The photo shows a wesh, an Arab born in France. Most of them live from welfare or do modest jobs. Society does not marginalize them but do not gave them any real chances either. Wesh are not really interested in french society forming their own subculture.

This photo was rejected badly.   What could be the reason? Perhaps I should have removed the logos? Is there any technical fault?

I used a Canon EOS 80D, f4.5, 1/80, ISO 100, Lens Canon EF-S 55-250mm. I replaced the background in Photoshop.

Hi Paul and thank you for sharing this fine image with all. - Welcome to " The Real Critique " I love portrait Paul I love trying to capture that special moment, that special composition, that special backdrop.

Your image when it comes to portraits the backdrop can be as important as the main subject - Replacing your backdrop to a black one was not a good idea in my view - Your subjects hair is lost in the darkness - Remember people voting in selection are photographers ... well most of them think they are.

Yes you are right about the logos I would have removed them - also maybe more space around your subject would have helped. I find your camera setting used quite good for ovell all qulaity well done. - As a stand out portrait it's ok but as we all know ok is not good enough to get a published image through selection.

Just another thought - My last four images posted in selection have been rejected some with quite low scores so I have an idea what you received on this one. - Gamma Selection is work in progress and I do think the bar has been raised quite a bit. - The Expert Curators are given quite low marks lately on portrait  so we are all feeling the heavy hit.

Hi Daniel

Thank you for your critique. Yes, background matters more than we think. Specially in street photography the background is a great challange. Thanks again.

Hi Paul, I do agree with Daniel's points. The eye is also the key to portraiture. I understand that it is pretty challenging to get when it comes to candid portraiture. Then it is crucial to capture as many as possible for selection later. 

Sometimes interesting candid portraiture can stem from the subject surrounding environment. Hence, the background doesn't have to be dark or black all the time.

Dear Paul,

The portrait you posted is not exactly what 1x stands for, artistic photography. Basically it is an online gallery, so photos should be attractive to buy, either decorative, story.telling or moody. At the same time it has this phototography community aspect, like our forum, to receive some appreciation for work or exchange about techniques, maybe get inspired.

You used a pretty flat light , nothing photographers fall for. Your model is also not too interesting or attrctive, female curves have better chances, I'd say. The lack of anything really interesting in it, his rather emotion-less expression, and technical flaws like missing sharpness and the separation from background will probably lead to a low rating amongst photographers. If you shoot men outdoors, you can still find directional light. Shadows are key in male portraits. I also wonder why one ear is sharp and the other is not. An editing flaw maybe when exchanging the background? 

I would recommmend to study the physics of light a bit more, to know what to look for in next shots. bringing somebody close to a window and turn him or her away from it gives you directional light falling off to the side pretty strongly, for example. The closer the person is to the window, the stronger light falls off. Vary distances and angles with a model patient enough to support your experiment. You can do a lot with given light, a refleector and maybe a backdrop also flexible in distance.  Only experience will make you master light and be prepared for setting the mood you want in next photographs.

Best regards,

Mike

Paul,

First, thank you for participting in Critique.  The photo has technical imperfections that have been pointed out already.  What intrigues me about the portrait is the expression.  It's difficult to describe.  Words are dull servants.  He looks a bit haughty, arrogant, but aloof as well.  A bit confident, but insecure at the same time.  The direct, straight-into-the-camera pose, and the slightly lower than eye level viewpoint contribute to the look.   I've often thought that when we make a portrait we're showing the person's featues, but we're also capturing their reaction to us, the photographer. 

One of my favourite photographs from History is Paul Strand's 'Young Boy, Gondeville, France'.  There's something about the subject's expression that will forever remain a mystery.  It's so intense.   If you want to take a look, you can see it on Google, or use this link . . . .

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/124934

Do you have the original version of this photo?  I wonder if it would be better with the original background no matter how cluttered.  You did write suggesting that this is street photography.  There are Photoshop tools that can subdue a chaotic background short of complete replacement.   The contrast for this portrait is quite high, and it seems you uploaded a very small file - 800x1000 pixels, so it appears a bit soft because of the website's re-sizing step. 

. . . . Steven, senior critic