# Headshot C&C



## Ballistics (Oct 3, 2012)

DSC_7923nologo by The Photo Major, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Oct 4, 2012)

The biggest issue I have is that her head just sort of floats, with no visible means of support on the left hand side of the frame--she's been lopped off at the neck. In terms of percentage, she's 50% of the frame,the right hand side of the frame, and the entire left hand side of the image offers absolutely zero visual interest. To use an old term, she's shown as "*a floating head*". Her head and hair are quite large in the frame,ands the top of her head touches the edge of the frame. Her head's touching the top of the frame, and her chin is uncomfortably low in the frame. Are you shooting this as a horizontal just because you don't know how to compose? Or to get a rise out of the few of us that do? You know what's coming...

You desperately needed to turn the camera to vertical, to show the head as more than just a head and neck.* She's cut off right at the neck/body juncture, and that looks bad*. The "photography" part is somewhat okay. The approach to posing and framing is very unsophisticated. She did her part though. On the lighting front, I'm not sure why the camera-right catchlight in the eye is so much smaller and weaker than the one on the off side...that does not look natural, or "right" visually. I'd clone in some more catchlight on the camera-right eye, to even that up. Maybe straighten up her lipstick arch a bit too. Sorry if this sounds harsh. I realize it probably does. Can;t help it. It's what you need to have said. Unless you just want an "Atta' guy!, nice pic!" type of comment and nothing actually valuable.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Are you shooting this as a horizontal just because you don't know how to compose?* Or to get a rise out of the few of us that do? You know what's coming...*





> Unless you just want an "Atta' guy!, nice pic!" type of comment and nothing actually valuable.



I just can't take your critique seriously. Sorry. Until you talk just about the pic and get less personal, I'm just going to ignore "the vast knowledge" that you apparently possess.


----------



## binga63 (Oct 4, 2012)

Are they real or added later in post eyelashes?... and both eyes aren't in focus, the skin looks a little overprocessed, she is a lovely model... just my opinion..


----------



## Derrel (Oct 4, 2012)

As expected, you missed all the OBVIOUS, the blatantly, blatantly obvious points of C&C and took it personally. That's probably why this has 117 views, and ONE responder...me. It's a poor composition. Period. Should have been posed right.It's not. SHe is "a floating head", and not in a good way. You're obviously not studied in compositional theories or practices. Get a book on art history. I would LOVE to hear a defense of the many poor compositional "choices" you made when composing this elaborate studio-lighted shot. It's not a snapshot. If you had an art director,or a real mentor, this amateurish horizontal lop-off would NEVER pass muster, not even from the first click.

Pick up a copy of Vogue. Or W. Look at how good photographers shoot.


----------



## Judobreaker (Oct 4, 2012)

It may seem like Derrel has the subtlety of a blunt axe, but he does have some good points. Especially the one about using a vertical frame instead of a horizontal one.
The fact that he's bringing it like this is that unfortunately this seems to be the best way to make most people see the point.
You'll be a wise man if you can ignore the bluntness of his post and do take his actual critique seriously.
He is trying to help... He really is.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

Derrel said:


> You missed all the OBVIOUS< blatant C&C, and took it personally.





> I just can't take your *critique* seriously. Sorry.



Again.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

Judobreaker said:


> It may seem like Derrel has the subtlety of a blunt axe, but he does have some good points. Especially the one about using a vertical frame instead of a horizontal one.
> The fact that he's bringing it like this is that unfortunately this seems to be the best way to make most people see the point.
> You'll be a wise man if you can ignore the bluntness of his post and do take his actual critique seriously.
> He is trying to help... He really is.



I pretty much refuse to sift through BS anymore.


----------



## Judobreaker (Oct 4, 2012)

That is of course entirely up to you, whether anyone likes it or not.


----------



## .SimO. (Oct 4, 2012)

I like the lighting and shadows on her face. Her neck doesn't seem as soft though to me but that isn't a big deal to me.  Solid focus on the eyes and great hair, makeup and accessories.  Still can't decide if i'd like this image more on a white background.  I do agree with some of Derrel's critiques but I do like the image.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 4, 2012)

You are acting like the young,young man you are. If you're going to make it as a pro photograher, you'd better learn how to shoot in the right compositional orientation for the subject matter. You are offering up a 50-50 head-lop and a inky black backdrop, and presenting a floating head with a neck amputation.

I have an idea, ballistics: Let's hear you present to us *the DEFENSE of your choices*, like you had to do when I was studying photography. Right here, in front of the "whole group", you tell us why it's "all that", and then as a group, we'll C&C your picture. This could have been better. THIS IS SUPPOSED to be a headshot, something that makes HER look great! But, it has been butchered into a "landscape"; the frame cuts into her head; her person has been cut off at the TORSO/NECK juncture. It does not take "vast knowledge" to see, nor to understand these serious fundamental flaws, and how they lessen the impact of decent lighting and good makeup.

Well, gotta get the kid ready for school, then an all-day landscape shoot with a competent young TPF photo buddy of mine. A guy who is willing to learn and is making incredible progress fast.

The image is 50% her, shown smaller than optimal, and 50% worthless black. I'd love to hear the defense and justification of the framing orientation. Please, enlighten us all, mmkay?


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 4, 2012)

I do have to agree that it's a little tight, claustrophobic.

The shadows don't bother me as much as I wish it was a little bit warmer. She seems a bit pale. Not much, just a little


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 4, 2012)

I don't ascribe to any standard or theory; I look at a picture and try to figure out what my subconscious response is to the various elements, what makes the picture either work or not work for me. 

To some one who looks at only content and superficial impact, this is a great shot - great color, great sharpness, damn nice PPing. 
What does bother me is the placement in the frame.
I look at the picture and my subconscious person, who believes that everything in an image is left there for a purpose. tries to parse where you've put her and to figure out what message you are giving with the placement. 
Her head touches the top, she's almost cut off at the neck at the bottom, with that little piece of dress pointing down.
Yet there is room behind her and lots of room at the left. It isn't balancing anything, why is it there?
And she's merging into that dark background - why?

I'm not saying there are answers to these questions, just that you did this and my inner person is trying to figure out why.

If she was pretty close to the edge all around, then the clipping at top and bottom would make sense to me; those empty spaces would be gone mostly and the merge into the background wouldn't be as important. I wouldn't care about little things being clipped off; it makes sense and doesn't cost any real info.

So I would be happier with something like this below.

IMO, everything in the frame is put there or left there on purpose and should have an artistic reason.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 4, 2012)

Oh, and a little more room all around would be fine too.
The framing just has to make sense.


----------



## Studio7Four (Oct 4, 2012)

I'm as likely as anyone to argue with Derrel's insistence on using the vertical orientation for "portraits", but in this case he's right, and here's my take on why.  It's really a combination of things which make the horizontal orientation not work in this case.  Change one of them and I _might_ give you a pass and support the decision to use the horizontal orientation.
-You have no detail in about the left 40% of the frame.  Her black hair fades into the black background (it could really have used a rim light on this side to separate the hair from the background).  Her right shoulder, either through the turn and tilt to her body or light falloff, disappears right about the horizontal midpoint of the frame.  Either give us some detail in that area (even if it's just some mottling in the background) or give us a hint that that dead space is actually airspace over something solid - show enough of that side of her body to give her an implied foundation under that dead space.
-Her head is turned far enough away from the camera that to get her eyes to look back at the camera causes such negligible white remaining on the camera-right side, you almost get the impression that she is looking out of the frame to camera right.  Looking "into" the dead space in such an off center composition is okay, looking out of the frame just feel wrong.  Turn the head back just a tad to get the white back into her eyes and she better appears to be looking at the camera.  Or don't have her look at the camera, have her look into the frame.

A few other notes, per request:
- I think your lighting needs some tweaking.  I kind of like the angle from which the main and fill lights are hitting her, though I think the ratio is too large for this shot (the subject doesn't lend itself as well to such shadow contouring IMO).  I think you needed a larger apparent source - her face is evenly lit, but there is a tremendous falloff down to her neck and shoulder (and the hair that continues that low).  The light striking her face seems a bit bright to me, particularly in combination with how dark the rest of the image is.  I already  mentioned that this shot would have benefited from a rim light to separate her hair from the background.
- I like the little splashes of color, tying in the lipstick and the red in her hair.  I do wish, however, that the lipstick had been chosen in a shade closer to the red in her hair (it has more pink in it), emphasized by the difference in light levels.
- You're showing a moderate amount of her left shoulder but nothing really on the other side of her neck.  This really creates an unbalanced feeling, as though her head is likely to fall over to camera left.  Whether it's pose, wardrobe, lighting or a combination of each, I really would have liked some balance here.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

Judobreaker said:


> That is of course entirely up to you, whether anyone likes it or not.



I love critique. In fact, I embrace it every time. To be completely honest, I think this picture sucks. Flat out. If I were to grade it, I'd give it a D. The main reason why I posted it, is because I haven't shot in a few weeks and I needed to get back in a rhythm of shooting. 

Having said that, I refuse to take anything that any one says into consideration if the critique is loaded with personal negative inflammatory garbage. And that's how I'm going to roll from here on out. I don't care if it's the greatest critique in the world. I'm taking a stand against this holier-than-thou nonsense.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

binga63 said:


> Are they real or added later in post eyelashes?... and both eyes aren't in focus, the skin looks a little overprocessed, she is a lovely model... just my opinion..



Real


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 4, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> I love critique. In fact, I embrace it every time. To be completely honest, I think this picture sucks. Flat out. If I were to grade it, I'd give it a D. The main reason why I posted it, is because I haven't shot in a few weeks and I needed to get back in a rhythm of shooting.



Well, since I spent time and effort on a picture you don't give a crap about, I'm taking a stance on commenting on your stuff.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I love critique. In fact, I embrace it every time. To be completely honest, I think this picture sucks. Flat out. If I were to grade it, I'd give it a D. The main reason why I posted it, is because I haven't shot in a few weeks and I needed to get back in a rhythm of shooting.
> ...



That is completely your call, although I appreciated your critique and learned something.

For everyone's consideration - I am a beginner, and I am not passionate about photography like the majority of you are. 
There's not really any shot of my own that I particularly care about when it comes to art. I'm not an artist. 

Having said that, I DO like to learn and what holds value to me, is not the image presented, but the thought out critiques given. 
I love progression, and I love learning, but I don't love photography or art. I do it because I like it, and it's a hobby of mine, that's really it.
If that is not enough for you to want to give critique, than I encourage you not to. 

My question to you, Traveler, is; why does the personal value of an image effect your critique? Is your critique any less valuable because I think the picture sucks, but I am using it as a segue to improve?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 4, 2012)

im just at a loss. you say you want the critiques, but you fight with those who give them because you don't like the fashion in which they are presented. heck compared to some responces people recieve on here derrels critique was mild at best. If you don't care about something why should someone bother spending there time on critiquing something you don't care about. saying you don't care about it almost seems like a cop out.  that well you guys hated it, but i didn't like it either. almost as if your trying to protect yourself from the critique.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> im just at a loss. you say you want the critiques, but you fight with those who give them because you don't like the fashion in which they are presented. heck compared to some responces people recieve on here derrels critique was mild at best. If you don't care about something why should someone bother spending there time on critiquing something you don't care about. saying you don't care about it almost seems like a cop out.  that well you guys hated it, but i didn't like it either. almost as if your trying to protect yourself from the critique.



You used a plural term with "those". Who are "those"? Because I refuse to consider Derrels posts since they are riddled with condescension, you sum that up to ALL?
If you want to defend Derrel, so be it. I don't give a flying truck how "mild" his post was. His was the least inflammatory of his posts, so therefore it should be tolerated. Roger that.

I took everyone elses posts into serious consideration. 

How does me not liking the shot seem like a cop out? LOL. This place is twisted sometimes.  



> why should someone bother spending there time on critiquing something you don't care about.



Read post #19 again. That should answer this in great detail.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 4, 2012)

Okay... serious question.  This is NOT your first day here; you had to have known what was likely to be said, so why are you so defensive?  To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why a photographer who has posted some of the work you have would have posted this image without at least cropping off a good chunk of the LH side.  The subject looks good, the composition?  Not so much, but it would be easy to make  a HUGE improvement with a simple crop per Lew's suggestion.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Okay... serious question.  This is NOT your first day here; you had to have known what was likely to be said, so why are you so defensive?  To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why a photographer who has posted some of the work you have would have posted this image without at least cropping off a good chunk of the LH side.  The subject looks good, the composition?  Not so much, but it would be easy to make  a HUGE improvement with a simple crop per Lew's suggestion.


 
Not defensive at all. I'm just taking a stand against Derrel. I'm not upset or defensive,  just avoiding him based on our history. Even the pettiest of personal remarks will not go acknowledged from here on out. That's pretty much it.

I like Lews suggestion. I went with the horizontal crop for 2 reasons. 

- to see what it looks like
- to later a logo/text . (notice the file name nologo)

I take pictures and never find myself successful. So I post them here to get information to use it to maybe one day take a successful image.


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 4, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> I take pictures and never find myself successful. So I post them here to get information to use it to maybe one day take a successful image.




I'm curious, why do you consider your pictures not successful?


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I take pictures and never find myself successful. So I post them here to get information to use it to maybe one day take a successful image.
> ...



Because what I see in my head does not translate into the photograph.


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 4, 2012)

For me, I find it helpful to verbally describe what I want (talk to myself, to my assistant, and/or to the model) about a certain shot.  If I can describe it and not just visualize it in my own head, then I can make it happen.  I'm not sure if that will work for you but if you haven't done so, give it a try.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 4, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> My question to you, Traveler, is; why does the personal value of an image effect your critique? Is your critique any less valuable because I think the picture sucks, but I am using it as a segue to improve?



For the same reason that I tell a new person -post the best picture you have and one that you think is terrific, so that everything you hear will be new and useful.

If you don't think much of it and you have a good idea what's 'wrong', why should I spend time telling you what you know?

It's a waste of time for both of us and I feel taken advantage of, doing make-work so you can keep your presence.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > My question to you, Traveler, is; why does the personal value of an image effect your critique? Is your critique any less valuable because I think the picture sucks, but I am using it as a segue to improve?
> ...




That's a bit melodramatic. Having said that, it shouldn't make a difference to you if I think the image is amazing or worthless. What should make the difference is that I learn something from your reply, and I did, so I don't see where the problem is. Like I said, I encourage you to stop C&Cing my images if you feel the way you do, because I promise you that even images that are well-received(there have been one or two I think) aren't considered up to snuff in my eyes.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 4, 2012)

Here's what's awesome(effin sucks) about this forum; I can post an image and unless I bump the thread it can go days before someone responds.
Derrel tried to make the connection that the reason why I had 117 views and no responses because the picture isn't good, which is utter nonsense.
In order for you to have a large response to your thread, you need to have controversy. Otherwise my images do not get much attention.

Notice how it went from 117 views and no responses, to 377 and 26 replies after the pot was stirred.

The other side to this coin, is if I came here and told everyone that I think I really hit a homerun with this image. I may have had 50 posts by now.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > im just at a loss. you say you want the critiques, but you fight with those who give them because you don't like the fashion in which they are presented. heck compared to some responces people recieve on here derrels critique was mild at best. If you don't care about something why should someone bother spending there time on critiquing something you don't care about. saying you don't care about it almost seems like a cop out. that well you guys hated it, but i didn't like it either. almost as if your trying to protect yourself from the critique.
> ...




Sorry. with the type of responce I was assumming you were tired of everyones bashing and I didn't realise it was just a single issue with Derrel alone. If it is just a single issue with derrel why not just ignore him? Then you wouldn't have to waste your time responding to him,seems like that would solve the problem easy enough.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > 12sndsgood said:
> ...



Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I don't ascribe to any standard or theory; I look at a picture and try to figure out what my subconscious response is to the various elements, what makes the picture either work or not work for me.
> 
> To some one who looks at only content and superficial impact, this is a great shot - great color, great sharpness, damn nice PPing.
> What does bother me is the placement in the frame.
> ...



See how an EXPERIENCED photographer has shown you how to use compositional space more effectively? Her head is still kind of floating, but despite that, it's a better presentation,and much less jarring, than what was originally shown.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 5, 2012)

Derrel's pretty inflammatory, but it often boils down to an enthusiastic use of uppercase and bold. The actual words are usually milder than the post suggests. He's a bit tough to take at times, and I disagree with him now and then, but I gotta say the dude's one of the sharpest guys on here. He's not going to hit you with a bunch of stupid rules, if he's disagreeing with your choices you can pretty much guarantee that he's actually looked at your photo and taken some time. That right there puts him in the 90th percentile for TPF.

Your choice though, of course. I don't mean to dictate, just suggest.

I am a fan of negative space, especially black negative space. I think I "get" the original photograph in a way -- I've made a bunch of photos a lot like it, but with a lot less color and a lot less clothing. I don't love it, I don't hate it, I like it ok. With the color it unfortunately makes me think it's an ad for vodka.

Leaving aside the fact that I basically like the original, the criticisms are all also correct as far as I can see. There IS a floating head effect. There isn't any separation of the hair from the background. The negative space IS pretty large. These are all clearly choices you have made that fly in the face of convention. A conventional photograph, per Lew's crop, for example, is much more acceptable to the.. Viewing Public, let's say. Your model would probably like it better. It it is, however, a different photograph.

Now, I will be the first to tell you that if YOU like an image, and EVERYONE ELSE hates it, you are probably wrong and they are probably right. Still, ultimately you make photographs for yourself first. I do not hate the original (so there's two of us!), nor do I hate Lew's crop. I like both images, in different ways and for different reasons.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> I am a fan of negative space, especially black negative space. I think I "get" the original photograph in a way -- I've made a bunch of photos a lot like it, but with a lot less color and a lot less clothing. I don't love it, I don't hate it, I like it ok. With the color it unfortunately makes me think it's an ad for vodka.
> 
> Leaving aside the fact that I basically like the original, the criticisms are all also correct as far as I can see. There IS a floating head effect. There isn't any separation of the hair from the background. The negative space IS pretty large. These are all clearly choices you have made that fly in the face of convention. A conventional photograph, per Lew's crop, for example, is much more acceptable to the.. Viewing Public, let's say. Your model would probably like it better. It it is, however, a different photograph.
> 
> Now, I will be the first to tell you that if YOU like an image, and EVERYONE ELSE hates it, you are probably wrong and they are probably right. Still, ultimately you make photographs for yourself first. I do not hate the original (so there's two of us!), nor do I hate Lew's crop. I like both images, in different ways and for different reasons.



I agree with you. Thanks.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> For me, I find it helpful to verbally describe what I want (talk to myself, to my assistant, and/or to the model) about a certain shot.  If I can describe it and not just visualize it in my own head, then I can make it happen.  I'm not sure if that will work for you but if you haven't done so, give it a try.



I don't even know where to start, in terms of putting what I see in my head into words. I think that's a big issue. Being able to verbalize it.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 5, 2012)

When do you begin to think about the photo? are you trying to think of the shot when yoru standing there behind the viewfinder, or are you starting a few days ahead of time. As I have been getting more experience shooting I have started thinking of what I want before we shoot. giving myself a few days to think of the shot and how I want it, so that when the day comes I allready have a few shots in my head and how I want them to be presented. I still suck and sometimes don't make that image. but this helps me get closer to what I want and gives me more options when it comes time to shoot.  my problem is trying to fit 4 hours of thoughts into a 2 hour time frame.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> When do you begin to think about the photo? are you trying to think of the shot when yoru standing there behind the viewfinder, or are you starting a few days ahead of time. As I have been getting more experience shooting I have started thinking of what I want before we shoot. giving myself a few days to think of the shot and how I want it, so that when the day comes I allready have a few shots in my head and how I want them to be presented. I still suck and sometimes don't make that image. but this helps me get closer to what I want and gives me more options when it comes time to shoot.  my problem is trying to fit 4 hours of thoughts into a 2 hour time frame.



Oh yeah, I wing it. But that's also because the majority of these "shoots" are done on the spot out of boredom and my model is usually always my wife. I am now learning that a plan usually equates to better pictures. I'm yet to plan yet though lol.


----------



## Designer (Oct 5, 2012)

Ballistics; 

this shot should be in portrait format
the crop is too tight top and bottom
a little space on the left would be fine, but just a little
need more hair light or another one on the left side (as viewed)
hair over right eyebrow should have been brushed off eyebrow
thin spot in hair should have been filled in more
feathered earrings or hair feathers (can't tell which) are competing with hair
model's expression is "in between" and hard to relate to (would be better if smiling, for instance)

I like the key light, the black background, and the general pose.


----------



## Designer (Oct 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> To be completely honest, I think this picture sucks. Flat out. If I were to grade it, I'd give it a D. The main reason why I posted it, is because I haven't shot in a few weeks and I needed to get back in a rhythm of shooting.



IMO, the best way to receive valuable feedback is to post an image that you have a question about, and tell what you attempted, what you did to achieve it, and the various equipment involved.  This idea of posting an image that you already know to be a "D", and simply asking for feedback is frivolous at best, and inviting harsh words when you already know what will be said.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

Designer said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > To be completely honest, I think this picture sucks. Flat out. If I were to grade it, I'd give it a D. The main reason why I posted it, is because I haven't shot in a few weeks and I needed to get back in a rhythm of shooting.
> ...



I disagree with all of your points.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 5, 2012)

I think you're making a mistake by really attempting to 'win' over the those who've either made comments that you don't like or made them in a way you don't like. 

TPF has changed pretty dramatically the last six months.  Many of the unpleasant and/or non-contributing yahoos have moved on and what is left of the commenting corps is a mixture of talents and abilities, but all reasonably decent people. Best of all, none of them that I have noticed, are trying to build a rep as a hard guy by jumping on other contributors. 
I think you will get the truth as each person sees it. If you want to take the tone or the idea as an insult ratehr than just a viewpoint and respond offensively, it's your loss.

I don't think anyone expects you to absolutely _believe_ everything anyone says and to grovel, just listen, take what you want to use and be thankful for the gift of time and keystrokes..


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I think you're making a mistake by really attempting to 'win' over the those who've either made comments that you don't like or made them in a way you don't like.
> 
> TPF has changed pretty dramatically the last six months.  Many of the unpleasant and/or non-contributing yahoos have moved on and what is left of the commenting corps is a mixture of talents and abilities, but all reasonably decent people. Best of all, none of them that I have noticed, are trying to build a rep as a hard guy by jumping on other contributors.
> I think you will get the truth as each person sees it. If you want to take the tone or the idea as an insult ratehr than just a viewpoint and respond offensively, it's your loss.
> ...



I have my reservations. Let's leave it at that. I'm ignoring *one* person. That's it. It's time to get over it now.


----------



## mwild (Oct 5, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The biggest issue I have is that her head just sort of floats, with no visible means of support on the left hand side of the frame--she's been lopped off at the neck. In terms of percentage, she's 50% of the frame,the right hand side of the frame, and the entire left hand side of the image offers absolutely zero visual interest. To use an old term, she's shown as "*a floating head*". Her head and hair are quite large in the frame,ands the top of her head touches the edge of the frame. Her head's touching the top of the frame, and her chin is uncomfortably low in the frame. Are you shooting this as a horizontal just because you don't know how to compose? Or to get a rise out of the few of us that do? You know what's coming...
> 
> You desperately needed to turn the camera to vertical, to show the head as more than just a head and neck.* She's cut off right at the neck/body juncture, and that looks bad*. The "photography" part is somewhat okay. The approach to posing and framing is very unsophisticated. She did her part though. On the lighting front, I'm not sure why the camera-right catchlight in the eye is so much smaller and weaker than the one on the off side...that does not look natural, or "right" visually. I'd clone in some more catchlight on the camera-right eye, to even that up. Maybe straighten up her lipstick arch a bit too. Sorry if this sounds harsh. I realize it probably does. Can;t help it. It's what you need to have said. Unless you just want an "Atta' guy!, nice pic!" type of comment and nothing actually valuable.



I always love reading your advice on other posts.. I find you're very knowledged, and I feel like I learn a lot from your feedback!!


----------



## Designer (Oct 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > ...simply asking for feedback is frivolous... inviting harsh words...
> ...



O.K.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're  making a mistake by really attempting to 'win' over the those who've  either made comments that you don't like or made them in a way you don't  like.
> ...



You don't get it.

You insulted and alienated others and now you're telling them that its time to get over it?

The way to have made this go away was to say something like, "OK, I over reacted. Sorry about the fuss.' and it would have been all over.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



I've done none of those things. 

Agree to disagree though. Let's move on.


----------



## pictureperfekt (Oct 5, 2012)

> Because what I see in my head does not translate into the photograph.​



What do you see in your head?


----------

