Well, I nearly commented last week but after a flood of reviews I could not find much to add. I think I've discovered how to guarantee a good week: don't put one of my pictures in ;o( This week's set looks well above par > The PhotoForum member's gallery/exhibit space was updated > Work now on display at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html includes Robert G. Earnest - Haugh haugh haugh ... yes, OK, not pictorial but a fun shot. Serves you right going looking for bears and cubs after dark!. The flip-flop is the punch line. Alan P. Hayes - Blue Black Truck Yes, another blurred photo that works Were the tail lights really pink or red? Yes, this is the sort of shot where digital wins hands down: OK, it's not quite monkeys and typewriters but you never can be sure how well the shot has turned out till you see it. A really good example of the genre Jeff Spirer - John Wayne and Someone Else Another powerful image from Jeff - one I shouldn't like because really its a picture of two other people's pictures. The juxtaposition? Yes, maybe that's the artistic input. It holds the eyes for sure. Rich Mason - Yea right Rich: if I had a lot of time I'd try to get in to this. A crystal clear slice of life: good texture on the car. Plenty of interest despite being a mundane scene. I like it but it could bellyflop in a competition ... Alan Zinn - Is this 'savoir faire', or what? Does the bloke in the jeans look familar? OK Alan, nice but it lacks critical sharpness. I have a lot of time for the old 2CV ... a reminder that cars are really to get from A-B cheaply. Boy, does the shot lack sharpness ... Roderick Chen - Yea, OK ... shadows and nude superimposed. But after looking at it for a while I end up thinking "so what?". Sorry, I can see it is supposed to be creative but it has not worked in the way last weeks shot by you did. Rand Flory - The Drop >>I wanted to give this to an English teacher and have him tell the class, "You have 20 minutes to write the story behind this photograph." I've felt that about a lot of pictures: it's best for me not to be told up front but the importance is what does it say? This shot for me is cool but it falls flat for me on one tiny detail: the light behind the base of the needle just looks wrong; over-worked. I apologise if it was real (clever lighting with a fine snoot) but it shouts "fiddle". Everything else is effective: if it were mine I would try it with a less obvious halo. Perhaps you will tell us your story later ... Christiane Roh - Lac de Neuchatel, July 2002 That toy camera (D60?) really does produce images that look sharp on screen ;o) As a thumbnail it held no promise for me but opening it up it's a gem. I love the clarity of the light on the two lads: the dull/hazy light in the background sets them off well Richard Cooper - See you in the Spring Yes, a shot of a boat in the snow: It looks almost monochrome but there is a blue spash half way up the right. It improves for me with a tiny crop from the base to lose the jetty and that blob of white bottom left. Jim Davis - Bee Hawk Moth I'll let you off the wings being blurred, but the flower is not sharp which ruins the picture for me. Otherwise the distand background is good. I lovw watching these moths: we only get them in spring as they migrate. "Hummingbird hawk moths" I think they are called here: I've never managed to get a half decent shot of one, but then I'm lucky to glimse one a year ... Jay Bjerkan - Rotunda 11/2002 The story is more interesting than the picture: what I mean is, this shot would not make we want to stop off to visit the place. Emily L. Ferguson - The mortise man I have a phobia of these living exhibits. For me they spoil my imagination of what the past was like. Actually, in this shot, the lighting is horrible (too contrasty) and the man has the expression of - well, a prat. Sorry Emily, does nothing at all for me Bob
