#1 the arm upraised is really bothering my eye and screaming for attention and it should not be a factor.
#2 I like, the crop might be a little too tight for a child but that is personal preference. I would like to see the exposure brought down slightly to show the Rembrandt lighting you have here. That would give it a classical feel and I do like the grain.
#3 is really cute and she has the face to handle the broad lighting but you have some blown highlights that blend the neck into the background. Love her expressions and hair. Overall a very nice set and a beautiful child.
What a fantastic model. I love that gaze. Very nice work. #2 & 3 are my favorites. The hair in #1 I find distracting. I agree with Hackbone, the crops are too tight for this type of classic portrait. Also, even though I'm not a fan of digital applied grain I wouldnt' mind if it enhanced a gritty subject. Here I would think a smoother look would fit the subject more appropriately.
"Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals-picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
#1 the arm upraised is really bothering my eye and screaming for attention and it should not be a factor.
#2 I like, the crop might be a little too tight for a child but that is personal preference. I would like to see the exposure brought down slightly to show the Rembrandt lighting you have here. That would give it a classical feel and I do like the grain.
#3 is really cute and she has the face to handle the broad lighting but you have some blown highlights that blend the neck into the background. Love her expressions and hair. Overall a very nice set and a beautiful child.
Great to get your feedback, Charles, thanks!
All the things you mention bother me too. The arm in #1 is an unusual composition, unexpected, and as you point out that is going to draw attention, which might not be altogether a bad thing if it is also interesting. I went with it mainly for the framing it gives the face and the way it balances the negative space on the right. In sculpture, as you view it from different angles, you will get various other body parts interacting in the background with the face. Photography is more inhibited in this respect. Is that good?
Yes #2 is a very intimate crop, and I agree it does feel a bit tight. I went with it because I think that it is rewarded by the chance to explore a kind of perfection. It relates to a need and habit of mine to just about touch my nose to art objects to get a connection with the stuff they're made from. There's probably a little smear of my nose grease on just about every accessible ancient marble figure in Athens! First pic below is the type of face, and facial expression, from the Hellenistic period which influenced Renaissance art. It really draws me in to want to examine it very closely (notice how white the highlights are, you get this in museums when a spot is on the very white stone, I wanted to get just that quality of stone whiteness) -
#3 is certainly bright, but the numbers say not blown. You do find stark brightness on faces in Renaissance chiaroscuro. I'm with you that the tonal separation dissolves away along the line of the neck on CL, and that is a fault. I will try burning in the BG a touch there. You will recognise in all of them one of the other defining characteristics of Renaissance painting - sfumato, which is a marked softening of the borders between tones on the edges of figures. You see the outline of the neck dissolving here on Lisa -
And this is an example of Rembrandt "blowing" it -
Very good to throw these ideas around with you, Charles!
What a fantastic model. I love that gaze. Very nice work. #2 & 3 are my favorites. The hair in #1 I find distracting. I agree with Hackbone, the crops are too tight for this type of classic portrait. Also, even though I'm not a fan of digital applied grain I wouldnt' mind if it enhanced a gritty subject. Here I would think a smoother look would fit the subject more appropriately.
Really interesting to read your comments briandelion, thank you!
I don't want to try to contradict your crit of these, I recognise and accept your view, but maybe it's worthwhile to state where I was coming from. I have described about the intimacy that is part of my viewing preference of ancient art in my reply to Charles. Along with that idea is that the closer you get to stone sculpture the more you are affected by the grain of the material. There are some very moving grave sculptures of children from Classical Greece where on very close viewing the effect is of the tender face emerging from the gritty material. Also, you can see in the closeup of the face of the Mona Lisa that, along with the graininess the surface has acquired over time, there is an inherent graininess in the sfumato technique of DaVinci.
I think there is something exciting about taking photoportraits into this kind of "un-usual" place, not that I make any claims to having done anything very great.
I really like #2 and the way it is well balanced in lighting with her face flat to the plane. #3 is my favorite and I think you nailed the symmetry of her slightly lowered chin with the way she is looking out of the corner of her eyes. But the slightly upturn lips/smile makes this shot. Very well done!
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac
Like they say, "You don't have to know art to know what you like". Ain't that the truth.
Yes that's the truth!
I'm no art snob. It's not a religion for me, or a way to beat others down. I've got so many ideas rocking around in my head from everywhere - a few from you too! - and all of them are on level ground. I go around with my head open, Charles. It's "all welcome" in there. I'm enjoying the wealth of the human experience. In the end it's what I like that comes through, what has meaning and value for me, not a policy or a program.
The references to art I talked about above are just that - some of the ideas that were rockin' in my head. Some of the connections I make as I work. Which other people might find enhance their viewing experience.
We acquire a taste for what we like, and it's not static. That's part of the reason I listen to you - it makes my likes more sophisticated, in the best sense of the word = more knowing. I ain't heard of nobody being a loser 'cause of a little sophistication.
I really like #2 and the way it is well balanced in lighting with her face flat to the plane. #3 is my favorite and I think you nailed the symmetry of her slightly lowered chin with the way she is looking out of the corner of her eyes. But the slightly upturn lips/smile makes this shot. Very well done!
Thanks for your comments jdryan3! I'm pleased if you get a little pleasure from them!
Comments
#2 I like, the crop might be a little too tight for a child but that is personal preference. I would like to see the exposure brought down slightly to show the Rembrandt lighting you have here. That would give it a classical feel and I do like the grain.
#3 is really cute and she has the face to handle the broad lighting but you have some blown highlights that blend the neck into the background. Love her expressions and hair. Overall a very nice set and a beautiful child.
www.cameraone.biz
It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand
Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
Great to get your feedback, Charles, thanks!
All the things you mention bother me too. The arm in #1 is an unusual composition, unexpected, and as you point out that is going to draw attention, which might not be altogether a bad thing if it is also interesting. I went with it mainly for the framing it gives the face and the way it balances the negative space on the right. In sculpture, as you view it from different angles, you will get various other body parts interacting in the background with the face. Photography is more inhibited in this respect. Is that good?
Yes #2 is a very intimate crop, and I agree it does feel a bit tight. I went with it because I think that it is rewarded by the chance to explore a kind of perfection. It relates to a need and habit of mine to just about touch my nose to art objects to get a connection with the stuff they're made from. There's probably a little smear of my nose grease on just about every accessible ancient marble figure in Athens!
#3 is certainly bright, but the numbers say not blown. You do find stark brightness on faces in Renaissance chiaroscuro. I'm with you that the tonal separation dissolves away along the line of the neck on CL, and that is a fault. I will try burning in the BG a touch there. You will recognise in all of them one of the other defining characteristics of Renaissance painting - sfumato, which is a marked softening of the borders between tones on the edges of figures. You see the outline of the neck dissolving here on Lisa -
And this is an example of Rembrandt "blowing" it
Very good to throw these ideas around with you, Charles!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Really interesting to read your comments briandelion, thank you!
I don't want to try to contradict your crit of these, I recognise and accept your view, but maybe it's worthwhile to state where I was coming from. I have described about the intimacy that is part of my viewing preference of ancient art in my reply to Charles. Along with that idea is that the closer you get to stone sculpture the more you are affected by the grain of the material. There are some very moving grave sculptures of children from Classical Greece where on very close viewing the effect is of the tender face emerging from the gritty material. Also, you can see in the closeup of the face of the Mona Lisa that, along with the graininess the surface has acquired over time, there is an inherent graininess in the sfumato technique of DaVinci.
I think there is something exciting about taking photoportraits into this kind of "un-usual" place, not that I make any claims to having done anything very great.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
www.cameraone.biz
-Fleetwood Mac
I'm no art snob. It's not a religion for me, or a way to beat others down. I've got so many ideas rocking around in my head from everywhere - a few from you too! - and all of them are on level ground. I go around with my head open, Charles. It's "all welcome" in there. I'm enjoying the wealth of the human experience. In the end it's what I like that comes through, what has meaning and value for me, not a policy or a program.
The references to art I talked about above are just that - some of the ideas that were rockin' in my head. Some of the connections I make as I work. Which other people might find enhance their viewing experience.
We acquire a taste for what we like, and it's not static. That's part of the reason I listen to you - it makes my likes more sophisticated, in the best sense of the word = more knowing. I ain't heard of nobody being a loser 'cause of a little sophistication.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks for your comments jdryan3! I'm pleased if you get a little pleasure from them!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks Tomasz! Hey you got some fantastic things going in your website these days!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix