Wheelie, C&C

[JamieR]

My brother wanted his photo taken on his bike, here is the result, let me know what you think.....

 

[Invictus]

sorry, dont like it

 

[JamieR]

sorry, dont like it

Well i would at least expect a decent explanation as to why you don't like it, don't bother next time :thumbup:

 

[Samanax]

Not real crazy about the zoom effect but the image looks a touch overexposed and could use a little more color saturation...unless your brother is really pale. Contrast, clarity and sharpness look okay.

 

[JamieR]

He is pale, but i think your right about it being a tad overexposed. I was really undecided on wether to add the zoom effect or not, i think it works, but i understand if it's not to your personal taste. Thanks.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The zoom blur focuses the viewer on the handlebars and his legs.
I think the use of that tool in this instance was a poor choice.


So tell me why you like it, and why you think it is successful.

 

[JamieR]

I love the colours in the photo, i like the contrast between the greens and blues. I think the radial blur focuses the eye on the whole of the subject, not just the legs and handlebars, but that's how i look at it, if you see differently, i won't argue with it. I love the pose on the bike, even if it's not the best "move" in book.

Of course this is all my personal opinion, and of course I'm slightly biased as i took the photo.

I'm all for taking criticism on my work, it helps me focus on what to improve on.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

How can the eye focus on the whole of the subject, when it is largely not in focus?

Radial blur creates "lines" that lead your eye to it's epicenter.

 

[JamieR]

Right, and if you look at the upper half of the photo you will see that the blur is not as extreme as the bottom half, the center of the blur is his whole body, i made sure of that the photoshop. I didn't just dump a radial blur around the subject.

If your eyes see it differently then so be it.

 

[DScience]

Right, and if you look at the upper half of the photo you will see that the blur is not as extreme as the bottom half, the center of the blur is his whole body, i made sure of that the photoshop. I didn't just dump a radial blur around the subject.

If your eyes see it differently then so be it.

What was the purpose of posting a photo for C&C that to you, is apparently exactly what you wanted out of the shot. The constructive C&C that you have gotten here so far, you have simply tried to defend as to why their comments are invalid.

If you are looking for a pat on the back post in the gallery, or on some Flickr group possibly.

My opinion, is that it looks like a snap shot with a P&S that someone spent a lot of time in the PP. The blur/zoom to me makes it slightly more interesting.

 

[Josh220]

With the first response to this picture, you wanted more than their preference for the shot. You wanted details and a C&C. Why are you now challenging those who are giving real C&C?

Composition looks fine; it's a decent snapshot. Hopefully that was what you were trying to achieve. The blurred affect doesn't work for me, but maybe it's just too much. If it were toned down a bit I may like it better.

P.S. I think his shorts could be a little bigger.

 

[JamieR]

What was the purpose of posting a photo for C&C that to you, is apparently exactly what you wanted out of the shot. The constructive C&C that you have gotten here so far, you have simply tried to defend as to why their comments are invalid.

If you are looking for a pat on the back post in the gallery, or on some Flickr group possibly.

My opinion, is that it looks like a snap shot with a P&S that someone spent a lot of time in the PP. The blur/zoom to me makes it slightly more interesting.

With the first response to this picture, you wanted more than their preference for the shot. You wanted details and a C&C. Why are you now challenging those who are giving real C&C?

Composition looks fine; it's a decent snapshot. Hopefully that was what you were trying to achieve. The blurred affect doesn't work for me, but maybe it's just too much. If it were toned down a bit I may like it better.

P.S. I think his shorts could be a little bigger.

If you had read the whole thread then you would of realised that Bitter Jeweler asked me why i think it worked and why i think it was successful, which is what i did, i wasn't defending the photo, i was simply telling him why i like the photo.

If you both think that it was poor attempt, then that's your own opinion isn't it. Next time you want to comment on one of my photos, maybe pay a little more attention, put a little thought into writing some construction criticism and not some half arsed comments.

 

[Josh220]

What was the purpose of posting a photo for C&C that to you, is apparently exactly what you wanted out of the shot. The constructive C&C that you have gotten here so far, you have simply tried to defend as to why their comments are invalid.

If you are looking for a pat on the back post in the gallery, or on some Flickr group possibly.

My opinion, is that it looks like a snap shot with a P&S that someone spent a lot of time in the PP. The blur/zoom to me makes it slightly more interesting.

With the first response to this picture, you wanted more than their preference for the shot. You wanted details and a C&C. Why are you now challenging those who are giving real C&C?

Composition looks fine; it's a decent snapshot. Hopefully that was what you were trying to achieve. The blurred affect doesn't work for me, but maybe it's just too much. If it were toned down a bit I may like it better.

P.S. I think his shorts could be a little bigger.

If you had read the whole thread then you would of realised that Bitter Jeweler asked me why i think it worked and why i think it was successful, which is what i did, i wasn't defending the photo, i was simply telling him why i like the photo.

If you both think that it was poor attempt, then that's your own opinion isn't it. Next time you want to comment on one of my photos, maybe pay a little more attention, put a little thought into writing some construction criticism and not some half arsed comments.

You should read "The Pact". If you ask for C&C that is what you get. I never attacked you, I merely asked why you defended yourself towards the C&C you received. I told you that the blurring was a bit too much, and left it at that. If you do not accept this, then fine move on. I never said it was a poor attempt; again that is you defending yourself towards the C&C provided to you. If you would just like pats on the back for your photo, don't put C&C in your title.

 

[manaheim]

Hey Jamie.

First off, doing that zoom effect isn't easy (assuming you did it at point of capture)... and you did a really nice job with it. It's very clear.

The image didn't strike me as overwhelmingly exciting or non-exciting, though I bet your brother will enjoy the shot, so that's cool.

The problem, for me, is that I think the zooming effect is usually best employed when it compliments something in the image... like a spiral or a burst formation of a subject, or something along those lines. In this case, it appears more as a "oh hey, this will be COOL!" kind of thing... this isn't bad, certainly... I just don't personally find that it matches up well with the subject and the action in this case.

Nice wheelie, btw.

 

[manaheim]

btw, Josh, part of the pact is not getting all bristly when someone gets upset at you for your comments...