Bad hair day

Photo Information
Thought I'd give this a try. I doubt it works well at Gallery resolution. Try viewing large and vary the viewing distance.
30/03/2015 - 21:18WaypointCharlie
CategoryPortraits / People
Shutter Speed1/125
Focal Length55mm


Link Posted 30/03/2015 - 21:50
Very weird, whatever the size. But it's good to experiment.
Best wishes,


"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website:


Link Posted 30/03/2015 - 21:58
-Just sat down after giving you a long loud round of applause. Imagination personified. No idea how you accomplished the final image but the fact that it was done so expertly- well conceived, executed- above the top most shelf, shelf. -- T
"It's not what you look at that's important, it's what you see" - Thoreau


Link Posted 31/03/2015 - 01:52
Imaginative is certainly the word.
I don't like it at all but I can see that it has been perfectly produced
Both the *istDS and the K5 are incurably addicted to old glass

My page on Photocrowd - link


Link Posted 31/03/2015 - 09:44
davidwozhere wrote:
Imaginative is certainly the word.
I don't like it at all but I can see that it has been perfectly produced

I agree with David, but it does somehow compel you to look at it. Unnerving.


Link Posted 31/03/2015 - 13:35
A Dorian Gray look. Not sure what you were aiming for but well done for trying something different



Link Posted 31/03/2015 - 15:53
Thanks guys for your comments and especially to David for saying he doesn't like it at all. Much as I like positive comments it's honest answers I really crave as they help me to learn and improve.

I agree, it is a bit of an ugly mess. I've since tweaked it slightly but it's still not something you'd want to bump into on a dark night.

I'm interested in human visual perception - I think photographers should be (after all, colour constancy is why we white balance). So, this image is a attempt to play games with our sensitivity to spatial frequency. In order to be effective it needs to be viewed large and at higher resolution than the Gallery will accept. It needs to be viewed near and at quite a distance. Even then it will only work if you have decent visual acuity. I believe that sensitivity peaks in your 20's at about 5 cycles per degree and can fall off towards 1 cycle per degree in older age.

Hopefully it will work better printed. If it does I might I'll enter it as 'Judge Bait' for the club portrait comp. It might get zero or even be disqualified, but then that's the fun of it, otherwise club competitions can get too serious!


Link Posted 31/03/2015 - 16:40
I like it beacuse pp is original...even if it misses of something difficult to explain...but I'm looking at a mix of 2 different faces: male and female.....You ought to split this feature IMHO..i.e. smoothing eyes and area of brow....I look at a female just there...Anycase a readable experiment
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.