Hey /p/, I've tried to do something new today, but it doesn't look too great, looking for some advice/tips on making this look better.
I wanted to do a contemporary They Live kinda thing with big text on large LED TV's but it doesn't really look like that, also the brick wall is an overlay but I think that looks alright. Any advice or tips on making this look better?
Looks like shit
>>2785251
his ears look like 2 red peppers
>>2785251
Did you just add that writing in Photoshop? The real solid saturation of those ugly boxes draws attention in a bad way.
If you are going to have something draw so much focus its best you make it look immaculate. In this case, it looks contrived and uncomfortable.
The photo would have been even better without the writing in the bottom right. Fuck, axe the fucking writing maybe? Photography is oft about subtly, this is NOT graphic design. While the two fields oft overlap, I feel that graphic design is a different field that has different rules.
Don't get me wrong, your image isn't great from a photography or a graphic design point of view. It is probably more conceptual design work, but that doesn't make it a good exemplar.
Either route that you go I feel that subtlety of message is important. By presenting your focal point in blown out red you have committed the visual-art equivalent of premature ejaculation. You've given the viewer scarce little reason to look at your picture for more than 3 seconds without contemplating really anything.
I don't mean to offend you and always admire new attempts or techniques. But I thought I would try and be as clear as possible in my CC to give you more than a "looks like shit". I want to tell you white it looks like shit so that you can improve.
>>2785314
Yeah, that was due to lighting.
>>2785340
Regarding subtly you are wrong, it should not be. see pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:10:01 00:45:32 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1212 Image Height 864
>>2785340
Also the large red screens were shot from large pieces of plexiglass to try to imitate something physical rather than a slab of static red, but it didn't work out the way I wanted, any advice?
>>2785438
forgot pic
>>2785436
The whole aesthetic (sorry for the buzz word) is horrible. redbrick is a horrible texture and the fact that everything is sort of collaged together from different .png files(?) is really obvious, even though it is seamless. i think as a general rule, everything in everything you create should be done practically, and if it cant be done practically dont do it. these days everyone hates on shit thats done on computers for whatever reason. im rabling probably cause im drunk but the main point is this- it probably would have been ugly no matter what you did. it just has that modern, stock image look that is widely disregarded and disliked within the photography comunity (i assume) and probably on some unconscious level within the proles.
>>2785438
They look pasted on because of the contrast difference and lightning mismatch with the background.
>>2785438
>>2785436
I stand by my critique that you should aim for subtlety if you were going for something artistic and photographic. If you wanted to be absolutely overt with your subject thats fine, but you will find people will see your work as shallow and boring.
I'm not saying you should aim for that cryptic interpretationalism that modern art has succumb to. But so blatantly playing your hadn as you have done feels crass and cheap.
Have a look of this photo by Kory Zuccarelli. He titled it "Fracturing Conformity". His photo, as well as the name more aesthetically represents the themes it seems you were trying to.
Even if you were going for an Orwellian look there were a million better ways to do it.
How much text to you see in truly great photographs? I've always felt that text was often the anti-thesis to photography. A photograph should be able to convey meaning with little text.
Even when there is text it should be a subject rather than text. You've put so much writing in your photo it is just distracting. Take the photo/still that you posted here:
>>2785436
The word "OBEY" forms a dominant part of the image. Even with part of it being occluded we still know what the word is. The dead-faced corporate image reinforces a strong message of loss of autonomy and 'corporate zombie' like motif. Yes this image has text, but its explicit message plays of a more subtle theme (not saying it is a great image but it is decent for inspiration).
Compare that to yours now. Aside from technical failings (blown red channels are often really ugly) you have all this text that a reader probably won't bother to read. One strong subject in your image (the figure in the centre) is almost shapeless and devoid of form (could play into your theme but if feels a bit contrived to say the least).
Again, I sound harsh but it is clear you are dedicated to making something interesting. As a result you should be ready for harsh CC.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2786989
that photo is shit though anon.
im not op also.
but yeah its overproduced and doesent look real. and the message is quite patronizing the way that it is told.
>>2785251
Is that you? You're blocking the whole goddamn theme of the photo. Fix that first.
Shoot a flash on his back
