|
melekzek
Apr 8, 2005, 9:57 PM
Post #2 of 4
(1143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: Any comments?
uhm, those are big tickmarks there....
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Apr 8, 2005, 10:10 PM
Post #3 of 4
(1143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
excellent tonal distribution on the rock. His shirt is very nice for b&w shoots, and could have created a nice contrast to the organic features on the rock.
His black pants are a bad choice, and his feet are too close to the ground/frame making me feel that he is standing on the ground. This is a pretty common problem in bouldering shots, and takes away the "excitement" part out of the picture.
I think if you shoot a bit from the left we could have seen his face and eyes focused onto the next hold. I feel a bit wider angle would have worked better too...
And both signature and caption. Come on, put all of them in one place, either in the picture or in the frame.... and smaller plz....
|
|
|
|
|
dax
Apr 9, 2005, 2:36 AM
Post #4 of 4
(1143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 11
|
melekzek's made good points, but I'll try not to be redundant. The tone on the rock is not just well captured, it's a good focal point. I almost feel like the pic could be zoomed out to give a little more rock on the top left (if this was geographically possible, I don't know...) This would help the chalk spot at the top be a little more of a bull's eye in the photo. The tick marks are very distracting, and the black pants frustrate me because they don't help define the body position (which is excellent) very well. I don't mind missing the face, seems like the photo's more about the rock with a climber on it than a climber determined to conquer a rock. The framing's neutral for me. Think you'd be just as well of w/ a thin black line tight to the pic, and kick to contrast up a bit in the pic itself. Hope this helps, it's a very good pic, I'd be happy to call it my own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
