claytonsummers Loc: Orange County, CA

This was shot out of a Gazebo at Laguna Beach, CA. This is a popular spot for weddings, but also my favorite park.

The framing is one of the six sides of the Gazebo. The lady is not quite focused, which was not on purpose, but let's assume for the discussion that she was in focus.

Does this work for you? What would make it better?

My thoughts: The bag on her left needs to go. The rock in the water coming out of her right side is distracting. The wood frame above her drooping a bit should be straight? Oh, and yes, she needs to be focused better.

(Download)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Clayton, welcome to the Hog.
I think you're on the right path with the composition.
I'll give you my critique. This is a silhouette. Portraits it could be argued have a recognizable face and usually something sharp. It's not a 3/2 format which indicates you've already cropped it, so why not take out the drooping wood?
It's almost a monochrome but it's in color.
My question to you is, what is the subject?
By my preference, when an element stops adding to the composition, take it out. So why all the sky, why all the water? Is that negative space supporting the composition?
Anyway, not sure what discussion you may be looking for.
What do you like about it that you were compelled to share it? What was your goal?
Others may fall in love with it, I just hope they explain why!
But it is a discussion worth having. We need more discussions here.
Thanks for posting it and lets see if Ed takes a stab at it.
Again, welcome to the Hog and this section!!!
SS

claytonsummers Loc: Orange County, CA

SS,

Thanks, that is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

I was at the beach playing with highlight metering and saw this lady staring out at the ocean, so it was a candid shot. Something about her leaning on the rail and the way the gazebo framed her made me think there was something there. The sky and water were what she was staring at, The sun was shining on water farther out while a cloud shaded the water closer in and I had been waiting to try metering on the bright water, so I already had that framing in mind. I had to wait because the gazebo was pretty crowded and I was waiting for a clear shot.

I posted it here to see if this was what Ed meant about portraits that were not your typical cookie cutter portraits.

Clayton

claytonsummers Loc: Orange County, CA

Here is the original SOOC (jpg version). I might like this one better, the "W" below the rail maybe adds something? There were more people just to the left of the frame or I would have made it a bit wider.

Clayton

(Download)

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

There is certainly a mood to this image, in my opinion however, it does not qualify as a portrait, at least in a traditional sense. The idea of a silhouette or a low key rim-lighted or back lighted portrait is that it still shows a modicum of a likeness. If the subject was in profile view and more recognizable in terms of facial features, my take on the matter would be different.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the concept of including the environment, the negative space and the drama of the atmosphere. Utilizing the roof of the gazebo for subtractive lighting is a great opportunity for a low key lighting in an out-of-doors environment.

This critique does not disqualify or demean the image in any way- it is just my opinion. Other opinions are just as acceptable and debatable.

In my opinion a traditional, classical or contemporary portrait needn't necessarily be a "hackneyed or "cookie cutter" image. This is exactly the kind of conversation I hoped to generate so keep it coming and continue posting.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Hey Clayton. I guess my take on the original is that without context, you don't know that it's framed by something, or if it is just either a photoshopped frame or ??? I like the second version better, because you now know that she's in some kind of structure looking out.

I agree with sharpshooter's comments about negative space. I see it all the time in wedding photography now (I'm a wedding photographer) and frankly it just drives me nuts. Why show a giant brick wall and a tiny little couple, where you can barely make out who it is? Unless the brick wall was somehow important to telling the story of the day, it just drives me batshoot crazy. (batshoot is past tense of the word I was thinking) I'm not thinking there's too much negative space in the second image, but with nothing interesting happening in the first one, it almost feels like the negative space thing that I was talking about. I know it sounds silly, but the context helps tie it together.

Not coming at this as just technically a "portrait" shoot, and maybe it's just my style, but if I don't understand the story the photograph was trying to tell, it just doesn't work for me.

Now, my standard disclaimer. My opinions are based on my style and tastes. I don't want to discourage anyone from marching to the beat of their own drummer. (unless that drummer is leading them to taking the EXACT SAME "huge brick wall and tiny subjects" photos that it seems everyone is shooting (to be different??) ......then I might discourage that. HAHA)

claytonsummers Loc: Orange County, CA

Thanks everyone. I'm looking forward to more interesting discussions.