Advanced SearchEvery little decision, even the ones no one notices, have their effect on the overall impact of your photo. Where is the model looking, and what's he doing with his hands? What's lurking in the background? And what the hell is that stain on your chair? Everything needs to be just right for the final image to work. A little time spent dusting furniture and tweezing eyebrows is worth it if it saves your shot.
inkit
This is just awful. Everything about it is shite: the lighting is onboard flash only, and the color balance is all whacked out. The composition has potential, but is just not quite right. It's underexposed, and you can see over the top of the bed that it was leaning against. I also re-sized it a few unnecessary times, to add some compression artifacts for good measure!
Much better. The composition has been upgraded; I moved it to a different spot instead of leaning it against the bed. The lighting is a one-source studio light, and the color balance is correct. I used a warming filter on the camera for added coziness and to give it a more classic feel. The dust has been cleaned off the cello (it's the little things, people!) and it just feels more professional overall.
sylvanworks
What I thought these illustrated was the importance of the background. I've seen a lot of decent photos completely ruined by the lack of attention paid to what is behind the subject. These two photos were shot with the same light, same F-Stop (f/5.6), same focal length (210mm) and almost the same shutter speed (1/800 and 1/640). The subject, an Eastern Phoebe, was a member of a family that has nested under my porch for the last 2 summers.
The Phoebe likes to find a low perch and then swoop out and catch insects in mid-air. So, the background of the green grass (image 2) is actually better suited to this bird than the blue sky (image 1). In addition, the background of image 2 is smooth, unobstructed, and leaves ample opportunity for either cropping or the addition of copy. The background of image 1, while equally as blurred out, has a variety of distracting shapes and colors that pull the eye away from the subject. I do like that the birds mouth is open in image 1, but the eye is a dull black hole. In image 2 the presence of a catchlight in the single visible eye makes the bird come alive.
transferred
Ok - subpar (right) - the crop cuts off the prop, making it incidental, pointless, and leaving the overall composition with no focus. (In addition, the silver bow is uneven: you need to pay attention to the little things, because they will throw out your whole composition). The colors are off, leaving the skin tone red and splotchy and the overall tones very flat. Whites are muted and blacks are more grey. To go with the whole dull theme, the expression is also boring.
...and the counterpart. Lighting is done with some interest in mind towards depth and shadow. Playing with the personality of the model brings the overall composition to life... what an asshole.
Sirimo
With the subpar image there are many distractions in the background: people in the water, waves breaking further out and ships on the horizon. Your eyes flick from the canoeist to the people in the water, the waves etc. The colours are also dull and pretty dreary. This is about as much of a snapshot as you can get: was someone even looking through the viewfinder?
The 'not subpar' is framed much tighter with no such distractions in the background. Our characters are close enough in the frame to become the subject, and line up along the horizon to move us across the image. The colours are vivid and make for contrast, and the reflections in the wet sand are a good touch. Altogether a better image.
Discuss