Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 14/04/2008 4:35 PM:
>
> OK so I'm going out on a limb here and offering the "Master" some
critique,
> and in all honesty not to be vindictive but just some observations and
maybe
> Doug can tell us the reasoning behind these particular shots, I'm always
> willing to learn :-)
>
> 1638: why is the hair blown messily across the face, wouldn't it be
better
> to be blowing behind the head?
> grouptree: only one person is actually looking at the camera in this
shot,
> the rest look like they want to be somewhere else.
> lady1: ****ny nose, ****ny chin, ****ny forehead.
> s****ts: neither subject is in focus.
> 4546: ****ny nose, ****ny forehead, ****ny cheek and hairstyle like she
just
> got out of bed.
>
> don't get me wrong Doug some of them are quite nice ****traits but I
though a
> ****trait was supposed to flatter the subject, not highlight the flaws.
>
> I await the inevitable tirade :-)
>
Fair comments. But let me say
over the years I've seen much worse
from so-called "wedding photographers".
A *lot* worse...
What baffles me is what the heck
is that s****ts photo doing in
a ****traits section...
Perhaps Doug would be able to move
it somewhere else? It ain't make
sense, if you pardon the weird
'nglish.
As for it being out of focus,
I think the front subject is just
blurred by movement: not a problem in a
s****ts photo. Not *all* subjects in
*all* photos need to be pinsharp in
order for a photo to convey a feeling.
In fact when it comes to s****ts, I'd
rather see something that suggests movement.
Dunno if you agree with that or not,
just my $0.02.
|
