# Shape of Despair



## doomster (Feb 20, 2012)




----------



## gstaska (Feb 20, 2012)

I like the shading.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 20, 2012)

An explicit title doesn't help here because it only makes people try to figure out why you used the title.

The person has his/her hands oddly placed and it isn't clear what they are doing.
There is bright light coming in on the left and my eye goes there.
Then the furthest arch is in focus and bright and thus my eyes are pulled past the silhouette and onto the arch.
So there is this ambiguous silhouette between two bright areas that pull the eye and it ends up not hanging together for me.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

I love it. I think the sillouette is framed nicely, there's a great sense of depth to it. Great job!


----------



## doomster (Feb 20, 2012)

Thank you all for honest comments.



The_Traveler said:


> Then the furthest arch is in focus .


No, it is not, and that is a fact. The rest is your impression.


----------



## harriknight (Feb 20, 2012)

Amazing photo; the contrast is just perfect. I would say it's _very_ slightly underexposed though, like only 1/3 or 1/2 of a stop.


----------



## doomster (Feb 21, 2012)

Thanks a lot. Yes, it is underexposed deliberately for 1/3.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 21, 2012)

I like the image, but I don't see any despair in it. Looks more like the person is scratching his forehead or something.


----------



## PaulLambeth (Feb 21, 2012)

I like this a lot. I find my eye being drawn completely to his head and hands, which is what you want. The silhouette's definitely framed nicely and there's a balance to where the light comes from ... maybe the light at the front right isn't so necessary, but it doesn't distract. 

Good shot. If you interpret despair, then call it that, but I can't say I do  He looks more reflective to me, maybe in prayer.


----------



## doomster (Feb 22, 2012)

Thank you both. Paul, the person is she, not he 
Who doesn't see despair, I suggest to listen to this


----------



## ScubaDude (Feb 23, 2012)

Good shot. Nice composition and lighting. I agree that a shallower DOF would put more attention on the subject, and that it's not clear what the subject is doing. If I have to watch a music video (I assume, didn't watch it) to understand the photo, then there's not much point in viewing the photo.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 23, 2012)

ScubaDude said:


> If I have to watch a music video (I assume, didn't watch it) to understand the photo, then there's not much point in viewing the photo.



me, too


----------



## doomster (Feb 24, 2012)

Then do not watch the photo.


----------



## Josh220 (Feb 24, 2012)

You seem defensive towards negative feedback... If everything wrong with the image was deliberate and you only praise the positive C&C, why not just show it to family and friends so they can stroke your ego?


----------



## Bossy (Feb 24, 2012)

ScubaDude said:


> Good shot. Nice composition and lighting. I agree that a shallower DOF would put more attention on the subject, and that it's not clear what the subject is doing. If I have to watch a music video (I assume, didn't watch it) to understand the photo, then there's not much point in viewing the photo.



There are many pro photographers who mix medias. There were a couple I saw in Galleries in Chelsea NY, I'll have to look in the morning for the card to get the name. But in my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with complementing imagery with music, or a video, or even a pen or paintbrush. 

Found her, check out "Shirin Neshat". You might be able to find the video as well, but her work really speaks and it all flows together.​


----------



## doomster (Feb 25, 2012)

I am glad that someone has open mind  Thanks, Bossy.



Josh220 said:


> You seem defensive towards negative feedback...  If everything wrong with the image was deliberate and you only praise  the positive C&C, why not just show it to family and friends so they  can stroke your ego?


Don't preach to me. Preach to your impudence.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2012)

I like it.  I especially like how the silhouetted subject is so well defined by the light area of the final half-archway in the background.  The lightest area draws my eye right to the subject, as it should.

The darkness, tight areas causing just a bit of claustrophobia, rough textures, induced perspective tunnel vision, and shape of the hand to the head of the subject all support the idea of despair well, IMHO.

The CC's around here are a mixed bag of opinions that range from very well informed to ridiculously nit-picky drivel written by noobs pretending to know something, the latter mostly by folks who don't really know squat other than to pick at what they think are "flaws" based on things they've seen other people say at some point.  It appears that they think being deeply opinionated mixed with a bit of rude makes them tres cool photographic arteests, then they hide behind the "if you can't take critique, don't ask for it" copout when corrected.  Just thank them for their time and move on, whether you find what they have to say valuable or not.  It's easier that way.


----------



## doomster (Feb 25, 2012)

Thank you very much on your kind words and support, I appreciate it. You got a beer 

I like this very much, especially use of the word _claustrophobia_.


Buckster said:


> The darkness, tight areas causing just a bit of claustrophobia, rough textures, induced perspective tunnel vision, and shape of the hand to the head of the subject all support the idea of despair well, IMHO.
> .


----------



## Josh220 (Feb 25, 2012)

doomster said:


> I am glad that someone has open mind  Thanks, Bossy.
> 
> Don't preach to me. Preach to your impudence.



Ironic that you speak to others about impudence. 

I am not preaching, just informing you that it will go much more smoothly if you don't pretend your mistakes were on purpose or get defensive when people give you honest feedback.


----------



## doomster (Feb 25, 2012)

Informing, preaching... All the same. I see no point of your words.
I see no mistakes here and I do not pretend at all. I have right to defense my work and to disagree. I dont' really care how you take my words.


----------



## Frequency (Feb 25, 2012)

Frame within frame within frame........ and the main object somewhere in between....that is a good idea....
Choosing Monochrome...that is a good idea...
What she is doing... i think there is a glass in her palm and it is as if she drinks water from it... one cannot drink that way from a glass.... an excuse is that while drinking from a half filled glass initially we bend towards it and then only we raise it along with head...if it is that way, this was the wrong time to click...the thirst and despair will be hilighted only when she lifts her head to take even the last drop......
If she does not have a glass in her hand, her posing is highly artificial and anti climax to the concept
PS: Why so much of harshness and acridity in our discussions and disputes i don't know..... We are all here to be happy and sharing... Out  in the world, there is enough space to fight 

Typo in spelling is human, typo in attitudes is really painful


----------



## doomster (Feb 26, 2012)

You are absolutely right. Thanks a lot.
An interesting point of view. I am glad there is different perspectives at the photo. Everybody experiences it on its own way.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 26, 2012)

This is possibly an example of an image that doesn't need a title. Nearly everyone, including myself has judged the image right off, based on he title.

I don't see despair either. I related her "pose" or gesture to a moment of zen, or yoga. 

I think it is a well done image, in my opinion. 
This can be an interesting discussion...when images require a title to lead the viewer in the right direction because the image doesn't tell the story well enough on its own, or when the title is in conflict with what the viewer sees, does it hurt the impact for the viewer?

Which is better? 
Personally, I'd prefer to leave the interpretation to the viewer, and leave it open. Otherwise I risk losing the audience if they dont "get" it.
 I would feel like I failed in conveying my intent.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 26, 2012)

The title doesn't at all match the image.  IMO, you're better off without a title at all.  Let the viewer experience it freely and openly...

Nice shot though.  It could have been a lot stronger with a shallower DOF, but your take on the shot was nice as well.


----------



## doomster (Feb 26, 2012)

Thank you, both. I see it on that way, everybody else has the right to see it on the other way.



Bitter Jeweler said:


> Personally, I'd prefer to leave the interpretation to the viewer, and leave it open.


I agree.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 26, 2012)

I also dont't see despair either.  But I like the image very much.  Especially the framing and sillehuete.  When I see the position of the subjects hand I don't feel despair.  I believe with a different hand position despair may have been achieved.  If this is street photography then I can't say anything negative on that because you exposed a interesting, thought provoking image, the hand position is negligible.  But I don't "feel" despair.

If this were a set up shoot then maybe a slightly lower head position and maybe even two hands on the head or even with the head to knees while sitting might have helped foe the feeling of despair.

I really do like the framing.  I am enjoying the tones and where you placed them.  You have the brightest part of the image as as the background but with the front part of the image still brighter than the middle it brings the eyes to the sillehuete.  It also creates a double framing effect.  The subject is framed by the archway and by the toning.


----------



## doomster (Feb 26, 2012)

Thanks for your time and opinion.


----------

