I like it as a traditional portrait triptych but it's also kind of simple - I think you could have at least experimented with a little more variety, even if it was just cropping or moving images slightly to create a more unique image, then decided which way to go with. I do like the lighting.
Will-- I agree with Juan. As a portrait its strong, no question and the lighting is nice. I also like the studio set up shot with the different lighting, but that's another story.
But what happens with the image as a triptych is that one says, oh I see, he took one image and split it up into three" the question then becomes why or why is that special. It think that is where you lose the value of the triptych.
More awkward splicing together of the iamges, or having the images taken from different vantage points and then assembled like this might have created new approaches and make this image a success.
I like it as a traditional portrait triptych but it's also kind of simple - I think you could have at least experimented with a little more variety, even if it was just cropping or moving images slightly to create a more unique image, then decided which way to go with. I do like the lighting.
ReplyDeleteThanks Juan!
ReplyDeleteWill--
ReplyDeleteI agree with Juan. As a portrait its strong, no question and the lighting is nice. I also like the studio set up shot with the different lighting, but that's another story.
But what happens with the image as a triptych is that one says, oh I see, he took one image and split it up into three" the question then becomes why or why is that special. It think that is where you lose the value of the triptych.
More awkward splicing together of the iamges, or having the images taken from different vantage points and then assembled like this might have created new approaches and make this image a success.
Thanks for the reply Stefan, I have some other photos from the shoot and I might try some other arrangements.
ReplyDelete