I think you've "dramatized" your description somewhat. The picture is just a snapshot to me. Quite a bad one, to be frank.
The flare doesn't work at all here. Increasing the contrast doesn't help either, as what brinkwine has kindly experimented with. Now the blob of light at the bottom becomes an even greater distraction than the flare.
You must have a very high standard then.
Contrast is all the more vital precisely because you made it monochrome. It's too washed out at the moment, bring tonality back into that pallid skintone. Portrait would have been a better format choice as well. What's the difference if you had taken the photo with the subject directly backlit instead?
This image belongs somewhere in the middle of its series and I wouldn't reccommend it to be chosen as a stand alone or the cover image. It's rather ambiguous and doesn't explain who, where & why without your writeup (of course that wouldn't matter if it's only meant for your congregation). However I was looking for a more 'dramatic/animated' expression than this, this looks like a rather normal emotional (singing) gesture actually.
I guess it's interesting... Might one say for this image, without the flare, the image loses its intention? Initial attention might be the subject but the flare steals limelight due to how it's intrepreted in certain cultures. It's hard to ignore even for me, despite my nonreligious beliefs.
I understand the need for contrast in a monochrome image. That's a given. Getting the subject directly backlit would probably have resulted in the flare disappearing, contrast coming back, but also a less dramatic image overall, imho. There would've been a rim-light, but the look would have been different. I agree that portrait format would probably have been a better approach, but I was afraid to go to portrait orientation because his hands were flailing around sideways a lot.
This image is indeed in the middle of a series, as what I initially pointed out. I'm with you in the view that it would work better in a series, definitely not a stand-alone image.
Much of the motivation and intention (along with inspiration for the title) comes from the flare really. It is hard to balance the flare with the contrast levels in the image, and it is harder for viewers to think out of the box (as is evident here).
shot with a Canon EOS 1DMkII with Ls? hmmm..
so just a summarize, lacks of contrasts and blacks; which is why you
wanted the angelic feel which is why it looks soft, but if the 'majestic'
feel comes in the picture, whole idea is is wrong.
imo, position yourself abit to the left to cut down down on the amount
of light and give abit more room on his left hand would do abit of justice.
imho, 'glorious' for a choral conductor looks like a smiling man, eyebrows up
and eyes closed showing he's done his job and is sure he had done it right.
here, none explains majestic to me.
so i think, shoot more.
I believe one should not judge an image by the gear used to capture it. Why does it matter? I do not understand your statement "which is why you
wanted the angelic feel which is why it looks soft, but if the 'majestic'
feel comes in the picture, whole idea is is wrong." So angels are not necessarily majestic, and is there really only one way to interpret majestic?
I'm not trying to be defensive of my image, but I guess there really is a lack of open-mindedness even within the critique corner community. Everybody pursues technical perfection, and sure why not? Technical perfection is good. It sets an objective standpoint for what is right, wrong, good and bad. It is easy to keep to the rules, and to the mainstream of what people think is a right photo, but it is not easy to be unconventional.
I have textbook shots within the series too, and granted, there must be a time to keep rules and break rules. This is probably one such example. Subject clearly in focus, other elements nicely blurred out, but also adding to the story.
What does a choral conductor doing his job right have to do with glorious? IMHO, it is merely fulfilling his responsibility. I do not see how an image as such would have a glorious, or majestic feel to it. I do believe (like what foxtwo mentioned), the flare, or similar lightness, brightness or glow, is usually interpreted as such.
By the way, this was not shot with L glass, so I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
ok, i personally would have rathered the spotlight be directly behind him. that way you can get that rim light that illuminates him. this looks like it's a big mess with the flare washing out your picture. clean up the rest of the background like brinkwine's example and it might have been a wicked shot
The common consensus seems to be that the background be cleaned up and the flare be lost. I would agree with the background being cleaned up. Seems like a good move. However, like in my response to foxtwo, removing the flare would remove a large amount of the motivation for this image's story and title. I will try again with tweaking the contrast, especially on the subject.
I don't see what's wrong with the flare and strong light behind if it's meant to be part of the composition. I'm assuming that TS had intentionally included the back light source and the flare so what may be a distraction to some works for others - that includes me. Know the rules, and break them when you need to IMHO.
I'm glad someone sees it from another perspective. I guess a large majority of this community still judges an image solely by its technical excellence.
Honestly, the inclusion of the backlight was intentional, but the flare was unexpected. He was actually lit with a rim-light when in his previous position, but once he moved to this position, he revealed the lights behind him such that they were directly in my face, and that was when I shot. I had only realised it after the event.