Welcome to the poll for our September "Portraits" photo contest! Select the photo you think is the best from among our finalists below:

#1.


#2.


#3.


#4.


#5.


#6.


#7.


#8.


#9.


#10.


#11.


#12.


#13.


#14.


#15.

[PsychFilms]

I voted for #5, but #7 & #8 were equally good. Some portraits were too tight, like #11, meaning there should be some background and space around the head (intense woman though). I thought #12 was excellent also (guy with guitar), but not 'portrait' enough for me (meaning more head-shot). Here's my criteria: I think you should be able to see into the person's soul in a portrait. 2) lighting 3) background or overall composition.


Special consideration is #3 (black woman) simple and powerful.
Congrats to all that entered. They are all excellent! Bart

[PlumCrazy]

Who is Chelsea Northrup?

The Internet Photography / Equipment Review team of Tony & Chelsea Northrup.....they are everywhere on you tube.

[grey goat]

Interesting selection of portraits. Many are excellent, however, I wonder if the ones with pets will get more votes than the ones without. Going forward, I would make two portrait contests: People without pets & those with pets.

Interesting point. I think there'll always be people drawn to whatever animal is in the photo--dog, cat, eagle, hummingbird--though there are some animals that would be poor vote draws for whatever reason. That said, if the votes revealed in this thread are any indication, most voters don't seem overly swayed by the presence of an animal. Of course, the votes of those who don't reveal anything in this thread may tell a different story.

Another way to separate the images in this particular contest would be to have separate contests for studio portraits and non-studio portraits. One thing I find interesting, though, is that a couple of the images here that are or seem to be studio portraits have marks that appear to be from dust on the sensor which could and should have been taken care of at some point; that detracts somewhat from the images' other qualities--for me, anyway. If they hadn't been studio portraits, I'd have probably found those spots far less annoying.

As with others posting in this thread, I have definite likes and dislikes regarding these portraits. But that's how it always is, isn't it? I don't have the negative reaction to watermarks some do, for instance: this is, after all, a casual contest and it's online, which is very different than a print contest in which judging would be blind. I mean, it's easy enough to ferret out who made a certain image here with or without a watermark. But if it bothers a viewer, I certainly don't have any problem with their not voting for a watermarked photograph. And I don't have a problem with people voting for an image with a pet or a dust spot.

We all have our individual criteria when it comes to voting in these contests. As far as I know, the only hard and fast rule is that the photograph must have been made with a Pentax or Ricoh camera and/or lens. After that, it's all down to individual taste.

Enjoy it for what it is. . . .

[amirsk]

A few but given the lighting I'm including towards #4 the young girl

[Deesquared]

I vote for #7
Lots of beautiful work here. Well done, all!

[Buckeyemikie]

Interesting point. I think there'll always be people drawn to whatever animal is in the photo--dog, cat, eagle, hummingbird--though there are some animals that would be poor vote draws for whatever reason. That said, if the votes revealed in this thread are any indication, most voters don't seem overly swayed by the presence of an animal. Of course, the votes of those who don't reveal anything in this thread may tell a different story.

Another way to separate the images in this particular contest would be to have separate contests for studio portraits and non-studio portraits. One thing I find interesting, though, is that a couple of the images here that are or seem to be studio portraits have marks that appear to be from dust on the sensor which could and should have been taken care of at some point; that detracts somewhat from the images' other qualities--for me, anyway. If they hadn't been studio portraits, I'd have probably found those spots far less annoying.

As with others posting in this thread, I have definite likes and dislikes regarding these portraits. But that's how it always is, isn't it? I don't have the negative reaction to watermarks some do, for instance: this is, after all, a casual contest and it's online, which is very different than a print contest in which judging would be blind. I mean, it's easy enough to ferret out who made a certain image here with or without a watermark. But if it bothers a viewer, I certainly don't have any problem with their not voting for a watermarked photograph. And I don't have a problem with people voting for an image with a pet or a dust spot.

We all have our individual criteria when it comes to voting in these contests. As far as I know, the only hard and fast rule is that the photography must have been made with a Pentax or Ricoh camera and/or lens. After that, it's all down to individual taste.

Enjoy it for what it is. . . .

Good points, grey goat. Full disclosure: Not a pet person, but you've already guessed that. Nevertheless, portrait contests are always interesting & that includes those with pets.

[TREV JOHN B]

I believe that # 7 is an incredible picture as it tells a story of love between a young girl and her dog.

[Pknot]

Some of these finalists aren't what I would even consider portraits. But #5, #11, and #14 are the best examples of this format.

[reh321]

I tend not to vote in the photo contests, because they tend to be more about "PP" than about photography per se, but this month who knows if one post will make the difference between receiving a DA* 11-18mm and not receiving it.

[Lightraych]

#4 is my choice

[hilojoe]

#7: The composition, color, and shadow are quite well done.

[Titia]

This is how I see the finalists:
#1 - would've been a great portrait if the girl had been dressed in today's clothing. Excluded due to the watermark
#2 - beautiful portrait. Excluded due to the watermark
#3 - it's a portrait, but way too much contrast for me
#4 - one of my favorites, it shows innocense in a rather natural way
#5 - beautiful girl, beautiful cat, but too much 'staged' for me
#6 - really love this photo, but it's in the wrong contest
#7 - same as #5, too much staged anticipating on oh how sweet
#8 - nice photo, but excluded due to watermark
#9 - nice photo, but the focus is not on the person, but what's in the hands
#10 - it's a portrait but I would've loved to see at least something of her other eye, it doesn't say WOW
#11 - beautiful portrait which invites us to look closer and deeper into this woman's soul
#12 - nice photo but it only tells me that this man is a guitar player
#13 - this could've been a wonderful portrait if it wasn't such a narrow closeup. I would've loved to see his hair, his ears and chin
#14 - lovely portrait, but too much is just too much, there's no skin texture visible anymore. Also excluded due to watermark
#15 - beautiful photo, but I want to see the person's eyes so I can look deeper into their soul.

So I voted for photo # 11, it arouses my imagination and the more I look into her eyes the more I wonder what's in her head.

[David Lamplough]

Welcome to the poll for our September "Portraits" photo contest! Select the photo you think is the best from among our finalists below:

#1.


#2.


#3.


#4.


#5.


#6.


#7.


#8.


#9.


#10.


#11.


#12.


#13.


#14.


#15.

My vote is for Image #7

[bladawiec]

#14 - lovely portrait, but too much is just too much, there's no skin texture visible anymore. Also excluded due to watermark

Not a watermark but a logo on the jacket (?).

[Sir Nameless]

Yeah, if that’s a watermark it’s also a trademark violation =D