Crowd

[ratio]

This shot is from a recent Soccer/ Football game in Sydney, Australia.

[tirediron]

Not entirely sure what there is to critique about this image. Quite honestly, it looks to me nothing more than an accidental exposure. There's no clear main subject, no leading lines, and the upper half of the image is nothing but grass. Additionally, most of the people have their backs to the camera. If there's something you're want to say or show with this image, you'll have to share it with us before we can provide truly effective critique, otherwise I'm afraid it doesn't have much to reccomend it.

[ratio]

Not entirely sure what there is to critique about this image. Quite honestly, it looks to me nothing more than an accidental exposure. There's no clear main subject, no leading lines, and the upper half of the image is nothing but grass. Additionally, most of the people have their backs to the camera. If there's something you're want to say or show with this image

It is a very measured and intentional photograph - I watched and waited until all parts of the image sufficed. Aesthetically, it is minimal, the image can be divided into negative and positive fields. My art practice involves the exploration of the human form in an environmental context. With this work, the majority of the people depicted have their backs to the camera; with this aspect I am commenting on and opposing the ultra saturation of our visual vocabulary with images of people - individuals, families, friends - snapped every second around the globe, frontal, candid, cute, nice, and try and offer a different vision. The anonymity of individuals in crowds is one aspect I am currently exploring.

go to my website for more images about such matters:

http://www.jordanstokes.net/photography.html


Beyond that, it seems I'm posting in the wrong crowd

[tirediron]

Well, that does indeed make a difference, you have chosen a very specialized discipline of photography, and I for one do not feel qualified to comment on the artistic aspects of your work, however I am sure there are others who can assist.

[AcadieLibre]

Sorry but for me the photo fails on every point you mentioned. This is just an opinion but looks flat. Then you have the cut off back of the heads your eyes go right to them, then the other two places that draw your eyes are the man facing with his arms crossed and then the man with the profile. These are all to distracting to pull off the image your saying your trying to achieve. Like the idea but I just don't see it working in this photo.

[Marko]

I must agree with the other posters here - this image is not working for me for the same reasons as already mentioned.

I've said this in the past, if the image works for you, then it works. Period.

But to say you're posting to the wrong crowd....I would disagree. Between us (the members on this forum) we have loads of experience, DECADES of experience and you asked for a critique where now 3 members are suggesting this shot doesn't work.

Again feel free to ignore our advice, it's your shot, but maybe, just maybe, we are correct and this shot is simply not working. It happens to photographers of all levels. Just my

[Ben H]

I agree. While I can sorta see what the OP was going for, the shot is too similar to a random snapshot capture to reveal much of the artistic intent.

If for example, the stadium was empty, short of one spectator placed in a powerful framing position, something that's a bit more visibly artistic, the shot might be more interesting. Especially if the depth of field and other visual cues were strengthening the subject.

But as it is, I don't think it's communicating what the OP intended - the message is not clear - which has to mean that the shot isn't working - certainly at least for the people here that have commented the same opinion.