Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F  (Read 14574 times)

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« on: May 18, 2012, 05:27:08 pm »

Film: Kodak 160NC film.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2012, 03:40:50 pm »

Just goes to show, it's not the equipment...  ???
Logged

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2012, 01:15:01 pm »

I just want to hear some commends about the photo, maybe I should move it to somewhere...
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 01:36:22 pm »

That was a comment about the photo, and a very positive one.

This image is nicely seen and composed. The subject's expression and pose combine to make a very nice portrait.

I see you have the same issues with dust on 120 film scans as I always did.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2012, 03:19:52 pm »

That was a comment about the photo, and a very positive one...

Only if you disregard the emoticon, otherwise it is a rather negative one (and rightly so).

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2012, 03:30:15 pm »

Oh, yeah, I see that now. Just goes to show how much attention I'm paying when I read stuff. Heh. D'oh.

But I disagree, I like this portrait for the expression.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

David Watson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
    • David Watson
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2012, 05:06:09 pm »

Only if you disregard the emoticon, otherwise it is a rather negative one (and rightly so).
+1
Logged
David Watson ARPS

ondebanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2012, 09:38:38 pm »

I just want to hear some commends about the photo, maybe I should move it to somewhere...

We use this thread for posting such examples of our "non-professional" work, and getting artistic feedback. Normally we only start a new thread about a particular photo if it illustrates a problem or technical issue.

Some people here are quite meanspirited. If you're not impressed with a photo, do the decent thing and either stay shtum or give a particular reason why it could be better - you know, constructive feedback.

Ray
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2012, 10:02:12 pm »

Well, the "meanspirited" remained "shtum" for a couple of days, along with anyone else. Which is a comment in itself. However, if someone insists...

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2012, 10:11:59 am »

I'll bite with some constructive criticism.

Aside from the sweet expression, the picture doesn't work.  As a snap shot of a moment, personal to you, its probably great.  But . . .

Why doesn't the photo work?  Composition is confused, incomplete, cluttered.  The background is cluttered, the forground is cluttered, which is distracting to say the least.  There are no interesting forms in the photo, the form I want to see are her intertwined arms, without the empty and dirty glasses in the forground, without the tilted lampshade in the background.  The negative space of the windows is also distracting from, rather than balancing, the composition.  I look at her arms and the beauty of their form is cut off.

I would suggest you look at great photos, in a book, in a museum.  Look at mid century photographers using 6x6 format, like Avedon, Vivianne Mayer, and countless others.  Look at Bresson's street work.  Look at how they composed their frames, how uncluttered they are, how they allow the subject breathing room, how simple they are.  Then go shoot, and shoot, and shoot.

Bresson said your first 10,000 photographs are your worst photographs.  So get out there and shoot, and think, and evluate your work objectively.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 04:00:35 pm by TMARK »
Logged

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
    • some work
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2012, 06:19:06 pm »

Well, I agree with the above criticism, but wish to take the opposite position. Not to be contrary, but I think there is something in the image. Its not classically correct, in fact, in many ways its classically very awkward as has been noted above. Yet... there seems to be something about it, some presence. Its one of those images that breaks the rules and somehow engages the viewer as if it were just a snap, but something more.

This is not to say its a great picture, but rather there is a thread of something there in it, a line of work to be followed. Do I think the photog knew this and is sure of their path? No, not likely. But it would be interesting for that photog to go (as rec'd above) study the masters, study formal composition, and then come back to this and see if there is something he could pick up from it and build upon. 
Logged
Geoff

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2012, 08:13:19 pm »

I took my son to a park last week, and snapped a picture of him under a tree. The eyes came out nice :P

Some photography works precisely because it is infused with familiarity; your average shrink-wrapped model will never give you family photos, or the thrill of making your date hold her breath in a café.

Edmund
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 08:19:04 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Adam L

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
    • http://adamlozo.com
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2012, 08:19:22 pm »

actually, only 'the' eye   ;)
Logged
"That's a lot of money to move a few pix

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2012, 09:13:13 pm »

actually, only 'the' eye   ;)

Yeah, I'll put the picture up on Facebook with the heading "My Sun" :)

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ced

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 287
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2012, 05:32:54 am »

xianql My comment on your image and this is from no expert in portraits but just personal taste.
Some like square format but for me the square format offers one the luxury of cropping and here I think is where the image because of the way it was taken gives the cluttered look that others have already touched on.
So without any offence intended this is my take on the crop, the lamp in the background I have taken out roughly as it distracts.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 05:34:27 am by ced »
Logged

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2012, 10:50:38 pm »

That was a comment about the photo, and a very positive one.

This image is nicely seen and composed. The subject's expression and pose combine to make a very nice portrait.

I see you have the same issues with dust on 120 film scans as I always did.

I just saw all your messages and comments, thank you guys!

Yes, I am lazy, since it take too long time if I turn on ICE dust removal, I used Epson V700.
Logged

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2012, 10:54:10 pm »

We use this thread for posting such examples of our "non-professional" work, and getting artistic feedback. Normally we only start a new thread about a particular photo if it illustrates a problem or technical issue.

Some people here are quite meanspirited. If you're not impressed with a photo, do the decent thing and either stay shtum or give a particular reason why it could be better - you know, constructive feedback.

Ray

Thank you! All constructive feedback are appreciated!
Logged

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2012, 10:59:55 pm »

I'll bite with some constructive criticism.

Aside from the sweet expression, the picture doesn't work.  As a snap shot of a moment, personal to you, its probably great.  But . . .

Why doesn't the photo work?  Composition is confused, incomplete, cluttered.  The background is cluttered, the forground is cluttered, which is distracting to say the least.  There are no interesting forms in the photo, the form I want to see are her intertwined arms, without the empty and dirty glasses in the forground, without the tilted lampshade in the background.  The negative space of the windows is also distracting from, rather than balancing, the composition.  I look at her arms and the beauty of their form is cut off.

I would suggest you look at great photos, in a book, in a museum.  Look at mid century photographers using 6x6 format, like Avedon, Vivianne Mayer, and countless others.  Look at Bresson's street work.  Look at how they composed their frames, how uncluttered they are, how they allow the subject breathing room, how simple they are.  Then go shoot, and shoot, and shoot.

Bresson said your first 10,000 photographs are your worst photographs.  So get out there and shoot, and think, and evluate your work objectively.

Hi TMARK,
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation!
I will pay more attention to foreground and background in my next portrait shoot!
Logged

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2012, 11:03:20 pm »

Well, I agree with the above criticism, but wish to take the opposite position. Not to be contrary, but I think there is something in the image. Its not classically correct, in fact, in many ways its classically very awkward as has been noted above. Yet... there seems to be something about it, some presence. Its one of those images that breaks the rules and somehow engages the viewer as if it were just a snap, but something more.

This is not to say its a great picture, but rather there is a thread of something there in it, a line of work to be followed. Do I think the photog knew this and is sure of their path? No, not likely. But it would be interesting for that photog to go (as rec'd above) study the masters, study formal composition, and then come back to this and see if there is something he could pick up from it and build upon. 

Thank you Geoffreyg!
Logged

xianql

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: A portrait photo by Rolleiflex 2.8F
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2012, 11:07:17 pm »

I took my son to a park last week, and snapped a picture of him under a tree. The eyes came out nice :P

Some photography works precisely because it is infused with familiarity; your average shrink-wrapped model will never give you family photos, or the thrill of making your date hold her breath in a café.

Edmund

Thanks! What a nice portrait of your son!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up