This week's Photo-for-Umm ... Gallery has some photos in it. They range from very good to, well, err, why! Still not a review ... just some rambling thoughts while looking at the images on a rainy afternoon ... Greg Fraser - Badonkadonk Trust http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/fraser.html I love this shot just as it is - full of atmosphere when in reality it is just a rusty old bridge. My only minor question was whether it worked not being able to see where all the uprights converged. So I tried a minor crop to square (album cover format) 3 pixels off base and left: 57 off top, 9 off right Nah, it becomes a different picture ;o) > Alan Zinn - Keats - Boston http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/zinn.html Not a bad photo but I'm assuming this one was put in for it's humo(u)r content. A thing of beauty? Well, I bet his mum loves him anyway. ;o) > Bruce Weitzman - http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/weitzman.html Great shot - really nice quality. Well lit, good tones. Don't know what more to say really ... is there a minor flaw? I wonder if the feature at pixel 64,247 is a reflection of the white panels used to throw light back? I don't know - as a shot it has no real focus other than that sweeping gap between the two glasses. > Kostas Papakotas - ... http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/papakotas.html Yup, looks like the expression seen on the face of "Jesus" on the cross. I like the atmosphere and expression of the singer. The hand bothers me though: is it his or another singer holding the mike? It looks to be at a diffculty angel. > Christopher Strevens - Winchester Festival http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/strevens.html I bet (hope) the original hold all the detail that 67375 bytes can't do justice to. There is so much fine detail in the stonework and the banners. As presented it is well composed/cropped. If I have a question it is the colo(u)r cast ... I feel it needs a littel more blue (at least that is what the histogram suggests) but then again, the stone is yellow not grey so I'm not sure. Was it lit by tungsten lights or is it daylight? > Marilyn Dalrymple - Me? You Want to Take Me Home? http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/dalrymple.html Oh Maralyn, when they say "never work with children and animals" I think the animals can be much harder. The cat looks really cute and I know the background to why you are doing these shots (the rescue centre) soto that end. 1) the red rose, being red (as all photographers know) takes attention away from the cat. We want someone to adopt the cat, not the rose ;o) 2) the eyes must be sharp: I know cats are little bleeders when it comes to keeping still (err, when still - eyes closed: eyes open - we move) but this would have so much more appeal if the eyes were the focus. 3) The cat's pose is a good one: getting a cat to look direct at the lens is a nightmare for sure. It it was not for our quarantine laws I would ask you to ship "me" now ... > jIMMY Harris - Angel Rock http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/jharris.html YUK Sorry jimmy, 39 dollars for that camera? You were done. I won't pretend to like the shot at all. Waht it the point? Seriously. Sorry ... > Robert Carlson - Hotel http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/carlson.html Despite all the reflection-distortion this picure works, generally. It does lack sharpness in the interesting areas but the pole is annoying an is the sharpest bit. As presented it is too "half-and-half" for me. It improves dramatically IMO if you remove 60 pixels or so from the right edge. Is it a self portrait? ;o) I guess not -- is the woman another photographer or just shielding her eyes from the sun? > Dan Mitchell - Cottages http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/mitchell.html First question - do you remember where on the Isle of Arran? It looks familiar but I can't recall the place. The effect is so easy to do now we have digital - in a way it has devalued messing about with images. Being trad makes no difference - no allowances. The black sky is the part I find hardest to live with pictorially The effect is always intriguing though: turning an ordinary scene into a graphic. I suspect this suffers the same problem as Chris's image: so much fine detail in the original that cut down to 150,000 pixels it just is not done justice. > Roderick Chen - yellow http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/chen.html A classic "camera club" shot: everything composed, no distractions ...even the title chosen so as not to give any excuse for complaint. Geometrical patterns in a grey building with "yellow" there to break the gloom. If thers is something else though it is that small patch of sky which remionds us nature still exists. But that nature seems uncomfortable amongst the concrete ... or is it just that I feel uncomfortable there? It lacks critical sharpness: was that because it was hand-held or because you only used 30K of your 50K ration? > Andrew Davidhazy - http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/davidhazy.html Yup, definitely a plank! OK, it has a pattern. I don't like the two drill holes towards the base ... cropping them makes it less of a vertical panorama which don't work well on monitors. I don't know about the "image managed" in PS bit either. All three channels seem a bit dark - the histogram showing virtually no use of RGB values 210-255 in any channel. Being dark overall, the very dark bottom right corner becomes even more of a flaw. I'm left wishing I could see more detail in the wood (the grain maybe?). The pattern, while interesting, is just a pattern ... Thanks to the contibutors Bob
