Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 12, 2008, 8:25 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

RodneyBlair wrote:
Quote:
You still do not get it. It doesn't matter if you have a fancy studio with all the most expensive lighting equipment or simply using available light through a window. You have to know how to work with th light regardless the source. Why do you use flash for fill? Because you wish to alter the highlight to shadow ratio. Quite often we make that choice when shooting candids as you made some choices while shooting the images you share with us here. You could have made some different choices and I believe the reason you didn't is because you do not understand how to make an element the center of interest by use of contrast.

It does not matter who you trained with or what kind of teaching you have. Here on this set of images you have not displayed that you understand the effective use of contrast or have any understand of low key or high key elements. If we wear dark clothing then we want the background to be dark unless the clothing is the intended center of interest. It isn't a rule...That is simply how the eyes work.

Enjoy your camera and the images you shoot with it. Enjoy processing your images and enjoy sharing them, but don't think that you have effectively rendered your intended center of interest simply because you are applauded for cute images.

Rodney
So you are saying a girl in a white dress must have a light background and if she were to wear black we need a black background??

sometimes one is not in the position to have the background as you explain
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 9:04 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Julie, I am curious why you posted these images on the Critique forum if you were going to make excuses why you couldn't have done it any other way. The other forums would have been more appropriate.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 9:23 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

edited
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 9:52 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

There are hundreds, possibly thousands of beautiful portraits of the queen and you find the ugliest one to compare you work to. :sad:
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 10:36 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

RodneyBlair wrote:
Quote:
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of beautiful portraits of the queen and you find the ugliest one to compare you work to. :sad:
I was finding comparable overexposed light, The kid in my shot is not meant to be compared to the queen. So you think Annie leibowitz"s photo of the queen is ugly? well at least we can agree on that:-)

The point I'm making is that rules can be broken, Annie is a master of light and contrast yet this photo gets applauded! I was looking at the technical side of the shot, this is exactly what you did with mine. Many people found this photo of the queen effective so does that make them all wrong? Does it make the photo a snapshot?

I'm only going on what you say

for instance
to quote you
"but don't think that you have effectively rendered your intended center of interest simply because you are applauded for cute images."

you could cancel out the word cute and apply this statement to the photo of the queen and this is with one of the worlds best photographers. So if that's the case where does that leave the lowly everyday photographer trying to work out light and shadow and what is supposed to be wrong and right in photography.

For this reason I believe that your statement regarding the rules and how we see photos "That is simply how the eyes work" etc as a little up in the air to me, maybe I see something that someone else does not in a particular photo so who is right? I think everyone sees things a little differently.

Not saying that this set has no faults just that everyone will see different things in them
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 10:58 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,724
Default

I think this is a wonderful series. The two photos that I like best are clearly #1 & #3. In both cases, it's the eyes that make the photo work for me. In #3 I do think cropping some of the background on the right side would have been better because I don't think it adds anything to the photo, but the eyes and expression are so great that I don't think it's a major flaw.

I've always said "Don't go to a gunfight armed with a cap gun," and that's the position I'm in when it comes to formal photographic training--I'm not even at the pea shooter level, so I won't try tojustify my opinion regarding the question of the blown highlights in #2. I do think the expression is wonderful and the overall effect is good.

Thanks for posting.

Paul
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 11:02 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

This picture of the queen is not the official portrait by Annie leibowitz. It is a a screen capture from a video of the Queen's portrait session with Annie.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 11:24 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

RodneyBlair wrote:
Quote:
This picture of the queen is not the official portrait by Annie leibowitz. It is a a screen capture from a video of the Queen's portrait session with Annie.

Rodney
I know this but it has been applauded, you still don't get what I'm saying anyway, OH well.

I think this may be her official shot, however I like this but I cant see her face in this one properly either.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...ibovitz460.jpg
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2008, 12:13 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Ollie77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 358
Default

Firstly these are all great images. Blown up to 20xXX sizes and framed with a nice off white mat and black 1" black frame they would look great on a wall, not in an album.

Secondly, the saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" it does not say 'beauty is in the eye of the most technically and rule abiding viewer". So with that said I would say that you Rodney are blind.

Rules are meant to be broken and no matter how high you wish to sit on your mighty rule stallion Rodney, you can't possibly sit way up there and think that because the images, according to your rules, are only worthy of an album spot and nothing more. Compared to your image of the little girl with her dolls, I would rather any of these any day of the week. These show real emotion and as far as lighting goes pretty much put your shots to shame.
Use of lighting shouldn't just be to sterilize any ugly unwanted shadows.

But go right ahead and tell me I don't understand a thing about lighting or about what ever else you wish to tell me and others that we are all wrong about and most likely breaking rules that can't be broken for fear of the photographer's boogieman coming to get us.

Aladyforty, keep up the great work, masterfully done considering how hard it is to get kids to perform. I suggest you move onto animals now, they are just as hard.

Ollie
Ollie77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2008, 12:54 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Well. I know a thing or two about royalty...and the "Queen". Having had the pleasure of many visits to the palace myself. This portrait is indeed generally recognized as being a capture highy regarded by the English press as well as the official office overseeing the likenesses of her majesty approved by the palace itself.

I wasn't aware there were any higher authorities. Thank you Rodney. I'm sure Buckingham Palace will be in touch. The foregone conclusion is you may well be their new headmaster.



Best regards...
Lawquepicker is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:17 PM.