<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Friday Photo Critique #5</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/</link>
	<description>Photography &#38; Post-Processing Tutorials</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:07:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: BVBeckman</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-5103</link>
		<dc:creator>BVBeckman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-5103</guid>
		<description>Throw in my 2 cents...  I found the background on the right side distracting,  the main subject seems to have a circular or radial feel to it and here&#039;s these straight lines taking away from it.  
I found a good center point and then added some spinning blur and made it stronger the further I got away from that point.   

I think no heads or faces is a good thing here.   Rather than 5  (Did everyone see the fifth ?  She&#039;s easy to miss) I don&#039;t know having fun, it&#039;s now easy for my imagination to fill in the identities.

http://www.zumodrive.com/share/2v6BMTIyZm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Throw in my 2 cents&#8230;  I found the background on the right side distracting,  the main subject seems to have a circular or radial feel to it and here&#8217;s these straight lines taking away from it.<br />
I found a good center point and then added some spinning blur and made it stronger the further I got away from that point.   </p>
<p>I think no heads or faces is a good thing here.   Rather than 5  (Did everyone see the fifth ?  She&#8217;s easy to miss) I don&#8217;t know having fun, it&#8217;s now easy for my imagination to fill in the identities.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.zumodrive.com/share/2v6BMTIyZm" rel="nofollow">http://www.zumodrive.com/share/2v6BMTIyZm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ionut Cirja</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-3895</link>
		<dc:creator>Ionut Cirja</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-3895</guid>
		<description>I have just one problem with this photo, I can see any reason why you cut the faces of the mothers...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have just one problem with this photo, I can see any reason why you cut the faces of the mothers&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shahcloud</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2728</link>
		<dc:creator>shahcloud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2728</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with Noel, the main focus here is not the women&#039;s face/expression but the relation between the women n children...its the hands that tell the story..great work...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with Noel, the main focus here is not the women&#8217;s face/expression but the relation between the women n children&#8230;its the hands that tell the story..great work&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2714</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2714</guid>
		<description>I agree aswell - Don&#039;t quite know what the focus of the photograph is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree aswell &#8211; Don&#8217;t quite know what the focus of the photograph is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian G. Lang</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2712</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian G. Lang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2712</guid>
		<description>Critique: The focal point looks like it should be on the hands, but the dark patch and the patterned angles treeing off the center point lead my eye up like from a fire to the sky.   I agree with Jessica (above) - The moms needed to cover up a bit more.  The background is busy. I all but missed the 5th person in the photo.

Opinion: I instantly thought wouldn&#039;t that shot look awesome if posed and taken from the top down with their heads being slightly cut off around the outside of the image, but with their heads tilted up a bit so you could see them all laughing/smiling.

Praise: This image really captures the &#039;fun&#039; and you can almost see the togetherness.  It&#039;s warm and family focused.  It looks casual and natural.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Critique: The focal point looks like it should be on the hands, but the dark patch and the patterned angles treeing off the center point lead my eye up like from a fire to the sky.   I agree with Jessica (above) &#8211; The moms needed to cover up a bit more.  The background is busy. I all but missed the 5th person in the photo.</p>
<p>Opinion: I instantly thought wouldn&#8217;t that shot look awesome if posed and taken from the top down with their heads being slightly cut off around the outside of the image, but with their heads tilted up a bit so you could see them all laughing/smiling.</p>
<p>Praise: This image really captures the &#8216;fun&#8217; and you can almost see the togetherness.  It&#8217;s warm and family focused.  It looks casual and natural.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay Reynolds</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2709</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2709</guid>
		<description>Framing has been mentioned a couple times. I would agree. But, I would like to point out some other things. 

There are some very interesting lights and darks in this image, however they seemed to be washed out. The Highlights and Shadows involved in the main focal region should have more attention towards them (this would also create a better focal point).

Darks, make them dark. Lights, make them Light.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Framing has been mentioned a couple times. I would agree. But, I would like to point out some other things. </p>
<p>There are some very interesting lights and darks in this image, however they seemed to be washed out. The Highlights and Shadows involved in the main focal region should have more attention towards them (this would also create a better focal point).</p>
<p>Darks, make them dark. Lights, make them Light.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noel</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2708</link>
		<dc:creator>Noel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2708</guid>
		<description>Contrary to everyone else, I thought cutting off the heads is fine. This composition emphasises the connection made between the women and the children through their hands, and cutting off the eyes eliminates the distraction of yet another subject to focus on. The jacket the woman wears on the right is quite glaring though and is distracting. Try shooting from between and behind the women. That way you could see the faces of the two girls being framed by the mothers, their hands, and the little girl poking her head through, while eliminating the glaring jacket - since the light is hitting them front on, the jacket would be darker shot from behind than in this picture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Contrary to everyone else, I thought cutting off the heads is fine. This composition emphasises the connection made between the women and the children through their hands, and cutting off the eyes eliminates the distraction of yet another subject to focus on. The jacket the woman wears on the right is quite glaring though and is distracting. Try shooting from between and behind the women. That way you could see the faces of the two girls being framed by the mothers, their hands, and the little girl poking her head through, while eliminating the glaring jacket &#8211; since the light is hitting them front on, the jacket would be darker shot from behind than in this picture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2697</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:58:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2697</guid>
		<description>I pretty much agree with everyone elses comments regarding the framing. I just wanted to point everyone to the little girl being shunned out of the group behind the two women! Made me lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I pretty much agree with everyone elses comments regarding the framing. I just wanted to point everyone to the little girl being shunned out of the group behind the two women! Made me lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jessica</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2696</link>
		<dc:creator>Jessica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2696</guid>
		<description>Cutting off their heads right at their overly exposed chests probably wasn&#039;t the best choice. Good to keep it classy but I can see what you were going for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cutting off their heads right at their overly exposed chests probably wasn&#8217;t the best choice. Good to keep it classy but I can see what you were going for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/photo-critique/friday-photo-critique-5/#comment-2695</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.tutsplus.com/?p=630#comment-2695</guid>
		<description>I think the principal problem with this photograph is the framing. Cutting off the heads of the two women is just glaring and very distracting. My first thought is that the  picture should be composed with the faces of the two women. However if the subject is meant to be the two children then perhaps cropping the women a bit lower, under their shoulders could be less distracting. Also some thought could be given to adjusting the camera to make the children more dominating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the principal problem with this photograph is the framing. Cutting off the heads of the two women is just glaring and very distracting. My first thought is that the  picture should be composed with the faces of the two women. However if the subject is meant to be the two children then perhaps cropping the women a bit lower, under their shoulders could be less distracting. Also some thought could be given to adjusting the camera to make the children more dominating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.070 seconds -->
