Hi,

while I generally agree with jaded-august on her critique when it comes to details, I personally believe that your originally very good concept could have been better developed. This does not mean that your technique isn't good, quite on the contrary! But I lack a certain consistency between input and form. I will come back to this.

First, a few words on your technique. You have good control over the composition, the crop emphasizes all the parallel vertical lines and there is a nice calming feeling in the way how all elements are roughly equal in size and evenly distributed. This creates a good visual background for one focal point, which is the bottom one of the cranes (because of the selective sharpness). Personally I would choose the one higher and to the left (closer to the natural "hot spot" according to the rule of thirds), at this moment it is not exactly clear which one of the two is more in focus, I find it a bit confusing. Nevertheless, your selective, deliberate use of shallow depth of focus adds to the composition. On the downside, jaded-august is right: the blob of light in the top 1/3 of the background takes too much attention, keep in mind that the viewer's eye will always automatically go to the brightest area of the image. I don't think it was intended, unless you wanted to suggest something? I can easily imagine this bright light to be some sort of flame, this would correspond nicely with the paper (flammable) cranes, but if it was so then it is visually not strong enough. To summarise: your technique is overall very good, and there is nothing that some selective dodge/burn couldn't help.

Now for the content. As far as I understand, you are planning to show this picture at your intake exam for some sort of art academy. I do not claim to be an artist, but I do see there is a lot of content here, which is good and will certainly be praised. This is a very conceptual kind of photography, the kind I personally enjoy a lot. This said, I must add that in my opinion you are trying to say too much and in a too straightforward way. Instead of visually suggesting certain aspects of your identity, you literally write them down and photograph text. Furthermore, since the text in the picture is illegible due to selective sharpness, your interpretation is 100% dependant on the written description. Without a word from you, there is no way for the viewer to know what you want to say. This does not disqualify your concept, but is deadly for a photograph. What people say is, photographs are like jokes - if you have to explain what they are about, they are not good anymore.

Now, as I said, this does not disqualify your concept, I still believe it's very good. If I were you though, I would choose between either photographing it in a much more abstract way or (maybe?) delivering the whole installation INSTEAD of the picture. Maybe let the viewer (or the examination commission) unfold each crane and read a short passage about you themselves?

To sum it all up, just one word of advice: please remember that your image is already a part of your identity - your technique, the way you use colours and texture, the choice of subject and medium - there is already a tremendous load of information that you put in your work subconsciously. It's already there, and it's good. What you should watch out for is that you do not overdo it, do not impose the interpretation on your viewer. The more gates you leave open, the more you make them engage in your photography. You have the technique and the ideas, now it's time to let go, think less and feel more.

cheers, Tom

I think that in concept this piece on identity is strong. It's definitely a different and original way through photography to portray who you are and who you've yet to become. It definitely derails from just a standard "here's where I love" or "here is my family" this is who I am type thing. it shows pieces and complexity and yet, in a way I think that the sameness of the birds derails entirely from what you wanted to achieve.

Identity is a need to be different, pieces that make up a unique person. We're not all made of the same, identical, well fitting pieces. We're unique combination of people, environment and events. It's those combination that make us strong and unique as people, and I think to the opposite degree its the sameness that takes away some of the impact of what this piece could be.

I think another thing that impacts the quality of this deviation is the background and the use of bokeh. I'm usually amoung the biggest admirers of your photos and I love your use of colours and bokeh and to bring the attention to the foreground and subject of your photo. In this particular piece I find it almost does the opposite though. The colours distract from the black and white birds, and the background in its own way almost over powers them, my eye is drawn to it instead of the focus of the imagine which should be the cranes. The fact most of the birds are blurred out seems to go against your reason for the piece as well. Instead of showing the different pieces that have made you who you are, its as is only a couple things are being focused on and matter; and getting to know you as I have since last year I know you're a much more complex person that that.