


Thanks for looking,
Alex
Bad Hair DayModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
I wonder why you called the series "bad hair day"... I like the wild, slightly unkempt look. If anything, the unironed shirt would be more objectionable (not to me, though)
![]() Compositionally, I like #3 best, followed by #1 and then #2 (number one would have been number one if the elbow had been left uncut). Not knowing much (anything really) of portrait shooting my biggest gripe would be the excessive sharpening. The model seems to fuse with the background in #2, especially along the arms. This flattens the image and destroys the sense of depth. I do realise that downscaling and JPEG compression can bring about that effect sometimes... Cheers Steffen. lust for comfort suffocates the soul
Thanks for the in-depth critique, Steffen.
I must say that the jpegs I saved originally did not have that 'over-sharpened' look. However, to comply with the forum's 150K per image rule, I had to save them at a much higher compression that I would normally and I think that introduced artifacts, etc. Cheers Alex
Previous topic • Next topic
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|