Thanks for the objective comments ! That makes me want to post more stuff !

I really like this picture! Beautiful and the composition is perfect. well done!

I'm sorry that I must disagree with two elements of this photograph that others seem to like very much: composition and the use of negative space.

It would be easy to stifle my dissent, but I think that would be a violation of my commitment to candor and honesty in this forum. So, hoping not to offend but to present an opposing view, I take as my model the best portraits by the best painters and photographers of the past 500 years.

1. Composition: The subject's eyes, the most important part of the portrait, are crowded into the upper right portion of the image, 19% from the top and 27% from the right. The crop runs through the left ear for no apparent reason. This is poor composition with a gimmick found often (and better done) in the current collection of self-portraits.

2. Negative space. Negative space is not the absence of everything. It is the space around the subject that binds the subject into time and space. Simply leaving 70% of the image blank without some very good reason doesn't enhance the portrait. Why not allot 80%, 90% or, to take my point to the absurd, 99% of the image to nothingness.

Now if you like the image, I have no argument with your point of view. I like it, too.

But if you are an aspiring portrait photographer and you want your work to be as good as possible, I suggest that you look through books of fine art and portrait photography. Edward Steichen would be a good place to start, then move forward to more modern portraitists such as Annie Leibovitz--and there are many, many in between.

Nice photo. I like the composition. Rules are meant to be broken.

uncommondepth.

Excuse me, but what's the justification for your remark. It's not true, you know.

uncommondepth.

Excuse me, but what's the justification for your remark. It's not true, you know.

Sorry for the duplicate posting.

I see that uncommondepth is Roberta. Roberta, I just browsed you site and your photography is beautiful, beautiful and beautiful. I noticed that you don't go around breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules, in fact most of your images are conservative in their cropping. Next, I see not a single human being on your site (maybe I just missed them).

I was snippy in my remark to you because I don't mind argument, but I was hoping for something more reasoned, maybe a little deeper and less flipant. I know you can do that.

I hope I didn't offend you.

First off....King, most of the serious WeeklyShot folks who's comments and responses I have seen over the past few months are not going to get offended by someone presenting an opposing viewpoint...and in particular when it is laid out meticulously and with as much thought as you appear to put into your comments....so I wouldn't worry about that ;)

On the other hand though,And now...to disagree with you ;) I think sometimes it's very cool and unique to do stuff that pushes the envelope or goes entirely outside of it. All of the "classical standards" that you are talking about are essential for people who want to excel at portraits to know and understand, but my argument is that these should be used as a foundation for creativity rather than a set of boundaries for it.

Its like saying that if you want to do a "painting" you have to study Monet and Van Gogh and people like that because those paintings are nearly universally accepted as excellent and they have a certain set of rules that are followed. But then where the hell does a guy like Mark Rothko (one of my favorite artists of all time) or Piet Mondrian get off? :) Mondrian only uses a few primary colors and limits himself to only using right angles, and freakin Rothko....he just puts together color fields!!!!! ;)

So I agree with you about this part: "if you are an aspiring portrait photographer and you want your work to be as good as possible, I suggest that you look through books of fine art and portrait photography. Edward Steichen would be a good place to start, then move forward to more modern portraitists such as Annie Leibovitz". Yep, study people who were and/or are REALLY GOOD to see what they have done. But don't limit yourself to what they did, or to the set of rules any of them followed. If everyone did that...the whole artform would get stagnant IMHO.

And as for negative space....I can think of a number of compositions where 80% or 90% negative space is a fantastic choice. IMHO, having a sea of negative space around a subject really focuses your attention on the subject ;) I am going to make it a point to try and produce an image that approaches 99% negative space just for you...so check my photoblog out over the next few days ;)

So there's my additional 2 cents....and I have to add that I am glad to see a new WS member who is clearly spending some time evaluating other people's work and then providing detailed comments.

:>)

Monet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Picasso, Rauschenberg, they all broke the rules, didn't they? And they were despised before they were acclaimed.
I agree though, it takes a certain amount of studying if you pretend to become an artist. But people who become artists forget what they've learnt at some point, and follow their own path. The others are technicians.

The image may breaking the rules for composition but in this case I believe it works quite well, there is a nice balance happening. It's not a Steichin or a Leibovitz but I don't think that was the aim of the picture. I personally would have given it a 4 for composition because of the balance.

Oh come on, breaking the rules is a rule now. What I see here is a portrait (with large negative space) that is overdone, I've seen this so many times before.

I see that my :>) was not interpreted as I wished it to be. Does anyone know how to make a "zipped lip" emoticon? I just wanted to allow Jarret's eloquent response to my comments to be the last word.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

King thanks for pointing Steichen, I will get his book. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that Annie Leibovitz does not do any self-portraits. I think she did one in her entire carreer. Self-portraits are more personal; they do not have a bank account, and that is why most photographer do not specialize in them. For this particular reason self-portraiture allows you to have infinite control over your work, and most of the time they do reflect the personnality of the photographer. In this case you probably had the best description, I am indeed a noncoformist rule breaker. Anyhow, the nonconformism in this picture seemed to have appealed to many other members.
Finally, constructive comments that raise so much polemic are always welcome 1!!

Haiete, whose beautiful and thoughtful photography I respect and admire so much...since you mentioned me by name: my references to Steichen and Leibovitz were in regard to portraiture in general and not aimed at self-portraiture, which you described so well. And as for breaking rules, there is a school of thought that art isn't Art unless it stretches boundaries and breaks new ground. I think the great artists do this.