# Portrait of my Girlfriend :)



## CA_ (Jul 28, 2012)

Taken on my little D5100.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

She's lovely, and has gorgeous eyes. I would strongly suggest not cropping the top of her head... it seriously detracts from the photo. It looks like there is some barrel distortion from using a wide angle lens. And it is very noisy... did you need to shoot at ISO 4000, or was it done intentionally?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

Y
E
S

A

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
Might have given this photo an entirely different feel. She has a lovely haircut, and great features for photography!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Y
> E
> S
> 
> ...



I was going to make that point.. but I KNOW it is YOUR point to make! lol!


----------



## janineh (Jul 28, 2012)

Vertical or landscape.. Who cares! I am sick of those comments. Yes, portraits do work in landscape too! Why being so anal?

Anyway, nice shot. For me its just a bit overworked. Looks plastic. Skin, eyes....


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

janineh said:


> ]Vertical or landscape.. Who cares! I am sick of those comments. Yes, portraits do work in landscape too! Why being so anal?[/B]
> 
> Anyway, nice shot. For me its just a bit overworked. Looks plastic. Skin, eyes....



I am curious.. Between us, Derrel and I probably have about Sixty to Seventy years of combined experience. We both are or have been Professionals with successful working studios. Maybe we have some basis for what we recommend! 

Out of curiousity, how long have you even been shooting? Owned a SLR or DSLR?  Just trying to get a basis here for your comments here! Are they just based on opinion (what you like) or do you actually have some knowledge that we don't have?


----------



## rokvi (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Y
> E
> S
> 
> ...



I'm also curious as to how this ^ is anal?


----------



## CA_ (Jul 28, 2012)

Oh jeez..


As for the I-have-more-experience notion.. Samurai were the peak of endurance, agility and strength. They were terrifying, even when out numbered by 10 fold. Why? Because though masters of their craft they were, they were always 'perpetual students' and humble enough to consider new ideas from even the beginner of beginners. Sometimes having less experience can be good; they can see things veterans simply haven't. 

Anyway, I went back to the original raw and it seems I chopped the top off in-camera  but I do agree a portrait frame could have worked better. Though, sometimes I try things that I think will look great in my mind and they don't translate. And yes, her fake look was very much on purpose. I didn't really want it to look like a photo, more of an illustration / art piece. I thought it might look cool on wrapped canvas!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

CA_ said:


> Oh jeez..
> 
> 
> As for the I-have-more-experience notion.. Samurai were the peak of endurance, agility and strength. They were terrifying, even when out numbered by 10 fold. Why? Because though masters of their craft they were, they were always 'perpetual students' and humble enough to consider new ideas from even the beginner of beginners. *Sometimes having less experience can be good; they can see things veterans simply haven't. *
> ...



Sure... like I haven't heard that before! lol!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 28, 2012)

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D5100
Lens: 18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
Image Date: 2012-07-08 19:40:11 +0000
Focal Length: 18mm (35mm equivalent: 27mm)
Focus Distance: 22.4m
Aperture: f/3.5
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)
ISO equiv: 4000
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh


----------



## rokvi (Jul 28, 2012)

I bet a new samurai wouldn't call the master anal.

:blackeye:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 28, 2012)

Placement of something in the frame isn't arbitrary - or shouldn't be.
Viewers will try to figure out why space is left.

Unbalanced space to one side seems to imply that the photographer is doing it for an artistic purpose.
The subjects face is symmetrical and yet there is space to one side - and it looks 'off' to me because I can't understand why it is asymmetric.

Lew


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 28, 2012)

janineh said:
			
		

> Vertical or landscape.. Who cares! I am sick of those comments. Yes, portraits do work in landscape too! Why being so anal?
> 
> Anyway, nice shot. For me its just a bit overworked. Looks plastic. Skin, eyes....



Maybe don't bash comments from full time working professionals who offer accurate critique... mmmkay?

Anal? More like correct technical form. A portrait shouldn't chop off the top 10% of the subject's head. Simple.


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 28, 2012)

WOW...what eyes!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

rokvi said:


> I bet a new samurai wouldn't call the master anal.
> 
> :blackeye:



hahahaha... my intent was not suggest that there shouldn't be questions about why someone suggests something. More along the lines that if you make a statement, (especially a rude one), please back it up with why, and facts... or at least some sort of data. "I LIKE IT" just an opinion and we all know what opinions are LIKE!  

The more experienced posters here don't say "Because it has always been done that way!", they usually try to provide information as to why something is better!


----------



## janineh (Jul 29, 2012)

Didn't want to come across rude. 

You might have more experience, but if you ask me, if you would have done this shot in portrait, it would have looked like a bad passport photo.
It looks good as it is for me.

I think I can post my opinion even if I haven't got 20 years of experience. Maybe I am thinking outside of the box and don't think everything needs to be the old fashion way. It clearly works and is balanced to me.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 29, 2012)

janineh said:


> Didn't want to come across rude.
> 
> You might have more experience, but if you ask me, if you would have done this shot in portrait, it would have looked like a bad passport photo.
> It looks good as it is for me.
> ...



yea.. we hear that a lot! You are welcome to your opinions.. we all have them! Good luck with your photography!

Since I obviously have nothing I can teach you, I will just add you to my Ignore List... so I won't bother you in the future!


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 29, 2012)

janineh said:


> Didn't want to come across rude.
> 
> You might have more experience, but if you ask me, if you would have done this shot in portrait, it would have looked like a bad passport photo.
> It looks good as it is for me.
> ...



My dear, there's a difference between opinions in photography and facts in photography. Thinking outside the box is fine so long as we're not talking about fundamental elements of the art. What you call "old fashioned" is as close to written law as it gets. Do you complain that your Doctor treats your flu the old fashioned way?


And you can feel free to express your opinion regardless of your level of experience. However, with professional experience comes credibility. If you don't care about silly things like credibility, then by all means, go ahead.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 29, 2012)

There's no such thing as a "fundamental error of art" and dragging out the "I have more experience than you do" is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

I didn't like the chopped off head either. It seems like it's not a thing that occurred to the OP, so it's great that it was pointed out, and I think the OP appreciated it and learned. On the other hand, you should always approach these things with the notion that maybe there was a purpose. In the end, all we have to offer are opinions -- did you piece work for me, or not? You can add some stuff about why it did or did not work for you, that's cool, that's great information.

But accept, always, that there's always the possibility that while it doesn't work for YOU, it's incredibly successful for 90 percent of other people. for reasons that you probably cannot even fathom. That's how art works.

I respect pros immensely, what they do is serious work, it is difficult, it is demanding.

That said, being a pro doesn't necessarily mean you know one goddamned thing about art. Professional work is about a) running a business and b) about producing the cliched work that the customers demand,
with a personal touch and a little client specific novelty, but not too much because you don't want to break the client's brain and god knows their brains break pretty easily. Clients don't want art or new ideas, well, ok, they want very very small new ideas that don't make them nervous.

All THAT said, almost every weird stupid-looking thing is just a mistake and a weird stupid-looking thing.

All I'm saying is: Don't assume that you or anyone else is automatically right, and don't assume that you have anything, ultimately, to offer beyond your own opinion.


----------



## janineh (Jul 29, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> yea.. we hear that a lot! You are welcome to your opinions.. we all have them! Good luck with your photography!
> 
> Since I obviously have nothing I can teach you, I will just add you to my Ignore List... so I won't bother you in the future!



Thanks, I am booked out next months and just got a few spot lefts til end of november, so my photography can't be too bad. Good luck to you too!


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 29, 2012)

As others were saying, the issue isn't that it's horizontal, it's that there appears to be no good reason it's horizontal. 

The human face is naturally an oval most of the time oriented vertically.  Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, your frame should do that as well. 

Doing something 'random' for no reason doesn't cut it. And doing something 'just to be creative' is no reason at all. 

I've seen portraits that work with the top of the head cut off and I've seen portraits that work horizontally. This one doesn't, though it's otherwise very good.


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 29, 2012)

Here is my take on the whole landscape vs. portrait orientation...other than what has been said and Lew put it very well.

So many of the ones I see where the discussion comes into play, is because of chopped off heads.  Not even talking about dead space.  So, with that one point alone...it is obvious why the proper orientation should have been used.  Had it been...the head would not be chopped off.

I won't bother with the artistic side of the coin.

It is not anal to try to educate people on proper techniques.


----------



## janineh (Jul 29, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> There's no such thing as a "fundamental error of art" and dragging out the "I have more experience than you do" is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".
> 
> I didn't like the chopped off head either. It seems like it's not a thing that occurred to the OP, so it's great that it was pointed out, and I think the OP appreciated it and learned. On the other hand, you should always approach these things with the notion that maybe there was a purpose. In the end, all we have to offer are opinions -- did you piece work for me, or not? You can add some stuff about why it did or did not work for you, that's cool, that's great information.
> 
> ...



Well said...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 29, 2012)

I think image is well balanced and works very well.

As Derrel said, vertical would indeed give it a different feel. That means you have a choice to make, and something to base it on.

It seems the majority in this thread feel all close up  portraits MUST be shot vertical, and *MUST* include the whole head. That's bull****.

Take a cue from cinematography. Tops of heads are chopped all the time! Before you claim cinematography is different, and follows different rules, I suggest you start watching movies in a different manner. Moving pictures follow all the same theories of composition and elements of design as still photography. While cinematography is constrained to landscape ratio, if it were important to always include the tops of heads, they could simply back up and do so.

I am all for using different framing ratios when appropriate. I see subjects that definitely work better one way than the other, but I don't see it as such hard fast rule as the majority of you do.

In this image, to me, the subject is really her eyes. They really command attention! The Travel has some "rule" (term used loosely) about cropping out what's not important in an image. Apply that to this image. The top of her head just does not matter. It's not a key or supporting character. 

So stop looking at frame orientation as being something that's "proper", something that is either right or wrong, and loosen up a little. Portraits can work this way. Some do, and some don't. But like everything relating to composition, there are no hard, fast, rules, but choices, and decisions that need to be made as a means to an end.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jul 29, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Y
> E
> S
> 
> ...



The manufacturers secretly make the cameras sideways so no matter how big the watermark and FB page.....nevermind


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 29, 2012)

Bitter, I'd agree a little more there if the crop were tighter and her eyes were at a power point in the image. 

My thought is the white space to the right isn't more interesting than the top of her head, and the framing doesn't point anything out, so why do it?  

Though I definitely agree that for some portraits cropping the top of the head off is fine, I don't feel that way when there is no payoff in it. 

And of course video is different, because portrait orientation isn't a possibility. If you talk to cinematographers, most of the time when they crop the top of the head off, it's precisely to avoid lots of dead space on the sides and have the face fill the frame up more, to show more emotion. Here the top was chopped off, but we get both the shoulders and dead space to the right. So while that's usually a trade off cinematographers are forced to make, he got the bad of the trade off without getting the upshot of the trade off that cinematographers are forced to make by the necessity of horizontal framing in movies.


----------



## janineh (Jul 29, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> I think image is well balanced and works very well.
> 
> As Derrel said, vertical would indeed give it a different feel. That means you have a choice to make, and something to base it on.
> 
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 29, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think image is well balanced and works very well.
> 
> As Derrel said, vertical would indeed give it a different feel. That means you have a choice to make, and something to base it on.
> 
> ...




Bravo! Bravissimo! This is fantastically stated.


----------



## Heitz (Jul 29, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> janineh said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't want to come across rude.
> ...




Your website.
Image 204 of 216.
You cut off his head.

Just sayin'


----------



## deeky (Jul 29, 2012)

Especially after CA's explanation of what he was going for, I like the pic.  I think the most distracting element for me was that her chin almost disappears against her neck.  Looking at the photo, I wasn't looking for the top of her head, I was trying to find her chin.  That is, when I got away from the eyes.

As far as a professional - in my opinion a professional is NOT someone who hijacks a thread to get catty with another member, regardless of who started it.  Based on my time on other forums, it's really bad here.  Gag.

Call to question - nice work on the photo.


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 29, 2012)

Centered would have been better IMO


----------



## aavivi (Jul 29, 2012)

At the end of the day, to paraphrase Rodney King "can't we all just get along?"  One's idea of art is another's piece of trash.  I think this forum works much better with constructive criticism rather than starting to debate who has more experience and whose booking schedule is fuller.  I do think that some "classic rules" have their place, and sometimes the only way to learn is with trial-and-error.  If you ever watch or attend Kelby's training, you'd see that sometimes landscape portraiture, cutting the top off of someone's hairdo, even god forbid tilting the camera can work.  Obviously it depends on the subject, the set and the goal of the shoot.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 29, 2012)

aavivi said:


> At the end of the day, to paraphrase Rodney King "can't we all just get along?"  One's idea of art is another's piece of trash.  I think this forum works much better with constructive criticism rather than starting to debate who has more experience and whose booking schedule is fuller.  I do think that some "classic rules" have their place, and sometimes the only way to learn is with trial-and-error.  If you ever watch or attend Kelby's training, you'd see that sometimes landscape portraiture, cutting the top off of someone's hairdo, even god forbid tilting the camera can work.  Obviously it depends on the subject, the set and the goal of the shoot.




Well, the issue is that these forums are for C&C.  It is assumed that people post here for a lively debate and deconstruction of your images.  The OP himself seems very open to suggestions, but there are a few members that seem to get offended any time anybody makes a comment that 'disparages' an image at all.  Charlie and Derrell gave their thoughts, as did bitter.  That all seems fine to me.  

I for one can tell you Id love to get this much negative feedback (or feedback of any sort) on most of my images I post here.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 29, 2012)

It seems to me you took the shot from above her. She seems to be looking up at you which doesnt look right to me. Someone else called it distortion. Either straight on or just slightly below would be better, in my opinion.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 30, 2012)

janineh said:
			
		

> Thanks, I am booked out next months and just got a few spot lefts til end of november, so my photography can't be too bad. Good luck to you too!



There are probably two thousand Craigslist and Facebook photographers who are booked almost solid thru December, but bookings do not have much bearing on photographer skill, artistry, or ability. Good composition is not "old-fashioned". Good composition is truly timeless. "Timeless". It has not changed in thousands of years. The elements and principles of design have never changed. Of course, those points are unfamiliar to those who have not studied art, or design, or "serious" photographic technique and theory.

Once again: there is NO SUCH THING as "old-fashioned composition". That statement reveals an immense misunderstanding of design, and of composition. The huge influx of self-taught, uneducated shooters these days has reallllly diluted the understanding of what composition really means.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> There are probably two thousand Craigslist and Facebook photographers who are booked almost solid thru December, but bookings do not have much bearing on photographer skill, artistry, or ability. Good composition is not "old-fashioned". Good composition is truly timeless. "Timeless". It has not changed in thousands of years. The elements and principles of design have never changed. Of course, those points are unfamiliar to those who have not studied art, or design, or "serious" photographic technique and theory.
> 
> Once again: there is NO SUCH THING as "old-fashioned composition". That statement reveals an immense misunderstanding of design, and of composition. The huge influx of self-taught, uneducated shooters these days has reallllly diluted the understanding of what composition really means.



You say this, however it doesn't make it true. It is, again, a large and long winded opinion held by you. 

Shakespeare was a true master of linguistics. Creating what many would see as timeless works of literary mastery. Unfortunately, Shakespeare didn't see "LOL" being put into the dictionary in his minds eye, or else he would have been years ahead of the curb. 

I don't feel that the composition in the OP's photo helped the image, but I also dont feel that all portraits need to be shot in vertical orientation. Bitter brings up an excellent point about cinematography. Watch some movies, watch a lot of them. You will see hundreds of instances where the tops of heads are clipped, arms chopped off, and centered compositions. Things have to evolve to stay fresh.

What was that thing? Evolution? Natural selection? Survival of the fittest? You don't survive by maintaining the course, look at the DoDo.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 30, 2012)

"The cinema" has NO VERTICALS. ALL movie screens are oriented horizontally. "The cinema" is never "printed and hung on a wall."

The opinions of those who have no education in the visual arts are not very compelling. Of COURSE, not all portraits need to be shot in a vertical orientation....I have never,ever, ever once said that is the case. GOOD composition makes the BEST use of the entire space. But then, I understand that BASIC concept and the definition of good composition, since I have studied drawing, design, and composition. My comment here in my first post related to the single image posted at the start of this thread. Your overarching douche-canoe statement is probably a reflection of well...your animus toward me...

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, Tyler! It'll help...


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> "The cinema" has NO VERTICALS. ALL movie screens are oriented horizontally. "The cinema" is never "printed and hung on a wall."



Did you figure that out on your own? Or did you have to google it? I'm assuming you used google, or at the very least, bing to derive that answer. Good job, glad you are able to use the internet at your age. I was referring specifically to the DP's discretion when framing a shot. Not always are all the heads in a frame and not chopped. A lot of times, during dialog exchange there are chopped off heads to emphasize a more personal feeling. 



> The opinions of those who have no education in the visual arts are not very compelling. Of COURSE, not all portraits need to be shot in a vertical orientation....I have never,ever, ever once said that is the case.


No, you haven't gone out and said it, but you are the very first one to point it out, and I never said you did. 



> GOOD composition makes the BEST use of the entire space. But then, I understand that BASIC concept and the definition of good composition, since I have studied drawing, design, and composition.



Yeah, you studied design and composition in the 60's and 70's. Like I said, times change. Do you not realize that? Are you so thick headed and mentally incompetent that you cannot grasp that? Can you not allow other people from different walks of life to exhibit an opinion that is not stated as if it were fact like every one of your posts? In my opinion, your views, photographic style, and compositions are outdated. Your attitude towards photography is stuck in 1965, and you get SO ANGRY if people don't bend to your will and accept what you have to say as gospel. 

Guess what, art is subjective! Apparently you didn't learn that in your 'schooling.' 

I had been telling you that I value your input, and opinions on my work because I am a nice fellow that likes to receive critique and different viewpoints. But now I can honestly say that I do not value your input *at all*. I've seen your photography numerous times. It's a great sleeping aid, because it makes me yawn more than watching a Bosch dishwasher's sanitize cycle. If you produced, and posted images that I thought were good, I probably would change my tune. I don't ever count on that happening because you are far to set in your uninspired ways. 

Allow me to reiterate, I DO NOT care about what you think about my work. 

Don't even bother C&Cing my work anymore, because your photos speak volumes about your opinions. They're just... plain... boring. Sure, you shot some in vertical, some in landscape. Too bad there's nothing fresh or ahead of the curb. Just run of the Olan Mill images. 



> My comment here in my first post related to the single image posted at the start of this thread. Your overarching douche-canoe statement is probably a reflection of well...your animus toward me...



Derrel, consistently without fail you are by and large the biggest and most vacuous rectal cavity. You do not allow others to hold opinions without trying to strike them down. You will even go so far as to put words into other people's mouths in a meager attempt to exercise a point. Allow me to point you to this post where I called you out for doing just that, because frankly I've had enough of your BS towards me and other forum members. 



> Smoke another bowl of that good weed, Tyler! It'll help...



Get some new material Derrel. This shows just how ignorant and uninspired you are. Yeah, I smoke pot occasionally. Big deal. You're a divorced alcoholic, big whoop. Go away.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 30, 2012)

Are we all having a good time?

Have we considered the idea of maybe growing up?


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 30, 2012)

The funniest aspect of this (hey< i choose to laugh at life) is that Tyler and Derrel (both of whom I respect) seem to agree that the horizontal doesn't work in OP's image, and that you can shoot horizontal portraits in the right situation.  

My ultimate issue here is that from things the OP said, he seemed to have no good reason for cropping off the top of her head, or doing the horizontal composition.  He even had to actually look at the original to see if he had cut off the head in camera.  That doesn't sound like a compositional choice based on a modern theory of art.  It sounds like he just wasn't thinking about it.  Same thing for the horizontal orientation.  It doesn't sound like there was any thought as to why it might work better horizontally, it was just done.

And while Im all for moving art forward, you have to understand that classic composition tends to work most of the time, and tends to be best in most cases.  Only certain portrait images actually benefit from horizontal orientation, and you basically have to almost plan it out if your going to do a horizontal portrait. Portrait orientation became portrait orientation because it generally works better.  It's not like photographers in history made an arbitrary choice between the two and just willy-nilly decided they wanted to hold their cameras sideways because it looks cool.  99.99% of horizontal portraits are horizontal simply because cameras are naturally oriented horizontally or 'just because why not?', not because they made a 'design choice'.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 30, 2012)

In order for one to think outside the box... One must first learn where the box is located.

Way too many people stand behind the excuse of "doing something new and exciting" because it is very safe for their ego.  It means they don't have to understand how art "works" to create great art.  It is, however, an excuse... And a pretty cocky one to boot.

Why?  Simple.

What you are saying is that you are SO good that you just don't need to understand how art works... You are redefining it- redefining the human condition- redefining the way people respond to art.  

Now is that possible?  Sure.  You may well be a visionary.  A true shaper of humanity.  Perhaps WAY ahead of your time and doing something that won't be appreciated for many years. The very next Van Gogh.

Is it likely? No.  The more likely explanation is that you're hiding behind an excuse to protect your ego.

There is a reason why many future artists go to school.  There is a reason why they study the great masters.  You don't have to do this to be an artist, but there IS a reason why they do it.

Find the box.  Learn what it is, what it looks like and why it's there.  Once you can tell me what is in and out of the box... Then, and ONLY then can you reasonably tell me what is outside of it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> janineh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank YOU, Derrel!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> The funniest aspect of this (hey< i choose to laugh at life) is that Tyler and Derrel (both of whom I respect) seem to agree that the horizontal doesn't work in OP's image, and that you can shoot horizontal portraits in the right situation.
> 
> My ultimate issue here is that from things the OP said, he seemed to have no good reason for cropping off the top of her head, or doing the horizontal composition.  He even had to actually look at the original to see if he had cut off the head in camera.  That doesn't sound like a compositional choice based on a modern theory of art.  It sounds like he just wasn't thinking about it.  Same thing for the horizontal orientation. * It doesn't sound like there was any thought as to why it might work better horizontally, it was just done.
> *
> And while Im all for moving art forward, you have to understand that classic composition tends to work most of the time, and tends to be best in most cases.  Only certain portrait images actually benefit from horizontal orientation, and you basically have to almost plan it out if your going to do a horizontal portrait. Portrait orientation became portrait orientation because it generally works better.  It's not like photographers in history made an arbitrary choice between the two and just willy-nilly decided they wanted to hold their cameras sideways because it looks cool. * 99.99% of horizontal portraits are horizontal simply because cameras are naturally oriented horizontally or 'just because why not?', not because they made a 'design choice'*.



Exactly.... and the majority of them DO NOT WORK! Especially the ones that have other obvious mistakes, under or overexposed, wrong ISO, No fill, junky backgrounds... etc! Mostly done by amateur NOOBS.. even most experienced amateurs seldom do it, unless there is a reason! Sounds like there was little thought given to the OP's decision to shoot that way.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

manaheim said:


> In order for one to think outside the box... One must first learn where the box is located.



hahaha... that is VERY well put!!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think image is well balanced and works very well.
> 
> As Derrel said, vertical would indeed give it a different feel. That means you have a choice to make, and something to base it on.
> 
> ...



David.. I find this interesting. With your background, you are someone whose opinion I respect. I believe I have heard you state in other threads (in the past) that many/most horizontal portraits don't work well... because there is no thought given to it, too much dead space,junky backgrounds, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.  

So this one image is balanced.. from either a unintentional good eye, or sheer luck (since it doesn't really sound like the OP put much thought into the orientation... based on the fact he was oblivious to the cropped head, and even had to check the original to see if it was cropped). Cool!

I still feel the shot is almost a caricature with the distortion from the wide angle lens (18mm)! But again through luck or that "unintentional good eye", it emphasized the eyes rather than enlarging the nose / face like many of these shots do (although the more I look at it.. that nose does look odd to me!! And it is very noisy (4000 ISO will do that)... and I am still curious if that was an intentional choice.



cgipson1 said:


> She's lovely, and has gorgeous eyes. I would  strongly suggest not cropping the top of her head... it seriously  detracts from the photo. It looks like there is some barrel distortion  from using a wide angle lens. And it is very noisy... did you need to  shoot at ISO 4000, or was it done intentionally?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 30, 2012)

While I tend to agree with the idea that the framing is off, I am  vehemently against the ideas that certain 'concepts' of art should be  the rules by which we judge images.
These rules or concepts are abstracted from the real measures which are how people respond to the images.  

If  the photographer can format/frame the image to produce the effect that  he/she wants to evoke, that is the only important factor- not whether it agrees with or transgresses any rule that has been sanctified by time or experience. That being said, these rules are helpful to those uncertain or inexperienced. Eventually the creative photographer may go beyond them because, for creativity, there are no rules.

In this case, the slight off-balance positioning doesn't mean anything in relation to the subject and thus, for me, it detracts.



janineh said:


> Maybe I am thinking outside of the box and don't think everything needs to be the old fashion way. It clearly works and is balanced to me.



However much I agree with creative freedom, saying that any non-traditional effort has some credibility because it is 'outside the box' is not sensible.  Most outside the box things fail because the art doesn't either make sense or appeal to anyone or intrinisically.  In this situation, having the small amount of extra space on one side and the top of the head clipped isn't coherent in any sense. 

IMO, it would have had much more of an impact if it had been formatted with something like this below, where the framing and the non-usual treatment reinforce each other. As it is, it looks like an accident or a mistake rather than a purposeful artistic decision.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 30, 2012)

The whole issue of "horizontal" versus "vertical" is stupid.

Either it works or it doesn't, orientation doesn't matter. You could poll "successful" portraits and determine that 73% of successful portraits are in portrait orientation, but so what? I can show you a lot of Cartier-Bresson photos that are shot landscape that work, well, let's say they succeed and leave it at that. So fewer landscape portraits work, but I assert that when the DO work they WORK BETTER so I WIN.

The OP was clearly fixated on the eyes, that's why the head crop and the neck/chin bland wasn't even noticed. Frankly, I hardly noticed those issues, because the image is about the eyes. If you're fixated on stuff like head-chopping (as, for instance, a professional wedding photographer might legitimately be, seeing as one of the 2937828374 jobs a wedding photographer has is to NOT CHOP HEADS) than you're going to notice that, possibly to the exclusion of the overall image. That's perfectly natural, but unfortunate.

Good advice might then be to go in closer, go after the eyes. The eyes DO naturally fall into a landscape frame.

If you're going to claim that head-chopping is OK if and only if the photographer intended to do it (a point of view several comments see perilously close to espousing) then you're just an idiot. The photo either works or it does not.

This one doesn't really work, but not for stupid reasons like "it's landscape" or "the head is chopped off" although those are elements of why it doesn't work. It doesn't work because, at the end of the day, it doesn't communicate any idea very strongly. There are a number of directions it could go to strengthen one idea or another, and some of those directions involve going vertical and not head-chopping, and some of them involve not going vertical, and chopping more aggressively.

For me the main thing I dislike is the light. It seems a little flat. If this were my photo, I'd light more aggressively, push more of her into shadow, illuminate the eyes and get strong modeling on the face, and going in CLOSE.

Edited to add:

Something like this:



Edited again: I should say, I don't much like this kind of thing, it feels very pop art and ephemeral, but the point is it makes a statement and is both landscape and head-choppy.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 30, 2012)

To clarify after Lews remarks... I want to again re-emphasize that I'm not suggesting you have to follow rules or study art to be an artist.

I'm just saying that oftentimes people argue that ignorance MAKES you an artist, and that is bull.

You may be an artist despite your ignorance, but being ignorant doesn't make you an artist.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

manaheim said:


> To clarify after Lews remarks... I want to again re-emphasize that I'm not suggesting you have to follow rules or study art to be an artist.
> 
> I'm just saying that oftentimes people argue that ignorance MAKES you an artist, and that is bull.
> 
> You may be an artist despite your ignorance, but being ignorant doesn't make you an artist.



Damn.. you are on a roll! Again.. very well put!


----------



## manaheim (Jul 30, 2012)

Btw... I thought that OPs framing was fine. I might have cropped it differently and I love Lew's version, but it's a quirky shot and a quirky expression so I didn't think it needed a traditional crop.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 30, 2012)

amolitor said:


> For me the main thing I dislike is the light. It seems a little flat. If this were my photo, I'd light more aggressively, push more of her into shadow, illuminate the eyes and get strong modeling on the face, and going in CLOSE.



Yep, to me it's about the lighting that is dragging down this portrait.

BTW, I party with the campers that don't give a rat's ass about taking part of the head off.  I do it often.

OP, have you tried a square crop?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 30, 2012)

It's not enough to say a photo 'works'; that implies that we should take pictures with no idea of how they will come out and then see, if by some stroke of luck, they 'work'.

A picture works best when all the elements of framing, subject, color, technical execution and treatment combine to reinforce the same concept.
When one or more of these is lacking or detracting, a picture works less well.
One or more of these elements can detract so much that, even if the rest are adequately done, the picture is a failure.

Rules, the traditions of art, give hints or clues but are no substitute for creativity and understanding.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 30, 2012)

Lew, I maintain that intent is irrelevant.

You're perfectly right that there's a lot that goes in to making a photograph, or any other act of art, "work". Photography is practically unique in that you CAN actually accomplish it by accident, without the slightest intent. It's unlikely, it's rare. If you work with intent and with understanding the rate at which you produce photographs that "work" will probably increase, no matter what you mean by "work". This doesn't mean that it you cannot get an astonishing work of art by allowing your camera to fall to the ground where a stray dog will step on the shutter release. It's really really unlikely, but it's hypothetically possible, which means we must remove intent from the equation. What if the dog precisely duplicated a well-know superb image? Would the dog's image be crap anyways, despite being identical? There's a class of weenies who will certainly argue that it is, but they make arguments that vanish into a maze of incomprehensible terminology which conceals from everyone -- especially the person making the argument -- that the argument makes no sense.

This makes a LOT of people VERY uncomfortable with photography as art, albeit fewer than in the past now that we've been struck with conceptual art and Andy Warhol. The idea that art can result from an accident, without a shred of intent, seems violently wrong even to me. I accept it only because the alternative is too awash in contradiction.

Again, I am not trying to devalue training and thought and intent or any of those things -- they are valuable, they are useful, they are powerful. I merely say that they are not the things that make the difference between Art and Not-Art.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 30, 2012)

amolitor said:


> This doesn't mean that it you cannot get an astonishing work of art by allowing your camera to fall to the ground where a stray dog will step on the shutter release. It's really really unlikely, but it's hypothetically possible, which means we must remove intent from the equation.



These are two different categories.

There are things that we see that please us because of all the factors above fall into place naturally or by accident or by the intervention of our thoughts to sort out the irrelevant factors (puppies playing, rainbows, favorite places, loved ones, chance).

And there are things that are 'art' because someone, hopefully me, works at agglutinating those positive factors into a creation. That is art.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Just finished this thread.  Egos much?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 30, 2012)

I have not had time to read ANY of the post that have appeared since last night. My apologies if I go over any ground already covered. I just got out of bed at 6:36 AM, and headed right in to my iMac to process a few pics in Lightroom 3.6, which another TPF member has kindly been tutoring me in. Thank you Rontanimod, for all the help! You da' man bro! 

Anywayyyyyyy, I got out of bed this morning rarin' to get to the ole 'puter, 'cause I was pretty stoked about some shots I made yesterday of this cute lady whose husband hired me to shoot a nice portrait of her. 

I think I hit a home run with this Lightroom filter effects set I came up with during my first cup of coffee, I've been using Lighroom only about two weeks now, but I'm pretty darn good with it,if I do say so myself!! (Back pat,back pat!). I even got a cool new watermark, which I never had before! 

Anyway, back to my picture of this lady...I cannot describe,exactly, why this shot works so well, but...trust me..it just "works"! Toodles!!


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 30, 2012)

Without really reading all the discussion going on here in detail.

- I think her face being off-centre works in general. It gives the image a casual appearence, as opposed to a more formal portrait. However, it does not perfectly work with her eyes staring hypnotically at the camera, maybe it her head was a bit turned towards the empty space on the right (eyes might still pointing towards the camera)...

- For my taste too much of her head is missing, her face appears squeezed into the ceiling.

- I do not like the plastic look generated electronically. But that is just personal taste.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> [...]View attachment 15351



That was so evil ...

... but it made me smile I have to confess 



[I do produce lots of horizontal images by the way. That is mainly landscapes to be projected on a wide screen  (cinemascope or similar) or printed  for a wide frame.]


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 30, 2012)

I like it because of the girl, it's not the way I would have shot it, but who really cares how I would have shot it. I would like to see some others that haven't been quite as overworked.  You definately have a face that works well in front of a camera.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> I like it because of the girl, it's not the way I would have shot it, but who really cares how I would have shot it. I would like to see some others that haven't been quite as overworked.  You definately have a face that works well in front of a camera.



She is gorgeous.. beautiful eyes! Some other shots would be nice, indeed!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> janineh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lets count.. how many of us went to school for art?

PS... This is the same BS bickering back and forward about horizontal and vertical.  I had this same argument with derrel like... a few months ago.


Derrel, did you do professional passport photo back then?  If you did, everything makes sense.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> janineh said:
> 
> 
> > ]Vertical or landscape.. Who cares! I am sick of those comments. Yes, portraits do work in landscape too! Why being so anal?[/B]
> ...



Come on Charlie.... you are better than this.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 30, 2012)

Dude...I never said "go to school for art."

Educating one's self is as simple as picking up a %^*king BOOK and READING it. Geebuz...

EDUCATION is free. Try some learning. Who said "go to school for art?" Oh..that would be Schwetty...the weekend warrior wedding worker...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Dude...I never said "go to school for art."
> 
> Educating one's self is as simple as picking up a %^*king BOOK and READING it. Geebuz...
> 
> EDUCATION is free. Try some learning. Who said "go to school for art?" Oh..that would be Schwetty...the weekend warrior wedding worker...



Yes.. seeing other successful wedding photographers work is EDUCATION too!  Guess what... they do a lot of horizontal.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 30, 2012)

Charlie if you don't understand why people will purchase a high-resolution camera and then use a grain affect on their images, why they will purchase expensive lenses and then use a soft-focus affect on their images, why they will use a viewfinder grid to get things straight only to rotate them later, why they will attempt to get well-balanced images out of the camera only to grossly overexpose them in post processing, why they will take multiple shots to combine them into a high dynamic range image only to blow the colors and saturation into some cartoon world, or why they will worry about white balance only to tint them urine yellow, then what makes you think you will ever understand the nuances of modern photographic composition?

Oh, wait.  I don't understand that stuff either!


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 30, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Are we all having a good time?
> 
> Have we considered the idea of maybe growing up?



You are in the wrong place.  People hijack threads to pursue personal vendettas all the time on this forum.

And guess what....the Mods just let it happen.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 30, 2012)

JAC526 said:
			
		

> You are in the wrong place.  People hijack threads to pursue personal vendettas all the time on this forum.
> 
> And guess what....the Mods just let it happen.



C'mon - that doesn't happen here!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > janineh said:
> ...




maybe.. but rude noobs get me going!


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Dude...I never said "go to school for art."
> 
> Educating one's self is as simple as picking up a %^*king BOOK and READING it. Geebuz...
> 
> EDUCATION is free. Try some learning. Who said "go to school for art?" Oh..that would be Schwetty...the weekend warrior wedding worker...




Yea, that is right. Books are cheap as hell from Amazon and Half. Buy books, read em, blast away...learn. 

If poor, use the library, TONS of books and DVD's from interlibrary loan.

Or go to school and pay big $.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Dude...I never said "go to school for art."
> ...



So do porn shoots... so?


----------



## manaheim (Jul 30, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Lew, I maintain that intent is irrelevant.
> 
> You're perfectly right that there's a lot that goes in to making a photograph, or any other act of art, "work". Photography is practically unique in that you CAN actually accomplish it by accident, without the slightest intent. It's unlikely, it's rare. If you work with intent and with understanding the rate at which you produce photographs that "work" will probably increase, no matter what you mean by "work". This doesn't mean that it you cannot get an astonishing work of art by allowing your camera to fall to the ground where a stray dog will step on the shutter release. It's really really unlikely, but it's hypothetically possible, which means we must remove intent from the equation. What if the dog precisely duplicated a well-know superb image? Would the dog's image be crap anyways, despite being identical? There's a class of weenies who will certainly argue that it is, but they make arguments that vanish into a maze of incomprehensible terminology which conceals from everyone -- especially the person making the argument -- that the argument makes no sense.
> 
> ...



This is silly.  Art comes from intent.

Saying otherwise is again trying to make an excuse for the accidental artist.

Nothing wrong with getting lucky, of course, but the accidental artist can't always do it when called upon, and that's pretty significant.


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 30, 2012)

MTVision said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its really poor form.  I feel kind of bad for the OP.  I doubt he cares that Derrel and Tyler dislike eachother.

And yet they turn his thread into their own soap opera.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 30, 2012)

Some good points of view are interspersed throughout this thread. A wide cross-section of experience, understanding, age, and level of involvement with photography, art, and design is to be found within this thread. Early on in the thread, a few of us suggested in *OUR C&C*, that perhaps a vertical composition would have made this a more-successful "portrait of my girlfriend" type shot.

C&C is pretty broad...a few of us emphasized one,simple basic concept that must be decided on EVERY FRAME...how to *best utilize the entire compositional space*. I think the ORIGINAL POSTER'S PHOTO would have been better-framed with a lot less what some people call "negative space". AND, me, and a few others, thought that chopping off the top of her head was not "the best approach". And what was the response from those who disagreed like???

The_Traveller made some good points about the rationale behind the framing, as he saw the picture...cgipson raised some points, Bitter_Jeweler raised some others....and a few people vehemently stepped up and tried to turn this into a newbie versus "old-fashioned,fuddy-duddy" argument.

My last comment, for now, until something completely amazing is posted is this: read through the thread, and read what was posted, then look at some of the outrageous innuendo and personal attacks coming from people who disagreed with the original few C&C providers (*C&C providers, plural *not just "Me, Derrel")....and then...*decide what you believe*. And now, I am off to talk to my lawn mowing guy about which new Macintosh software he thinks I need to buy!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 30, 2012)

manaheim said:


> This is silly.  Art comes from intent.
> 
> Saying otherwise is again trying to make an excuse for the accidental artist.
> 
> Nothing wrong with getting lucky, of course, but the accidental artist can't always do it when called upon, and that's pretty significant.



You are not, in my view, sufficiently disentangling the artist from the art. You might even be defining "art" to be "that which is produced by an artist," I don't know. Depending on what you mean by "art" the answers will vary, but pretty much regardless of your position on that there are major problems with denying that an accident can ever be art, one of which I outlined earlier.


----------



## camz (Jul 30, 2012)

You know there's two schools here and they are both important.  What I've noticed from our sales is that, the negative, tilted, creative, horizontal images with negative space, artistic shots are the ones that land the client.  These are the images that get them to hire us based on "style" lol whatever that means.  But...but...guess what these clients who hired us based on our style choose from their prints? You will never guess. As young modern and ubranized the San Francisco market is, they typically choose the prom poses, the looking into camera traditionals that they hang on their walls.  Regarding print sales...I'm with Charlie and Derrel.  If you don't sell prints...you will never see this perspective.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 30, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > JAC526 said:
> ...



FYI, I posted twice in this thread. The first one being a respectful counter-view of Derrel's opinion that he stated as fact. The second, as a response to why Derrel feels the need to attack everyone for holding a different opinion than his archaic viewpoints on what photography should be. 

I don't see how that's a thread hijack. You've posted the same amount of times, yet somehow managed to not add anything to the conversation. Strange how that works, eh?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 30, 2012)

camz said:


> *You know there's two schools here and they are both important.  What I've noticed from our sales is that, the negative, tilted, creative, horizontal images with negative space, artistic shots are the ones that land the client.  These are the images that get them to hire us based on "style" lol whatever that means*.


Yes! Cam, that's exactly what I am talking about. You don't "get" clients by maintaining the course. You show them something different that piques their interest, not a Sears Portrait studio pose with Rembrandt lighting. 



> But...but...guess what these clients who hired us based on our style choose from their prints? You will never guess. As young modern and ubranized the San Francisco market is, they typically choose the prom poses, the looking into camera traditionals that they hang on their walls.  Regarding print sales...I'm with Charlie and Derrel.  If you don't sell prints...you will never see this perspective.



I agree with this as well, and that's why you shoot both outside the box and inside the box. It never hurts, right?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

At this point, the OP is a bit like this little fellow:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg" target="_blank">






He just doesn't Give a $hit anymore!  :mrgreen:


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 30, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> At this point, the OP is a bit like this little fellow:
> 
> He just doesn't Give a $hit anymore!  :mrgreen:



The voice and intonation on that video are so ... 

*shivers*


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 30, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...



Well the only reason I said anything is lately it seems that this has been happening in a lot of threads.

That is all.  I will not bicker back and forth with you.  You seem to like it too much.


----------



## camz (Jul 30, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > *You know there's two schools here and they are both important. What I've noticed from our sales is that, the negative, tilted, creative, horizontal images with negative space, artistic shots are the ones that land the client. These are the images that get them to hire us based on "style" lol whatever that means*.
> ...



Both has to be done if trying to land clients of today I think and especially if one is trying to get into the print sales.  It's really funny how to flip the script on you once they chose something for the wall.  What we place on the blog or website are rarely the ones that clients choose for prints...yeps you got it.


----------



## ghache (Jul 30, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> janineh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




_full time professional ? who Derrel? doesnt mean i am a mechanics for years and making a living from it that i am a good mechanics. as far as i know, Derrel is nowhere near a professional photographer._​


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 30, 2012)

ghache said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > janineh said:
> ...



Aww come on.
This kind of sniping at personalities is truly destructive to the site and to the maker's reputation.
If what Derrel, or anyone, says makes sense and is useful in the context, it doesn't make any difference if he's a full-time pro or started yesterday.
I know full time pros I wouldn't trust with a passport photo just as I know amateurs whose work and opinion I respect.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Jul 30, 2012)

It is ironic in these discussions that the same person is often the first to remind everyone of his many years of experience, and that his images are the embodiment of all that is boring and ordinary.

 @ the Olan Mills reference.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 30, 2012)

*Everyone go outside and take a picture.  We're done here.*


----------

