by odradek » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:22 am
ok, masturbatory critique ahead. photo stuff aside, there are two big things setting aside the lookbook shot and your shot. big one is the lack of shoes. the texture on the pants is really apparent in that lookbook shot and looks like something you'd wear at the beach, so the bare feet looks good whereas the birks don't seem to mix in well. some kind of south american peasant shoe seems like it would fit well (though i find myself recommending that option a lot). the second and more conceptual and therefore wank-y idea is that the lookbook shot has very vertical lines in the pants, both a result of the cuffs folding the fabric and the excess fabric in the crotch hanging down, which is then contrasted by an over and across upswept fabric of the hooded cloak/cape/coat thing. your photo has the vertical lines in the pants feeding into the smooth shoes, with no break, plus the shirt also has vertical lines, sweeping down and out from the shoulder, giving the impression of width into the hips and then all the way through the legs. this plays into what raags mentioned about the thing he posted: you've got the bag breaking up the vertical lines, the waistline breaking up the vertical lines, and the pants coming to a more complete stop.
this is, of course, all just theoretical hand-waving, but i'd be interested to see if how these pieces would work if you could break up the very up-and-down lines you've got going.