can't decide on two shots... critique please!

[MarkoMijailovic]

i took these two shots saturday and sunday, respectively, and have had the hardest time deciding whether or not they're worthy of keeping in my portfolio. any and all opinions/critiques are welcome!

thanks in advance.

http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=5340919235&size=large&posted=1

http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=5337525216&bg=white&size=large&posted=1

it's the first one i'm having the harder time with- something about the angle perhaps...

[stamper]

The obvious answer....both. You clearly know what you are doing and the effect in the second one is unusual to say the least. One up for the artistic side of Photoshop? If it isn't and it is a technique of the camera I would like to know how it is done.

[Steve Weldon]

I don't like the harshness of the first image.  It feels way too strong.

The second image creates a nice feeling and I dare say the womans beauty catches my interest much more than in the first, but I find myself wanting to see the image without the shutter drag/photoshop effect.  The effect, imo, would be more effective leading out the back of the head than the front of the face.  I especially like the tones and grain on the second.  Just because we can, doesn't mean we should..

[MarkoMijailovic]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Appreciate it.

Stamper, it's indeed a "technique of the camera" and a very simple one at that. It's called dragging the shutter and all you do is set a longer exposure and have the subject move or you move the camera. I don't use photoshop for any 'special effects' ever.

Steve, when you say it feels way too strong, how do you mean? Do you mean contrast-wise? or perhaps the angle? Would love some more feedback on that image in particular as I'm very undecided about it, but can't place why... Also, I've got renditions of that second image where the effect is leading out from the back of her head, but it's, imo, too cliche that way. Maybe I'll post one of those versions later, as well as a 'no effect' version!

Thanks again! I really appreciate feedback.

[MarkoMijailovic]

so as to not post another thread, i thought i'd post another two images of mine that i'd like feedback on.

http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=5158883288&bg=white&size=large&posted=1

http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=5299764386&bg=white&size=large&posted=1

i've just been 'at' photography for about a year and a half and feel that lighting is the area in which i struggle the most and would appreciate any feedback related directly to that the most. i've got two lights to work with (bowens 500r's), a large (100x140) softbox and a couple of umbrellas, but plan on adding another flash head soon as well as a beauty dish and perhaps a ring flash. if you can recommend any techniques for lighting that'd better my work, i'd much appreciate it! i just turned 21 and would like to make a career out of photography.

[popnfresh]

The last one with the cigarette and the big glasses is a cool shot--offbeat and intriguing.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

#1 is a throwaway

#2 & 3 are excellent

#4 I guess is o.k., but not my cup of tea

[Steve Weldon]

Steve, when you say it feels way too strong, how do you mean? Do you mean contrast-wise? or perhaps the angle? Would love some more feedback on that image in particular as I'm very undecided about it, but can't place why... Also, I've got renditions of that second image where the effect is leading out from the back of her head, but it's, imo, too cliche that way. Maybe I'll post one of those versions later, as well as a 'no effect' version!

Thanks again! I really appreciate feedback.

Mark -

When I say 'too strong' I mean almost every element of the composition and processing was overdone or mismatched.  You've zoomed in on her face bringing her features (eyes, nose, lips, blemishes) very close, and then processed these areas to really stand out.  Too much contrast, too narrow tonal range, micro-contrast overdone.  You've basically exacerbated a composition that would of benefited from going in the other direction.

In contrast (pun intended.. the second image was 180 degrees on the other direction, and except for the shutter drag effect was a really attractive image.  Shutter drag effects, imo, work best when the subject is smaller in the frame.  I think you're correct dragging out the rear is cliche', yet that doesn't make it dragging out the front work better.  I think it would be better without it.  If I was going to use shutter drag I wouldn't go out the front or back, but perhaps instead rotate it around the face hoping for a 3d effect.

Images 3&4 are in effect, again imo, overdone.  Both good ideas, but you came on too strong.  I think images 1, 3, and 4 are all three good images even if just processed lightly.. but when you stray from the norm you have to ask yourself if you're improving the image, or simply increasing the effect. 

[MarkoMijailovic]

Thanks for the detailed critique, Steve, much appreciated.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Steve, when you say it feels way too strong, how do you mean? Do you mean contrast-wise? or perhaps the angle? Would love some more feedback on that image in particular as I'm very undecided about it, but can't place why... Also, I've got renditions of that second image where the effect is leading out from the back of her head, but it's, imo, too cliche that way. Maybe I'll post one of those versions later, as well as a 'no effect' version!

My first reaction when I looked at this was to hope that the subject didn't get to see it! I agree with what I think Steve meant: it's very contrasty, very harshly lit and very unflattering to the subject. Maybe that's what you intended but it somehow grates. I'm not sure that the shallow depth of field really works either. Your third shot is more interesting to me, but again I find it very harsh.

FWIW.

Jeremy

[candide]

...when you stray from the norm you have to ask yourself if you're improving the image, or simply increasing the effect.  

I don't believe there is any such thing as "the norm". There is mediocrity and then there's creative vision that pushes the envelope. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But one thing it never does is play it safe.

[Steve Weldon]

I don't believe there is any such thing as "the norm". There is mediocrity and then there's creative vision that pushes the envelope. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But one thing it never does is play it safe.

Of course there is such thing as normal and I think for the purposes of my explanation its use "the norm" was appropriate, but more importantly understood.  And there is a lot more besides mediocrity and creative vision.. no need to limit ourselves into such a narrow box.  And this (the requested critique of images) isn't about playing it safe or not, really that doesn't enter into it at all since the images were already presented.  It's only about a couple images, already presented, and the requested opinion.  Freely given and graciously accepted.

I'm interested in your beliefs in how they apply to the OP's images, but not so much my critique.  How about it?

[stamper]

Define normal.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Define normal.

Define smart-ass.



P.S. Nothing personal, stamper, just couldn't resist

[popnfresh]

Of course there is such thing as normal and I think for the purposes of my explanation its use "the norm" was appropriate, but more importantly understood.  And there is a lot more besides mediocrity and creative vision.. no need to limit ourselves into such a narrow box.  And this (the requested critique of images) isn't about playing it safe or not, really that doesn't enter into it at all since the images were already presented.  It's only about a couple images, already presented, and the requested opinion.  Freely given and graciously accepted.

I'm interested in your beliefs in how they apply to the OP's images, but not so much my critique.  How about it?

If I read you correctly you used "the norm" as more of a technical consideration than a creative one. As for mediocrity and creative vision being the only two categories of creative expression, I think that may be a little harsh. It's more of a spectrum, really. But I agree with candide that great art takes chances and isn't afraid of falling on its face occasionally.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Define normal.

On second thought, "normal" is pretty much like "love" and "pornography"… hard to define, but you'll know it when you see it.

[Steve Weldon]

If I read you correctly you used "the norm" as more of a technical consideration than a creative one. As for mediocrity and creative vision being the only two categories of creative expression, I think that may be a little harsh. It's more of a spectrum, really. But I agree with candide that great art takes chances and isn't afraid of falling on its face occasionally.

Yes, you read me perfectly.  Reading in context is helpful.. ;o)  And I agree it's a spectrum.  And absolutely, art requires risk.  I applaud the OP for taking risks and searching for his style.  All I'm saying is if you're trying to please most of the people most of the time, less (when it comes to out of box processing) is often more.  There will always be a fringe who appreciates what the majority may not, so choose your audience when presenting.  And when requesting critiques put the critic in context to get the most from the critique.  This way two apparently opposed critiques could still provide value.  After all, it would be a bit boring if we all had the same opinion on such matters.