Hi everyone!
We went for a drive in countryside Queensland (Australia) to see this sunflower field and get some shots.
I would like some feedback on this portrait :)
Tks!!
Hi everyone!
We went for a drive in countryside Queensland (Australia) to see this sunflower field and get some shots.
I would like some feedback on this portrait :)
Tks!!
I find it confussed. The woman looks like she ought to be the subject but the sunflower on the left is so strong she is not strong enough in the image, even in a bright red dress, to dominate the picture. If you could have lost the sharp flower perhaps it would have been much better. Also, I think a lot more fun might have worked with the bright flowers, smiling and waving around her arms and letting her hair down, so to speak or actually down or mussed up. Or even a nude, perhaps from behind, or wearing something semi-seethrough and in a soft colour. It just needs something softer, more natural and relaxed or fun, imo.
Imo, what is missing in this photo is the light. It seems natural light, but maybe filling in it could add more emotion, this pic is overall flat. This sensation in due also to the absence of an empty space. Basically, you put two vertical lines (flower and girl) on a horizontal one (separation between sky and flowers), which are both strong lines, very plastic and static.
The frame is completely full. This create the effect of a wall, in which the eye's viewer can't move inside. Try to change the point from where you ar taking the photo, maybe just rotating the camera could be enought in this case...
Bye :)
Matteo makes a good suggestion about the lines. You could just raise the camera, and tilt it down so to crop out the sky and fill the frame with the sunflowers, perhaps. Shooting people is often best done from near their eyeline but not always.
Tks guys! Here's another one.
https://fstoppers.com/photo/108276
That works better. Her smile and engagement with your lens add a lot and although the sunflowers remain strong, and sharp, she is obviously the subject, which is not so in the previous version.