The subject is nice, the masking is ... er ... useless and even annoying (Dof is here for masking). Or, if masking is needed and is a part of your work, then reframe the subject and put it centered so the we know that you wanted that.
But ... the subject keeps a great interest (textures, shades, etc.) and there you did a very nice job.
Ahhh, Georgia ... but ... it's not my cup of tea. So let that apart. You don't need an alibi for photography. What matters to me here is YOUR pic, and mainly the word "experiment". What to say ? Well, I like that pic. When I see it first time I wondered ... "what that damn thing is ?". Which is, for me, a good start (except for exterme macro works where we often don't even imagine what looks our Kellog's pack - or anything stupid - when viewed at 5:1). So, is it : some kind of japanese fish's side fin ? Some piece of butchery (liver ?) feathered ? Dunno. Don't care. Anyway, and most important, it's intriguing. So : mission completed.
One remark though : looking at it at this (small) size, I have the curious impression the edge of the thing is "cut" (or masked). if yes, I woud have preferred a fading edge (see also "dof" below) on the whole subject (even though it could look less mysterious ... ). Finally I wonder if I wouldn't have prefered the whole "orange thing" reframed full size ...
That's abstraction. Therefore any cretic is ... er... abstract. Anyway, as the pic is attractive and inteesting, let's take it as ... good. Too much dark (I mean black on black) parts, with no interest, IMOO. A little bit of reframing work is needed.
Use of camera,
Well ... speed 1600 for what ? Needed to stop "liver" action - kidding :-) - ? Too much light ? Anyway the result is nice and, work is done.
You say you worked at 2.8. Ok. So I suppose, while everything seems in focus, that the blurred part is somewhere on the black (masked) part of the image ? F2.8 is gives absolutely no advantage if nothing is oof (out of focus). Useless. The F letter is only useful for creating this oof effect and mask more or less completely the background. Knowing that, your pic would have been much better - and as mysterious - with the rest of the "think" largely blurred instead of masked, and the part of interest very sharp.
Except for black parts, the "thing" colors are not stunning but very nice, and lighting efficient. Which is the point, any way you get that (which relativizes my "exposure" comment)
10 easily gained. ;-) But no focus problem.
How to improve your photo
Work more on the DOF if your lens allows that. F2.8 allows it (probably not from the same distance - further then - , but it can do the job anyway)
Never mask a subject with plain color. Masking must easily be ugly. Or if you want it, treat it as vignetting and center the subject (okay, okay, it's art, so ..).
Put the subject more in focus. If you've worked on texture, let them in. In that case, I still believe that too much of the image is useless (and it's a shame because the color/texture part in itself would have made a great subject)
Get your photos reviewed by this GuruShots Pro
Since 9 years now, I shoot sports (mainly equine, and fast sports), industrial, nature night or day landscapes, architecture, animals, religious, and some studio work.
I had exhibitions (collective and solo) and some pics published in books and headline pictures in sports mag... but never been...
Jobs: 12 Jobs