|
Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.
Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.
Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.
Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.
Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
 by iUDEX on Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:08 am
hi, Not a great image, so how can I improve? I took this shot of my housemate, it has been cropped and lightly edited in Photoshop. I was hoping to shoot at f1/4, but unfortunately my lens may need some re-calibration. 40D + Sigma 50mm f1.4@2.8, bounce flash used.  for larger size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/iudex/3334676467/sizes/o/Exif data is available. I was going for a clean image, but retain his rugged features. Perhaps a little overexposed. How do you think I went? Thanks in advance for any critique!
-
iUDEX
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:48 pm
- Location: North Melbourne, VIC Australia
by gstark on Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:04 am
I like the concept, and I have no issues with your exposure or other settings.
Perhaps, if you were to reshoot this, do something to have a slightly less distracting background, but otherwise, I think this is very nice.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
-
gstark
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 22918
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: Bondi, NSW
by marcotrov on Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:44 am
Get out of the HOUSE!  I agree with Gary, apart from the background distraction(easily toned down) i think the picture is good and has great potential. The penetrating and foreboding stare may be your anchor. Darken the image to match the mood of the stare. Perhaps Vignetting of the bright background , even an overall dark sepia look that draws the viewer into that penetrating glance. I'd even play around with the eye itself, perhaps enhancing those qualities that makes it transfixing to the viewer. Could be the brightening of the highlight in the eye, changing the colour of the pupil, whitening the whites etc, etc. You could have some real fun with this. Dare i say, copyright holder willing, could make a great little competition for those with the time, energy and willingness. Create the movie poster..... The Dark Knight Exposed.  Great image great potential.  Ok, maybe i've gone over the top, i'll shut up now. cheers marco
-
marcotrov
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 2577
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:21 pm
- Location: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
by blacknstormy on Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:08 am
I agree - love the concept - just needs a few tweaks ... this is like a red rag to a bull, and I couldn't help myself (sorry) - I dragonized the image, and then did a few more little tweaks (dodge, further burn, and a curves adjustment), and this is what I came up with ... If it offends, I'll remove, but I couldn't stop myself 
-
blacknstormy
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 2745
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:33 pm
- Location: Ipswich Qld
-
by gstark on Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:36 am
Rel, Very interesting treatment. While I like most of how you've done this, you've also lost some key parts of the face, where they're drifitng in to merge with the background. To me, that causes the image to become more two-dimensional; I don't get the feeling that we can see/sense the other(hidden) side of the model's face, and to me, that detracts from the original, which does provide that sense of the other side of the face just being there, without it being seen. If that makes any sense. Marco, please.  g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
-
gstark
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 22918
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: Bondi, NSW
by blacknstormy on Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 am
Gary - yep I understand - but I still had fun
-
blacknstormy
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 2745
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:33 pm
- Location: Ipswich Qld
-
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|
