But there's a terrible and very obvious disproportion, probably due to the camera angle—the woman's large head, and the girl's body... (Sorry, I'm sorry...)
I really like the image, and the integrity of the model with the surrounding environment, the author's style is very noticeable There is one question, I am more interested in myself, this element was not left in by accident, was it? Mostra ritaglio
Irinny, it's not a coincidence)) this is if you want a game with an advanced viewer)) or compositional "imperfections", so that the picture is not completely polished, so that there is something for the eye to catch on.
ega, okay ))) First we learn the rules, then we break them to liven up the picture ))) Special respect for the sneaker (?)! By the way, without it, the photo turns out completely different
V.Buturlia (Albion), beautiful disproportion, even addictive.
How can I say... Proportionality has always been more a sign of beauty and harmony than the opposite. And about female beauty - either only good things, or nothing but admiration..:)
And when it comes to female beauty - either only the good, or nothing but admiration..:)
That's a good rule to follow. But it's not about female beauty, but about the photographer's choice of angle and lens, right? Mostra ritaglio Is that a normal approach?
ega, If there's a woman in the frame—no matter what's around—the concept of "feminine beauty" is essential to the photograph, no matter what understanding of beauty (women's and in general). I think the task of a photographer, and indeed an artist, depicting a woman is always "beauty," isn't it? Perfect or imperfect, external or internal beauty, eyes, a smile, inexplicable currents, that which compels one to keep moving forward, that which cannot be explained, only felt... What are stones worth—without her... Anything can be around, even emptiness. Yes, I got carried away. Enough. So, the girl is charming, no doubt about it. I don't like discussing shooting technique. Here, either—yes, and that's it, because—She!! If She exists, only She makes the frame, the picture, the portrait. I have my own perspective, of course, just my perspective, and what I mentioned above (proportionality) is confusing, that's all. Simply because, when looking at a portrait of a beautiful, charming girl, I start thinking about proportionality, about relationships. This thought just pops into my head, but it shouldn't. You chose the angle, the lens—you like it, it doesn't bother you. That's normal.
Well, I just shared my perception. I hope you find the viewer's opinion interesting.
I rarely post in discussions, but here goes... Sincerely, Vladimir.
V.Buturlia (Albion), thank you, I'm always interested in the viewer's detailed opinion. In short, I agree, I've gotten carried away. Simple beauty doesn't inspire me these days. And I guess I want to squeeze myself into the frame, which might be unnecessary.
V.Buturlia (Albion), women and beauty are closely intertwined concepts, especially in the visual arts, but they are not equivalent. And although this isn't the point of this photograph, in a photograph of a woman, it's perfectly possible to talk about something other than her beauty. And the fact that this will no longer be mainstream is, in my opinion, a very, very good thing.
ega, Egor, although I'm not an advanced viewer, but rather a fan of my own stereotypes, I miss those little branches and other nuances in your work, emphasizing them. In large-caliber print, the face and eyes will do their job, no question, but on a monitor, it looks perhaps too laconic.
(Sorry, I'm sorry...)
I don't know, though, if I'm an "advanced viewer."
But I liked the portrait. Overall. ))
And about female beauty - either only good things, or nothing but admiration..:)
That's a good rule to follow.
But it's not about female beauty, but about the photographer's choice of angle and lens, right?
Mostra ritaglio Is that a normal approach?
Yes, I got carried away. Enough.
So, the girl is charming, no doubt about it.
I don't like discussing shooting technique.
Here, either—yes, and that's it, because—She!! If She exists, only She makes the frame, the picture, the portrait.
I have my own perspective, of course, just my perspective, and what I mentioned above (proportionality) is confusing, that's all. Simply because, when looking at a portrait of a beautiful, charming girl, I start thinking about proportionality, about relationships. This thought just pops into my head, but it shouldn't.
You chose the angle, the lens—you like it, it doesn't bother you. That's normal.
Well, I just shared my perception.
I hope you find the viewer's opinion interesting.
I rarely post in discussions, but here goes...
Sincerely, Vladimir.
ega, Egor, although I'm not an advanced viewer, but rather a fan of my own stereotypes, I miss those little branches and other nuances in your work, emphasizing them. In large-caliber print, the face and eyes will do their job, no question, but on a monitor, it looks perhaps too laconic.
Without yourself in the frame, there is no frame, by definition.