The image at first glance looks like a poorly photoshopped image. The lighting is all over the place and nothing matches up right. Her hair, unless zoomed in, looks like it isn't cropped/cleaned up properly. The background is decently done but looks out of place with the woman sitting on a table with a candle stand, at a warf/docks, and a random fox? The image doesn't make sense as a whole; very jumbled.
On closer inspection you can tell the effort of editing the images, but it doesn't make sense as a full composition. The image of the woman is done very well with good intention, just fix the extra lighting issues.
Personally I am unsure how this got a DD with how unfinished and disorganized it looks...
Just curious though, were you aware that this is actually a stock image and therefore is more than likely meant to be an unfinished photo? Stock images are generally unfinished so an artist can create their own finished artwork based off it.
Anyway, was just curious if you realized the category for this as I know many people are not aware of what stock is and it may help explain the lack of finishing touches.
It's still stock regardless of what folder she put it in. Some people do edit their stock some; some edit them a lot. Doesn't make it any less stock worthy and no reason why she can't consider it art as well. This is no different than offering premade backgrounds. Premades are photomanips designed to be stock so they are never complete but left needing tons of work.
In photography in order to get dramatic effects, backlighting is often used. As can be seen in the image above, backlighting as been used. How can I tell? The "bleed-through" of light along her arms and hair. This is agonizingly obvious as to the fact that her surroundings/background does not match what was obviously previously there.
If she is considering this a completed piece she forgot three major things:
1.) Backlighting issues unresolved
2.) Disorganized and jumbled pieces of picture plane (Her on a table obviously out of place against wharfs/docks, with the fox tossed in)
3.) Unresolved compositional direction (obviously changed her mind at least twice about how to put things together)
If she is considering this a manip/stock she is forgetting this:
1.) Compositional awareness and balance
If this is a stock it is a poorly put together one, designed to create an extreme challenge for someone planning on using it. If it is merely a manip, it isn't one that was well thought out. If this is a Stock, then why was more effort put into preventing the obvious backlighting as this would cause a great deal of frustration in editing? Why is she tossed into a background that doesn't make sense? Why is the editing poorly done?
This is not a proper compositional piece nor is it a proper stock. It is a piece that has been photoshopped for the sake of art purposes but is not a finished product.
Also did I ever say she couldn't consider it art? No.I said it wasn't a completed piece. Personally it's a great start towards a better piece, but it isn't done.
I find that she is very talented and have personally added her to my Watch list to see how she improves or the new things she does. She's very creative and beautiful, but I still stand that this particular piece is not the best in her gallery.
It's not the artist's "fault", for lack of a better word, that this got a DD, so posting "I'm unsure how this got a DD" to the artist is pretty rude. If you have a problem with the DD selection, talk to the CV who featured it.
Did I say it was their fault? NO.So don't put words in my mouth.
I simply stated I was unsure how it got a DD based on my observations. The piece doesn't look finished or properly balanced whereas all of the other DDs do. Which I pointed out the image doesn't look done, balanced, or even well thought out.
It's not rude, it's honesty. How? is simply my question.
It's rude because you're basically telling the artist that their art isn't worth a DD, which isn't something that the artist needs to hear in a critique. If you wanted to give them helpful criticism, there was no need to mention, "I'm unsure how this got a DD" in your critique, because that has no viable purpose in being in a critique. That's like saying, "Picasso's work has anatomical issues, and it's extremely disorganized, but I guess the colour's okay. I don't know why it ended up in a gallery, though." The first part is fine. The last part is unnecessary.
The last part wasn't part of the critique hence the break between them.
Also as far as I am concerned it's not worth the DD. The separate pieces of the actual piece were great, the composition itself looks unfinished. The artist themselves is very talented, this piece itself doesn't show the true talent of the artist, which is why I don't think it deserves the DD. There are far more, more accurately photoshopped and thought out pieces that could've gotten the slot.
Now this piece:
Which has a strong uniform structure, proper lighting (doesn't look like she's slapped into the middle of it), and actually makes sense together I could see as a DD.
Comparing a poorly photoshopped image to picasso is laughable, EVERYTHING he did was deliberate and balanced. This piece in question isn't. Sorry if you think its "rude" to say that a better picture could've/should've gotten the feature (or even a different one of this artist). I commend the artist for getting the slot, but it doesn't mean that I have to agree that they deserved it for that particular piece.