Photographer's Comment: Different crop of previous version.

Viewer Comments:

By smokeydawg (2008-03-19 14:31:15 ): Thanks Elizabeth, LoL finally someone gets it. :) I agree about the 1st version. Was beginning to think I was way out in left field on this, and maybe I am, but appreciate the feedback. Also agree about a lot looking cheesy.

By smokeydawg (2008-03-19 13:01:15 ): Thanks Jerry.

By za8et (2008-03-19 07:39:37 ): 1st version i couldn't work it out, this one there is enough extra resolution for me to see it properly to enter the ranks of the "love-its" - great pose and lovely light - portrayals of wedding day passion can look really cheesy, this shot gives the idea yet allows it to be a private moment

By cursmicon (2008-03-18 23:30:06 ): Carl, when I said stretch, I was referring to the portrait aspect. It seems a bit MORE that a portrait, rather a scene made up of two people embracing. I probably should have hedged my remarks by saying, “It SEEMS TO ME THAT it does stretch the interpretation a bit…” A portrait can certainly include more that one person, but I think it is generally considered that the intent of a portrait is displaying a face or faces as the prime focus of the image. Here are a couple of definitions and they are what I intended for the photographers to consider when creating images for this theme: 1 - A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, IN WHICH THE FACE AND ITS EXPRESSION IS PREDOMINANT; (my emphasis) 2 - A painting, photograph, or drawing of SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY'S FACE…(again my emphasis) FWIW, I had the same reservations about your images “Dead End” and “My Own Prison” but they could be portraits in the same sense as Irving Penn’s grand portraits of the great and near great. Although he always presented faces for the viewer to read. I do have to be honest and say that I was bewildered by the image “Love Is” until someone mentioned the veil. I couldn’t tell what it was, everything was very dark. Perhaps I need to re-calibrate my monitor or even my aging old eyes!!! <grin>

By smokeydawg (2008-03-18 21:44:33 ): Just curious on how it stretches the portrait part Jerry, not trying to be smart so don't take it wrong, just looking for clarification. To me it's a silhouetted portrait, I can see where it would stretch the silhouette part a bit because there is some detail which all depends on your definition of silhouette, but I really don't see how it stretches the portrait aspect. It is of a couple dipping and kissing. Unless you were looking for "head and shoulders" type portraits. Portraits can encompass a lot from full shots to head shots. At least it is of people. :) Like I say just looking for clarification, thanks, Carl :)

By cursmicon (2008-03-18 21:25:41 ): Ummm...this DOES stretch the interpretation of "portrait" a bit. Interesting concept though.

By Photolas (2008-03-18 21:13:11 ): Maybe it's just my eyes, but looking at it again I am completely unable to distinguish what I'm looking at. I cannot see the their faces at all...as a matter of fact, on my computer they look like hairy animals. I'm serious. LOL......not to be mean....LOL. I can't see them. ;-)

By smokeydawg (2008-03-18 15:01:55 ): Thanks for the honest feedback Lorin, appreciate it. Not sure I'm seeing "humps", I know the light is falling on his shoulder strangely which makes it appear his sleeve is poofed up. I tend to do a lot of weird strange things when shooting weddings, some works, some doesn't. The couple saw this yesterday and loved it so go figure. I did do another version of this with a reflector shining light on them and like it better personally. Thanks again.

By Photolas (2008-03-18 00:42:33 ): I like the texture of the right side, but the images are lost. I couldn't figure out what I was looking at until I read your comment. What are those humps coming out of their heads ?

By smokeydawg (2008-03-17 14:14:34 ): Thanks Joan, appreciate your honesty in this. Was my 2nd Camera's wedding so it afforded a little bit more experimenting then most. Like I told Jim above it's one of those shots people will either hate or love and not much in between. Was going for more of a dreamy feel in this, therefore the blur.

By smokeydawg (2008-03-17 14:09:55 ): Thanks for the honesty Jim, I admit this is one you are either gonna hate or love and not much in between. Honesty is always appreciated. :)

By smokeydawg (2008-03-17 14:08:15 ): Thanks Tanja, I'll be the first to admit it's probably not everyones cup of tea, was going for more of a "dreamy / dreamstate" feel in this. Appreciate the honest feedback. This was my 2nd camera's wedding, so it afforded a bit more opportunity to experiment.

By smokeydawg (2008-03-17 14:03:19 ): Thanks Steve, I agree about the flowers in the other version.

By smokeydawg (2008-03-17 14:01:16 ): Thanks Janith, appreciate the feedback, the shadows on her vail are coming from the railing on the other side that you can't see in the image. Was going for a "dreamscape" feel in this sort of like when you see them on TV.

By CamGram (2008-03-17 10:52:37 ): Okay...I'm one of your biggest fans, but this one is not one of my favorites. Took me awhile to figure out what I was looking at and it looks shadowy and blurry rather than silhouetty.

By jimdstearns (2008-03-17 10:24:42 ): This ain't working for me.... :o)

By somagni (2008-03-17 10:07:59 ): I keep coming back to these two images and don't know what to say. I love the comp and the dreamy quality but I think I'd like to see the couple more in focus. The light is beautiful.

By smyers11 (2008-03-17 01:39:54 ): very nice! this crop is more appealling to me - some how the flowers in the first version was a little distracting to me. this is a beautiful composition - nice blue sky, true color of the wooden rail. nice silhouette.

By janith (2008-03-17 00:13:22 ): Very nice compostition, Carl! The stripey shadows in the veil mimic the rails of the bridge (?) and the curve of the top railing is slightly curved just like the bride. It's a bit fuzzy, but that seems to add to the subdued mood just fine.

Viewer Comments:

Add Comment: