Welcome to Photoreject, born out of my first attempts to enter my work in a gallery many years ago. If you read the title and are concerned if you are supposed to be here, fill out the brief, 200-page survey on page 72. Otherwise, please take a look around my blog posts of recent images of photography "tests" I am conducting as I branch out into slightly new photographic horizons. I will be explaining my thought processes behind the photographs and rambling on about this or that. Hope you enjoy!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Butterfly Eyes
This image was accepted into the Del Mar fair's international photography exhibit...I feel a little strange referring to Kelsi as an image.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Beautiful. Except for the butterflies; kill those. You've already shrunk them down from stamp size to pupil, now keep going until they are no longer visible to the human eye. I love the overlay effect, and it really is a stunner otherwise.
I think the butterflies are fine. These are my critiques - and try to look past the similarity to others I've made and take what you can from them.
Too much busy contrast is being generated in those textural areas and if that effect was toned down it would make this image more comfortable to look at.
Quick digression: The darkest areas in your image are going to act as a focal point and so are the lightest. In painting or much of design, the darkest dark and lightest light have to be used extremely selectively and sparingly because they're going to pull a whole lot of weight.
When the darkest point is near the lightest there is an unavoidable clash (not always a bad thing), and I'm seeing the light area of her face fight a lot with that dark area down and to the left of it.
Okay, back to the point. It's a little more complicated than that, because that kind of a contrast can work for you (as in the untouched image), but what's making things confusing is all of the erratic patches of light. That left side is an area that in terms of shadow should be dark, but there are all kinds of fireworks going off there.
I understand you're going for an abstract stardust-like effect, so I'm not knocking that, but to make that read better, one possibility would be to tone back the lightness of the texture in places (or in total) so that more of it combines with the dark area when you squint. You would have a clearer image without as much visual competition.
If you care enough, I can try to explain what I mean to you more, in terms of practical examples.
I do really like what you're going for, and I feel like you have good ideas for this kind of improvisational digital stuff. The next step as I see it, is to try to understand the formal rules more deeply so that you can break them more effectively. In any form of the arts, there is incredible depth in really digging into the boring mathematical, geometric, optical fundamentals and always being able to work them against what comes intuitively.
I think understanding aspects of how I see these things could help you sharpen your eye for some of this digital stuff if you care for it. But ultimately, things are up to your own tastes and how much you feel what I can offer is relevant.
Forgive me if it seems like I'm trying to sound like Obi Wan. Again, you have your way of doing things, so it's up to you to decide how you want to process my point of view. I'm clearly learning myself, and it might not always be easy for me to prove the value of what I'm saying to you.
My objection to the butterflies is not formal; it's just that I prefer unicorns. Taste level is every bit as important as a solid formal sensibility and technique, even if it is harder to quantify. Were you presenting this as a gift to the subject's 8 year old sister, it might be totally appropriate, but ask yourself, does this person really deserve to have their soul windows defaced? And does the effect add or detract from her allure? What's the purpose of the gesture; when you look at it, does it seem organic or artificial? To me it feels tacked on purely for the sake of itself, and it only cheapens the piece.
3 comments:
Beautiful. Except for the butterflies; kill those.
You've already shrunk them down from stamp size to pupil, now keep going until they are no longer visible to the human eye.
I love the overlay effect, and it really is a stunner otherwise.
I think the butterflies are fine. These are my critiques - and try to look past the similarity to others I've made and take what you can from them.
Too much busy contrast is being generated in those textural areas and if that effect was toned down it would make this image more comfortable to look at.
Quick digression: The darkest areas in your image are going to act as a focal point and so are the lightest. In painting or much of design, the darkest dark and lightest light have to be used extremely selectively and sparingly because they're going to pull a whole lot of weight.
When the darkest point is near the lightest there is an unavoidable clash (not always a bad thing), and I'm seeing the light area of her face fight a lot with that dark area down and to the left of it.
Okay, back to the point. It's a little more complicated than that, because that kind of a contrast can work for you (as in the untouched image), but what's making things confusing is all of the erratic patches of light. That left side is an area that in terms of shadow should be dark, but there are all kinds of fireworks going off there.
I understand you're going for an abstract stardust-like effect, so I'm not knocking that, but to make that read better, one possibility would be to tone back the lightness of the texture in places (or in total) so that more of it combines with the dark area when you squint. You would have a clearer image without as much visual competition.
If you care enough, I can try to explain what I mean to you more, in terms of practical examples.
I do really like what you're going for, and I feel like you have good ideas for this kind of improvisational digital stuff. The next step as I see it, is to try to understand the formal rules more deeply so that you can break them more effectively. In any form of the arts, there is incredible depth in really digging into the boring mathematical, geometric, optical fundamentals and always being able to work them against what comes intuitively.
I think understanding aspects of how I see these things could help you sharpen your eye for some of this digital stuff if you care for it. But ultimately, things are up to your own tastes and how much you feel what I can offer is relevant.
Forgive me if it seems like I'm trying to sound like Obi Wan. Again, you have your way of doing things, so it's up to you to decide how you want to process my point of view. I'm clearly learning myself, and it might not always be easy for me to prove the value of what I'm saying to you.
My objection to the butterflies is not formal; it's just that I prefer unicorns.
Taste level is every bit as important as a solid formal sensibility and technique, even if it is harder to quantify. Were you presenting this as a gift to the subject's 8 year old sister, it might be totally appropriate, but ask yourself, does this person really deserve to have their soul windows defaced?
And does the effect add or detract from her allure? What's the purpose of the gesture; when you look at it, does it seem organic or artificial?
To me it feels tacked on purely for the sake of itself, and it only cheapens the piece.
Post a Comment