http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k217/bob100684/80d0f0f7.jpg


http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k217/bob100684/aec4e6f5.jpg

The top one looks like Photoshop was used to lighten the eyes (not saying it was, it just looks like it). The lighting seems a bit odd as well.

To answer this question at all, I'd really have to know "What's supposed to be wrong with them? Has anyone said there's something wrong? If, so who were they and what did they say?"

Notwithstanding this, I would agreed with Robert that the eyes in the top picture look unnatural (but maybe they're meant to). If the girl is meant to look like a zombie, then probably more work in Photoshop is needed. The guy is the lower picture has very dark nails, which could be due to nail varnish or the use of ortho film (or a blue filter on pan film). Once again, if a weird effect is what you're after, you possibly need to add more weirdness! The overriding criterion is - do the pictures please you? Do they say what you wanted them to say?

Please supply more details!

Regards,

David

In the first photo, I think the technical end looks fine. The eyes look odd because of the subject. I'm sure my laptop screen takes away from the quality of the original photo, but it looks like she's got bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils. The mascara takes away from natural beauty unless applied correctly. It isn't working for her, IMO. As long as I'm being critical of the subject, pierce something with substance... an earlobe, a nipple, whatever. All too often kids nowadays (Did I really just say that? I'm getting old.) just want to puncture the first piece of flesh they can pinch. Pierce an eyebrow 12 times and see if it can hold a shower curtain!
In the second photo, the whites appear too blown out. It's hard to see an outline of the complete hand and fingers in the areas over his neck and face. I think this would have been much better with just a little less contrast, IMO. It's a prime candidate for contrast with the dark coat/hat and light shirt/skin combined with a dark wall and white writing on it. As David says above... is it doing what you want it to do?
It's doubtful that my opinion helps, but rambling at 3am probably did more for me than for you. Keep shooting anyway!

Best Regards,
Chris

What`s most wrong is that the second image is taken with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel.

And the eyes in the first , sure looks like a lousy executed PS job.

So what`s your point?

What`s most wrong is that the second image is taken with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel.

And the eyes in the first , sure looks like a lousy executed PS job.

So what`s your point?

Hmmm... I didn't bother to look for digital signatures. Nice catch, Amund. Isn't posting digital photos here a no-no? Call Dubya. I think we've got a subversive here.

What`s most wrong is that the second image is taken with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel.


How can one tell if the posted photo was made with a digital camera?

In IE you need an program called a EXIF reader to see it, with Opera, wich I use, I see all the EXIF info with a right-click, gives med Camera model, shutter speed, aperture ect...


Here`s what I see:

Orientation of image: 1
File change date and time: 2006:05:01 07:17:47
Image input equipment manufacturer: Canon
Image input equipment model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Exposure time: 0.0166667
F number: 5.6
Exposure program: 5
ISO speed rating: 400
Shutter speed: 5.90689
Aperture: 4.97085
Exposure bias: 0
Maximum lens aperture: 1.6875
Metering mode: 5
Flash: 0
Lens focal length: 50

Yes and the first was scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V ED so it may be film originally. Saving the image and opening in PS will also get to the metadata. File > File Info. I have a program which allows metadata to be edited but it would be a bit pointless to substitute Canon EOS Digital rebel with Linhof Technica 4x5!!

Don't care too much for either shot. Either go way too far with the eyes and face and make a novelty shot or make a more conventional portrait.... this is lukewarm

Obviously the guy in the second photo has been developing prints in amidol without wearing gloves.
juan

Depends on the context...

If they're for an advertising campain for a band or Goth wannabe cosmetics company, they're pretty luke warm...if they're for Gramma and Grampa's Chrtistmas card, I'd try again.

Murray

ones digital, the other ine is emolol

They aren't very good?




Michael

Like the other guinea-photos (guinea-pigs - guinea-photos get it?) these don't appeal to me. Though I find these ones even less appealing because they have [weird] qualities to them that I don't appreciate.

what does the maker/user/owner/artist think is wrong with them?

what does the maker/user/owner/artist think is wrong with them?

honestly, I see nothing to like about them....sorry for one being digital, I just dont get why the people in them enjoy them so much

honestly, I see nothing to like about them....sorry for one being digital, I just dont get why the people in them enjoy them so much

That's called vanity. We all have it to some degree. The first photo is kind of horrific. The second looks like a homemade CD cover. It's at least better than the first.
Tell the dude that nitrile gloves will prevent the amidol stains.

The second one looks like a red filter in PS.

The eye's in the first one look like some type of undead creature.