First off Impact - Well, this piece got me to click through from the DD thumbnails, and that takes more than just a photograph of a pretty woman, however well composed and lit it is.
Next - Vision and Originality - I'v never seen a costume quite like this in design before, never mind one that's so perfectly custom made for its model that you can almost see her spending months on making every single component and settling them just so.
Finally Technique - If you can't get focus and depth of field right on a static posed shot like this, just give up photography! The thing that's really impressive about this picture is the lighting which manages to appear to be coming from the crystal on her staff, and possibly from another similar source out of frame on her right.
Author's note - If you don't think this critique is fair, please tell me why.
Bull shit critique. When you write a critique, you critique. It's not called complimenting. 5/5 is flawless. Be realistic.
Let me answer that by asking a question. What proportion of all submitted works ever get a DD?
On average, 1 of the 20-some that get a DD feature on any date will get a click-through from me. Of those 180 or so (based on length of membership) about 1 in 3 have earned either a follow artist or a citique. This places this work in the top 2% of thse I've seen (mostly for the lighting and the standard of the leatherwork in this case).
So now let me ask you another question. If "top 2%" isn't near enough to flawless to suit you, just how good does a work have to be to be flawless?
That doesn't change anything I said... when you write a critique, you help the artist become better. Doesn't matter if they won an award or whatever. Critiques exist for improvement. They're not grounds for compliments and throwing around 5/5 stars. So are you saying that all Daily Deviations are 5/5 stars? Why do they request a critique then? Just for the kudos?
Why are you bothering with this confrontational attitude; I specifically requested constructive criticism of my critique, and the most I've got from you is "nothing is perfect", which is arguably true but is not helpful.
Well then, point out what's wrong with the piece, what the critic left out, or how you feel that even if something may be true, it didn't warrant a full 5/5. Just a thought.
That's up to the person who chooses to critique, which I did not. I'm merely pointing out that THAT is not a critique. It doesn't help the artist at all.
Thanks for the support, particularly since you've said pretty much what I would have.
No problem. to me a critique is simply and in depth look at what the artist has done, rather than a "cool" or "this looks awesome" comment. I think we simply have a different view than raven. ^_^
Well, how many people are going to take the time to write an in-depth "this is fvcking terrible" critique, particularly since the artist has the option of not publishing critiques they strongly disagree with?
If you read my direct reply to raven, you'll see that my reasoning is based on "if I rank all DDs from 1 to 40, it's only the ones I rate as 40s that I'll actually look at, never mind favourite, comment on or critique".
thanks very much! i love working with lighting and especially take care to have light come from places where it should to make look things more believable. thats not always as easy as it sounds since you still have to put up a good image and most of the time things that look good are physically way incorrect
i'm very glad someone notices the efforts
I'm an amateur photographer myself, but still working with wet film and don't own a scanner, so I'm well aware of how tricky it can be to light something right, particularly if you're trying to get something like a crystal on a staff to be your light source.
In fact, that, rather than your model, was what got me to click through.