Andrew Fildes <afildes@netlink.com.au> writes: > Brian Chandler - After Greg Fraser > Too confusing for me - colours are nice but the simplicity of a tulip is > preferable. Thanks for all the comments, which are appreciated whether plus or minus. Well, once again the gallery staffettes [gosh, is that the appropriate term?] have shown their genius by arranging four consecutive flowers in the top row. No mean feat [oof!], as these have a total of eight legs, illustrating that on average flowers are bipedal. Too confusing for you? What about the bee? Do you think the bee minds that the view is complicated? Or does it just home in on the goods? Isn't it rather a good strategy for the spider lily to have those two completely out-of-focus stamens pointing at us, so the bee is bound to get pollen all over his belly? A lone tulip, albeit with perfect zone-systemed exposure, may boast a certain classical grace, but how to find the entrance, even? So I'm afraid I have rather negative feelings about tulips. Ah, but my pic of the week is... the tulips. Roderick has made something out of tulips that isn't all that stuff above that turns me off tulips. And the tulips themselves are showing rather better dress sense than a lot of these garish red or yellow jobs we have in the garden do. I love the milky smooth background - a wonderful job! Well, jIMMY (how can I put this in language acceptable in Red Ken's London?) ... I can't stand *backgrounds* *without* *milk*. Couldn't you have faked something in your favourite image software? Putting that aside, yes it's a good fair cop. Particularly nice to see pentagonal symmetry getting a good showing. (Amusing to note your title: my spider lily page gets quite a few hits from people searching for "red spider".) I take Greg's word for it about the drink and absence of "rocket science" calculations, but this is a nice bloom. Oh, I suppose there might be nitpickers who claim this isn't a flower: well it's done by chemical gradients, exactly the way flowers know how to grow, and you should read all about it in "On Growth and Form", the best book ever written, to which no review of mine could do justice, but try http://imaginatorium.org/books/ogaf.htm (really must write that stuff about paper sizes some time). And is Christiane's set of reflections too confusing? Hmm, well, I seem to remember voting against some handbags and reflections in a window in Lausanne some time ago, but this is rather nice. Perhaps because it's black and white (and full of lovely texture), and the outermost layer - the window we're looking directly at - is not obstructed by the reflections. Rather we have to look into the window to see them. (I confess I can't *actually* quite work out what's going on, but get the feeling that's my inability to see, rather than a coverup job. Oh, yes, I meant to say, I really think talk of keystoning is just a cop-out. (^_^)) <niggle>Tiny, but nasty imperfections around the edge. Perhaps this is a flatbed scan - anyway it really needs trimming.</niggle> I like Bob's "record shot". I suppose given unlimited time he might have positioned the shadow line differently, and arranged a bevy of bikinis to replace the cars, but cars, like wires (here anyway), are a part of the background. I think it's an interesting angle - very in (the side of) yer face, somehow, and much more effective than the 60 degree thing I might have felt constrained to do. And where I came in - Andrew: Hmm. More *background* *without* *milk*. This looks like a difficult assignment, somehow: how can you write with light if there isn't any? And what does "converting to infra-red" mean? Taking the red channel from the film? Or is the background black because it's cold? Dunno. Big enough job figuring out my little patch from 400 to 640 nm (for the musical that's a minor 6th, according to http://imaginatorium.org/books/mathmus.htm#stcalc ). Thanks again to *all* contributors and reviewers for making this worth it. Brian Chandler ---------------- geo://Sano.Japan.Planet_3 http://imaginatorium.org/
