File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Su/p/

I desperate need of criticism. Here is some recent stuff.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:27 02:35:53
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>230709I desperate need of criticism.

You couldn't be farther from the truth.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230709

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:27 02:38:17
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
The first one is very distracting, she's just not isolated in the pic, my eyes wander to all the crap on the table.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230709

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:31 01:37:39
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230709

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:31 01:41:20
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230709

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:01 23:26:35
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>230716
Little better, but still generic. Don't be afraid to get in people faces. THe worst they can say is "no".
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230709

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:01 23:26:44
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230722
With a 35mm equivalent, that's as close as I can get without obvious feature distortion.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:01 05:44:15
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230722
Besides, I'm not following you, in>>230712I was barely within the focusing distance of my lens, so how close do you want me? Up their nose?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:02 08:11:51
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230739
And finally, cliche graveyard shot.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:31 05:37:41
>> Anonymous
>>230724

books are gay
>> Anonymous
>>230744
posters like you are gay
>> Anonymous
Hey! We're flickr buddies!

I think the strangers series has a lot of potential. The trick, I think, is going to be to really engage the people you shoot, even though you don't know them. If they're just passing shots of people you talk to only briefly, it's probably usually going to show.
>> Anonymous
>>230771
I usually don't have a problem talking with strangers, but then I have to kinda of segway into "Do you mind I take your portrait?"

Sometimes awkward because it kills the mood of the conversation we were having. I'm trying to avoid seeming like I'm just chatting them up for a picture (which I am, but I don't want to insult their intelligence).
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>230739
>Up their nose?
Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>230943
Thanks for that feedback.

Nobody else have anything to say? SRS Critiquefag? Beethy? Liska?
>> Anonymous
>>230709
To me, it looks like a POS shot taken with a DSLR, if you know what I mean.
>> Anonymous
>>230709
>>230713

I agree, I think if the lighting was better, it would work better- I like the composition and selective focus, but she just doesn't draw your eye because of where the sunlight is hitting.

>>230712

Okay, better lighting here. It's a little boring, but it's better than the first one. The scratches on the photo are distracting, though. It would be better to clean them up in photoshop before presenting it.

>>230716

The light again is a miss here... it's just kind of harsh on that one area on her arm... and she looks really uncomfortable. A good portrait is supposed to let you in on a person's personality, but it looks like she's heavily guarded against letting anybody see that.

>>230718

OK, fair texture and lighting. Nothing too remarkable, but it's not bad.
>> Anonymous
>>230721

My first thought is, "What is it?" Other than not knowing what the subject is, it's not very attention-grabbing. Also, this one is really really grainy. Using a tripod and a lower shutter speed probably would have helped instead of boosting the ISO.

>>230724

Subject matter is... kinda blah. I guess I'd be more partial to this if you cleaned up the scratches and corrected for the florescent lighting. It's too yellow. Needs more blue.

>>230737

Ick hazy! The subject looks very vulnerable and I like the expression. I just wish it wasn't so grey and... lacking on contrast. The lighting doesn't add anything to this, and I think it would benefit if more natural light was used to enhance his features, especially his face and hair.

>>230739

Really grainy with a lot of scratches. Is this film? You really need to be more gentle when you develop it, or yell at the bitches who you take it to get it developed. Lighting is unremarkable. Subject seems like you asked "Can I take your picture?" and snapped it without any further preparation. The glare on his forehead is annoyingly bright, too washed out.

>>230743

I would have liked to see more of the lit-up graves in this one. There's too much pure black, negative space. It doesn't have anything that holds me in the photo.