Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: JNB_Rare on December 02, 2017, 08:05:37 pm

Title: Eyes
Post by: JNB_Rare on December 02, 2017, 08:05:37 pm
I think it was JMR who mentioned he'd spent a rainy day processing some older images. I don't do this often enough (go back to have a look). But I found a couple...
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 02, 2017, 08:51:06 pm
That's a powerful pair of images.
They should be displayed together.

-Eric
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: Bob_B on December 03, 2017, 08:29:46 am
That's a powerful pair of images.
They should be displayed together.

-Eric

+1, and the dof is spot on
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: JNB_Rare on December 03, 2017, 09:29:35 am
That's a powerful pair of images.
They should be displayed together.

-Eric

Thanks, guys. I don't have a third image, so perhaps a diptych.
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: John R on December 03, 2017, 11:18:44 am
The second image looked disappointing as thumb nail image. But once opened you can see the look is quite powerful and engaging. I would say the opening in the veil repeats in the outline of the eyes and makes the two images more interesting.

JR
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: RSL on December 03, 2017, 11:35:55 am
These images could be powerful if they had context. It's the kind of thing you try to catch in a street shot, but the eyes alone don't get the job done. I think you need a reason for the look in these eyes. The shots are good as far as they go, but do they really go far enough?
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: JNB_Rare on December 04, 2017, 11:39:23 pm
These images could be powerful if they had context. It's the kind of thing you try to catch in a street shot, but the eyes alone don't get the job done. I think you need a reason for the look in these eyes. The shots are good as far as they go, but do they really go far enough?

A fair point, Russ, and perhaps many would agree with you. In this case, the lack of context was deliberate on my part. Though I may risk diminishing the impact for some, my intent was to leave interpretation (or imagined context) to the viewer.
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 04, 2017, 11:58:52 pm
A fair point, Russ, and perhaps many would agree with you. In this case, the lack of context was deliberate on my part. Though I may risk diminishing the impact for some, my intent was to leave interpretation (or imagined context) to the viewer.
I think they have just enough context as shown.

Eric
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: RSL on December 05, 2017, 11:12:35 am
Okay. Fair enough. It's Rare's picture, and it's up to him. But I'd ask you, Eric, other than a pair of pis.ed-off female eyes (admittedly a genuine rarity), what's the context?
Title: Re: Eyes
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 05, 2017, 06:10:58 pm
Okay. Fair enough. It's Rare's picture, and it's up to him. But I'd ask you, Eric, other than a pair of pis.ed-off female eyes (admittedly a genuine rarity), what's the context?
As the pair of images stand, there are several possible interpretations. All additional "context" would do, in my opinion, is restrict the viewer's reading to a single interpretation (such as, for instance, the one you are suggesting.)
I like evocative ambiguity, which I think this pair has.

Eric