentioning, maybe this picture looks weird because the baby looks more like a midget (no offense) because his head looks bigger than it's suppose to be. Try to compare the head vs the hand which looks way smaller. Add the fact that there's no visible neck.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[e.rose]

I'm going to go with soft focus or you missed the focus all together. The eyes seem soft. That's what stands out to me.

Combine this with what Sparky said and that's what I see.

 

[Derrel]

Child's hand is lopped off at the wrist. The child's body is lopped off at the thighs. It is a seated pose: the baby ought to be shown, "seated". Too much top space, and the "base" of the portrait is what is called "incomplete", since the fact that the kid is seated is not actually shown. This is the psychological equivalent of showing a standing person at a red carpet event, then cropping them off right at the ankles. Sure, we realize they are standing, but when it is not actually SHOWN, the image is not given the proper degree of acceptance. Having that hand amputated right on the bottom right edge of the fame makes for a very strong discordant element. Not showing the actual "seated nature" of the infant...again, same thing...that's why despite the beautiful lighting, the cute props and nice set, the image does not seem "right". If you ever work for one of the big chain-type studios that do formal portraiture, they will teach you these kinds of formal "rules of portraiture" so that your images will meet with psychological approval with buyers and viewers.

If you want to see how bad the amputation and incomplete "base" are, try cropping this to a tight shot, with just the one hand in it....crop out most of the top space...the picture suddenly becomes better.

The camera height is also several inches too high--that's why the baseboard chops the kid in two at the neck.