Like/Don't like

goldenstarphoto

Hi there fellow Dgriners...

My wife and I are having a slight disagreement on this picture. One of us loves it, the other hates it. I would love to hear what others think. I am here to learn, so please let me know what you REALLY think.

RyanS

This shot's success or failure depends on intent. If the intent was to take a shot of a young women wearing a dress then the DOF is probably not shallow enough, and the background too busy. If the intent was to take some kind of environmental portrait then the DOF is probably not deep enough. If the intent was to show some relation between the girl and her environment, then the composition may not be helping.

What did you have in your head before you took the shot? The fact I can't figure out your intent may be a clue something is up. In order to help you improve I need to know what you wanted to say. Others may offer advice without first understanding your intent. I've started asking because sometimes the intent is totally different than I guessed previously to asking.

That's what I really think. You did ask!

Cowboydoug

Since we seem to be comfortable with love & hate... I'll go with HATE... And here's why... Gorgeous light & setting but clothing that is out of sync... Plus...do you really think you needed the tree? I don't think so...
I might have gone with jeans... Or even a sun dress...
I Think I would have used the open sky... No tree & maybe gotten her down in the grass...
Of course I don't know the purpose for the shoot... Looks like maybe a senior portrait?
Be sure to tell us who wins...lol

RyanS

Cowboydoug wrote: »

Of course I don't know the purpose for the shoot... Looks like maybe a senior portrait?

+1 for intent!

Earache

Don't like.

The pose seems awkward - her dress looks stained or dirty? - I would like to see her feet - I wish her gaze was at the camera.

I agree the lighting is nice.

Good luck!

Cowboydoug

RyanS wrote: »

This shot's success or failure depends on intent. If the intent was to take a shot of a young women wearing a dress then the DOF is probably not shallow enough, and the background too busy. If the intent was to take some kind of environmental portrait then the DOF is probably not deep enough. If the intent was to show some relation between the girl and her environment, then the composition may not be helping.

What did you have in your head before you took the shot? The fact I can't figure out your intent may be a clue something is up. In order to help you improve I need to know what you wanted to say. Others may offer advice without first understanding your intent. I've started asking because sometimes the intent is totally different than I guessed previously to asking.

That's what I really think. You did ask!

This is for Ryan...
Hmmm... intent? Bless your ever livin lovin heart Ryan. But I completely disagree with you as to the importance of Knowing the "intent"?.. An image should speak for itself... It's intent is completely secondary to its ability to convey. An image should tell its own story... Albeit some are told better than others.
At this very moment I have my iPad playing a slide show of images on my TV & as my images roll by I realize in all my images that my only intent was to create an interesting photograph.
You're on the right track Ryan... You broke down the photo of the girl & scene great... Technically the image is flawed as well as estheticly ... If those two concerns are correct then the intent is irrelevant.

Food for thought from Mr. I.P. Freely

RyanS

Cowboydoug wrote: »

This is for Ryan...
Hmmm... intent? Bless your ever livin lovin heart Ryan. But I completely disagree with you as to the importance of Knowing the "intent"?.. An image should speak for itself... It's intent is completely secondary to its ability to convey. An image should tell its own story... Albeit some are told better than others.
At this very moment I have my iPad playing a slide show of images on my TV & as my images roll by I realize in all my images that my only intent was to create an interesting photograph.
You're on the right track Ryan... You broke down the photo of the girl & scene great... Technically the image is flawed as well as estheticly ... If those two concerns are correct then the intent is irrelevant.

Food for thought from Mr. I.P. Freely

It is totally okay to completely disagree with me.

To me, vision is the same thing as intent. I use the two words interchangeably. If you don't have a vision of where you are headed with an image before you hit the shutter release, your results are random at worst and lucky at best.

Does that make sense? Let me try and clarify. When you produce an image, do you randomly take snapshots and hope for the best? Or do you think of where that image might be headed and what you might want to say? If you think about the compositional elements in a photograph. If you think about the content. If you think about the settings of your camera and how that will change the look of the frame. if you think about what the light is doing in the frame. If you think about the color, texture, form, or lines/shapes... You are applying intent/vision. If you don't, then I stand by my "you're just getting lucky" statement.

A photographer's thought process grows with the photographer. Rigidly applying some pre-determined vision to an image is not required. It is liberating and often necessary to adjust your intent and vision as an image develops. We all have shots where intent is stronger or weaker. Some times the random snapshot does produce lucky results. Great. We are applying our vision after the image is made, but we still apply it.

Remember, it was Ansel Adams that widely introduce the world to this whole vision/intent idea. For me, all this is at the heart of the creative spirit.

Mr. Adams sums how I feel perfectly:

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”
― Ansel Adams

I really do think we are saying the exact same thing, perhaps we are just saying it in different ways.

ADMIT Photography

The tree is distracting and you cut off her feet in the crop. I also agree that she looks tense in the pose and not natural.

Svennie

I would not say 'hate it', but for me it's not a keeper ;-) Is she wearing sneakers?

Anyway, this works IMHO a lot better in black and white with a much tighter crop. But even then it's touch and go. If you'd like I can show you, but I wasn't sure you'd like to have your photos processed and re-posted ;-)

Moving Pictures

Going entirely on gut reaction, this looks like a "test" shot to me, as in "do I have my lights OK? Yeah, ok, now I get the shot I want."

My immediate thought is to shoot vertical, move closer/crop closer and obtain a shallower dof (but that's my personal style anyhooo) and fer crying out loud, get the lady to move the hair out of her mouth. More than anything else, that detail irks the ever-lovin' heck outta me.

zoomer

Crop just below her knee and just above her head, take the top of the tree off. Make it more of a pano.
Give it a levels and contrast adjust to make it pop, adjust the color so it is not so warm.
Clean up the area under her arm and above her dress, after all that you will have an ok shot.
Don't hate it don't love it.
There was potential unrealized in the setting you chose, but came out ok. If you had blurred this background to the max it would have looked amazing...add in a more natural looking pose with some energy and make that gust of wind that put hair in her face at exactly the wrong instant not happen.

fredjclaus

I think there are some valuable information here, and I'm learning from your shot as well. Hate is a strong word, and I don't like to use it. I don't "Hate" the picture, but it's not my favorite either.

1. Move the legs apart a bit more. The one foot directly next to the other leg looks very uncomfortable and not natural.

2. The hair in her face doesn't lend to the overall shot. It would in some cases, but not here.

3. Change the outfit. Is it dirty, or is that a patern?

4. What was your focus? If it's the girl, I would crop so the main portion of the image is the girl and not the tree behind her. That might also help with the dress "dirty" issue. Maybe we could see the patern better.

Overall, I say exposure wise the image is great. I love the lighting, and the angle t was shot from. Composition could use some work though.

Then again, I'm learning myself so I'm sure those who have much more experience than I would have better advise.

Gotham

I get very tired of hearing people complain in photo forums about cut off hands and feet. Normally I think that's just fine and can actually help the composition by creating interesting negative space. But on this picture, the cut off feet really bothers me. That and she looks stressed, her dress is dirty, and the background -- although interesting -- is really a mess. So, put me in the "not a big fan" column (hate is far too strong a word).

canoesailor

I agree about the dress, not only is it out of place, but it is also marked with something.

To make it work lose the dress, she's a good looking woman, either picture her nude or with something on more suitable to the environment (denim shorts and plaid shirt?), get her feet into the picture and shorten the DoF to blur the tree, or lose the tree altogether. Have her smiling - I like happy pics )

(If she's a daughter, niece or other relative that you'd be sensitive about shooting nude, then please ignore that suggestion and please don't take offence).

Cowboydoug

Gotham wrote: »

I get very tired of hearing people complain in photo forums about cut off hands and feet. Normally I think that's just fine and can actually help the composition by creating interesting negative space. But on this picture, the cut off feet really bothers me. That and she looks stressed, her dress is dirty, and the background -- although interesting -- is really a mess. So, put me in the "not a big fan" column (hate is far too strong a word).

Gotham: I agree with you on both counts... If someone cuts off a foot, hand or half a head... ... the question is...(Don't you think the photographer knows that he did?.)...lol the complaint could be your dislike of the image as a result... Unless like in this case we are asked what we think...

... I think her dress has a pattern in it... maybe tensile threads of some sort... and it has a black on black pattern too...

Cowboydoug

RyanS wrote: »

It is totally okay to completely disagree with me.

To me, vision is the same thing as intent. I use the two words interchangeably. If you don't have a vision of where you are headed with an image before you hit the shutter release, your results are random at worst and lucky at best.

Does that make sense? Let me try and clarify. When you produce an image, do you randomly take snapshots and hope for the best? Or do you think of where that image might be headed and what you might want to say? If you think about the compositional elements in a photograph. If you think about the content. If you think about the settings of your camera and how that will change the look of the frame. if you think about what the light is doing in the frame. If you think about the color, texture, form, or lines/shapes... You are applying intent/vision. If you don't, then I stand by my "you're just getting lucky" statement.

A photographer's thought process grows with the photographer. Rigidly applying some pre-determined vision to an image is not required. It is liberating and often necessary to adjust your intent and vision as an image develops. We all have shots where intent is stronger or weaker. Some times the random snapshot does produce lucky results. Great. We are applying our vision after the image is made, but we still apply it.

Remember, it was Ansel Adams that widely introduce the world to this whole vision/intent idea. For me, all this is at the heart of the creative spirit.

Mr. Adams sums how I feel perfectly:


I really do think we are saying the exact same thing, perhaps we are just saying it in different ways.

We should call this "Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy" (old Saturday Night Live stuff...lol)
I am constantly taking random shots... it's what I do... I think what's important it to learn the basics... What & where light is.. how will the light effect my image... can I make a proper exposure... Have I made this shot interesting... and then... CLICK...
That said; all of those things and more run through my mind in a Superman-like-second :ivar
Some images take more Superman minutes than others to create...

goldenstarphoto

Thank you to everyone who commented. The dress is not dirty, it had a black pattern. She is a 16 year old girl in a public park, so nude is NOT! an option. She wore sneakers to the shoot, (don't know why, but does anyone know why 16 year olds do what they do). Her feet were lost in the deep grass, that is why I chose to crop where I did, because you couldn't see them anyway. Also, sneakers with dresses is appearing to become the "in" thing with todays fashion (in N. Calif high schools at least).

My attempt was to create an "edgy" mood. That is why I chose to use the "dramatic" looking tree behind her in focus. Obviously I failed since no one got the same vision I did. I guess it's back to the drawing board. Thank you again for all the suggestions and feedback. That is why this is a GREAT forum.

I will attempt to crop and/or convert to b/w as zoomer suggested when I get home.

Oh, and yes, the wind was blowing about 40mph, so it was hard to keep it out of her face, but we tried our best while not freezing in her dress.

Thanks again!

Cowboydoug

Ah...so it was Cathy who hated it... Lol

goldenstarphoto

Took a few comments and attempted some photoshop.....is this any better?

System

Looks better...but to me, black pattern or not, the dress looks dirty/stained.

canoesailor

goldenstarphoto wrote: »

Thank you to everyone who commented. The dress is not dirty, it had a black pattern. She is a 16 year old girl in a public park, so nude is NOT! an option. She wore sneakers to the shoot, (don't know why, but does anyone know why 16 year olds do what they do). Her feet were lost in the deep grass, that is why I chose to crop where I did, because you couldn't see them anyway. Also, sneakers with dresses is appearing to become the "in" thing with todays fashion (in N. Calif high schools at least).

My attempt was to create an "edgy" mood. That is why I chose to use the "dramatic" looking tree behind her in focus. Obviously I failed since no one got the same vision I did. I guess it's back to the drawing board. Thank you again for all the suggestions and feedback. That is why this is a GREAT forum.

I will attempt to crop and/or convert to b/w as zoomer suggested when I get home.

Oh, and yes, the wind was blowing about 40mph, so it was hard to keep it out of her face, but we tried our best while not freezing in her dress.

Thanks again!

16 you can understand why some men get caught out by "jail-bail" - I would never have guessed at 16.

sorry no it didn't come over as edgy, she just looks, not very happy.

DigiScapes

I agree with other comments, the dress looks dirty and to me, is far to distracting to enjoy anything else about the photo.

Yaflyyadie

I got an idea that might save the day.
Make the background as a Black and white conversion, keep your subject in color and clone the dress issues.
I have done this before and the eye will go straight to the subject.

Not the best solution but hope it helps.
Y.