>>4263387 cont 2/2>>4263146>this is good of the kid but again a really distracting background. you have not been able to isolate your subject and the backgrounds/foregrounds have been really distracting in all of these. just sort of out of focus but not blurred enough to melt away. I think it's a focal length issue.for most of these, i am not interested in isolating one person. the subject is the scene at large. i want to include the context and most of the information in the frame
>half the frame is an out of focus, hooded head, and theres a ton of motion blur. Yes.jpg
>the eye is drawn more to the lady in the back rather than your subject (smiling lady)i had intended to focus on the smiling lady but i think it's kind more interesting this way. she would have been just a dark blurry figure, but the way she draws the eye in this instance makes you wonder what she's thinking. whereas the same mystery couldn't really apply to smiling lady since her expression is so clear even with blur
>would have been better focusing on just the two hugging men, the guy on the left of frame takes up half the photo and is out of focus and has streetlights coming out of his head like a unicorn. i don't know if this focal length is working for you heredisagree. i should have focused on the girl looking up. the frame naturally creates a sort of v leading to her at the point, and i should have accentuated it. she's almost at the center of the frame and there's already the flagpole leading line- the only missing piece is the focus. agree that the lights around the foreground guy's head is bad and i could have framed better to avoid that.
>good portrait of the guy but terribly distracting/cluttered left side of the framefully agree here
overall it seems like you favor the simplest comps and fixate on identifying one particular object as the subject of a picture. i like doing that too sometimes, but i didn't feel like it was appropriate for the march shots. thanks for the critique!
