[Rufus]

[Kerridwyn]

Im not to sure on the title but great subgect capture

[jericho]

Might be a bit tight on the left Rufus. Just barely captures the wing. Another mm or two might have been better. The light on thelight is very subtle. Is that a post processing addition? can it be a smidgen brighter?

[Rufus]

Im not to sure on the title but great subgect capture

Ah, thank you. No, that's not the title!!! It's a request!

[Rufus]

Might be a bit tight on the left Rufus. Just barely captures the wing. Another mm or two might have been better. The light on thelight is very subtle. Is that a post processing addition? can it be a smidgen brighter?

Hi Jerry, (dad). NOT MINE! Dont be an ass! Who? What?

Anyway,

Hi Jerry!

Unfortunately, I shot it this close. It isnt cropped!!!!!
That light is PP, yes. Only stupid me didnt save it as a layer. Consequently, I'd now have to re-do everything to get it brighter. DOH!

[slejhamer]

My initial thought was the same as Jerry's - too tight. Plus you cut off the feet. Ow!

[Rufus]

you cut off the feet

:/


I can explain! :o


The angel had bunions!!!

[Kombisaurus]

Hey Rufus,

I like the subject and the lighting - it would have been tough to get the subtle shadows without losing all detail in the highlights. I assume you have done a bit of photoshopping to remove the background, as I'd imagine there would have been *something* there originally?

I know others have suggested leaving a bit more room on the left for the angels wings, but I'd go even further than that and suggest leaving a bit more room on the left, and a *lot* more room on the right.
The reason for this is because the viewer will naturally follow the angel's gaze, and the portrait crop you have leaves the viewer wondering what the angel is looking at.
Even if you include blank space to the right of the angel, at least the viewer will know the angel is simply staring into space. As it stands, there is no clue what the angel could be looking at.
In fact, I'd take it a bit further and flip the image, so the angel is facing left instead of right. This should tend to draw the viewer towards the angel's gaze, rather than away from it.

I'm not sure about how best to crop it at the bottom though. I agree that chopping her off at the ankles looks a bit strange, but chopping her any higher doesn't work too well either, and if you included her feet then you'd probably also have to include some of whatever she was standing on, and that could have its own set of problems (and obviously you were trying to eliminate everything but her). So I left the bottom edge where it was. The top edge is fine where it is IMHO.

I hope you don't mind, but I've had a bit of a play with your image in photoshop to illustrate what I mean. I've also added in some subtle shillohetted gravestones just to give a bit of a context to the photo and so the angels gaze draws the viewer towards something. And the added grain and sepia effect and lighting are just to bring everything together and make it seem a bit more like a single cohesive image.
I realise the context could be completely wrong, and the lighting *is* completely wrong, but it does illustrate what I mean about the cropping, flipping, layout and so on.

If you don't like me butchering your photos, then I apologize and will delete the image and not do it again. But it is often easier to illustrate ideas than try to explain them.

Cheers
Adrian

ps: I stole the gravestone sillhoettes from http://www.pics.kaybee.org:81/Vacations/...veyard.jpg

[Rufus]

Yo!

In haste, 'cos it's Mothers day, and I'm off to poison my mother-in-law.

No. Did I say poison? I meant, "give her a present"..........


Anyway, I already made a new version of this, where the feet and ankles were so diffused as to look like cloud.
There never was a background, as the image was taken at, (I think), 400mm f6.3-ish, so total and complete blur.

Please be aware of my SOH. At times it seems a bit OTT. No offence is intended.

Soon...................

R.