Greg Thanks for the review (as always). > Having been forewarned of the generally boring nature of this week's gallery images "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" I note a change, a small difference, in the style of your review this week. In general two types of review are (IMO) the easiest 1) to say what is wrong - usually the technical flaws leap out 2) to say only nice things - you don't have to justify yourself The half-way approach is much harder. > I considered writing my reviews in poetic verse. Phew!!! > Bob Talbot (The B.M.) - This is a reflection is it not? No, it's just a grab shot. The man was partial serendipity. I was framing the camera for a straight architectural record and it just looked empty. This chap walked by and suddenly the viewfinder had for me what it had lacked. I wish I had the time for another frame but this was it ... >Too perfectly placed to be a snapshot of a passer-by. Well, the background was already framed: it was just waiting as he walked till he reached here ... >Could be done B&W but you'd lose the green light ... I've considered that. Maybe I'm "coloured" by the original slide and it's blue from the sky. I think Emily commented on the sky being blown out: there is detail in everypart of the image (sky and shadows) on the slide but I found it tricky to compress the tonal range into a mere 255 levels. When I did it started to look flat so yes, I show it with the sky brighter than I would have liked. I have scans done straight and, like this one, with the analogue gain turned up. Maybe if I try to print it I'll work harder on curves - if only PhotoShop could cope with 16-bit per channel images ;o( > jIMMY Harris (More Fish Stories) - Now this shot is really playing with me. I liked last week's cormorant's better but there's something about the circular pattern formed by the birds that I find interesting. Perhaps its the variation of the repeated bird shape with the one dissenter that is interesting. What's that one bird's problem? You assume he telling a story but I believe that bird to be a female with an attitude and none of the other birds know what the hell she's talking about. Jimmy's picture demonstrates the "series effect": this picture does not stand alone but is influenced by the impression created by the previous week's entry. "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" A third image along similare lines (monochrome, grainy, group of birds) would make a coherent panel. > Andrew Fildes (Sven) - I love the effect of the distortion in this portrait. The entire shot curves around the right hand lens frame of his glasses. This is a great portrait with the subject perfectly placed. I imagine even a slight variation of camera angle would have a very dramatic change of effect with this lens. I really like this shot. Yes, indeed I did too ... but I also see how someone else would not like it. I suspect it will appeal more to "photographers" than normal sane people. > Thanks to all who contributed to the gallery this week and remember - 90% of what makes an image boring is result of what's in, or not in, the mind of the observer. It can be a whole host of things ... bad day at work, rain, or indeed what else the observer has read about the image. I still try to review "clean" but it is not always possible ... this week I read comments on one image under a subject line I wasn't avoiding. But I also wonder what can make a group of pictures booring when the individual shots are fine? Some weeks the variety of shots somehow comes together to make a great gallery - yet when I open them individually for review they are no better. Another thread I guess ... Bob
