The author posted a question in Photography, Videography
What's wrong with the composition? and got a better answer
Response from Антон Владимирович[+++++]
Response from 0[+++++]
Are you playing with your tail?
Are you playing with your tail?
Response from 0[+++++]
didn't get the right vantage point from the bottom up, that's what breaks it.
didn't get the right vantage point from the bottom up, that's what breaks it.
Response from 0[+]
The background is distracting.
The background is distracting.
Response from 0[+++++]
Purely subjective, the eye is drawn to the handrail and takes it away from the girl deep down by the linear perspective and rhythm. In general, this thing is a distraction. Also imho, and a teapot.
Purely subjective, the eye is drawn to the handrail and takes it away from the girl deep down by the linear perspective and rhythm. In general, this thing is a distraction. Also imho, and a teapot.
Response from 0[+++++]
Well, it is not clear what was meant. 1 If this is a portrait of a girl, then these white arcs - why so many of them? Cut a little to the left and almost half to the right - and here you have a good PORTRAIT. 2 If you wanted dynamics, like a girl in the background, you shouldn't have emphasized the face so much, and it might have been better to choose a diagonal positioning of the frame. I.e. in this case you would not have to zoom in on the girl, but give a more general picture. 3 movement of the repetitive arc pattern - is it important? But where does it go for the author which direction is important - away from us in the distance, or from afar towards us? In this question, too, there is no certainty. If we are far away then we should have emphasized the beginning with the top edge downwards, and the bottom edge even lower, because the free space above the head accentuates the face, which creates an irritation. And the diagonal positioning of the frame would be ideal in this version.
Well, it is not clear what was meant. 1 If this is a portrait of a girl, then these white arcs - why so many of them? Cut a little to the left and almost half to the right - and here you have a good PORTRAIT. 2 If you wanted dynamics, like a girl in the background, you shouldn't have emphasized the face so much, and it might have been better to choose a diagonal positioning of the frame. I.e. in this case you would not have to zoom in on the girl, but give a more general picture. 3 movement of the repetitive arc pattern - is it important? But where does it go for the author which direction is important - away from us in the distance, or from afar towards us? In this question, too, there is no certainty. If we are far away then we should have emphasized the beginning with the top edge downwards, and the bottom edge even lower, because the free space above the head accentuates the face, which creates an irritation. And the diagonal positioning of the frame would be ideal in this version.
Response from 0[+++++]
Yes I agree with Sergei G The iron in the foreground is very distracting. And there is a lot of it.
Yes I agree with Sergei G The iron in the foreground is very distracting. And there is a lot of it.
Response from 0[++]
It would be mysterious without the girl.
It would be mysterious without the girl.
Response from 0[+++++]
Well, if not for 5 points, then at least higher than 3.
Well, if not for 5 points, then at least higher than 3.
Response from 0[+++++]
Yeah, it's too much iron.
Yeah, it's too much iron.
Response from 0[+++++]
Wrong frame, you should have oriented in the direction of view-more space in the front and less behind
Wrong frame, you should have oriented in the direction of view-more space in the front and less behind