I decided it was about time I supported the gallery again. Maybe it's the shortening days (N. hemisphere) ... but here are my honest views - good and bad - of the images on show this week. As a group the thumbnails looked extremely promising and I enjoyed the visit. http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html included: > Scott Thurmond - Martian Showerhead I'm captivated by this deceptively simple shot. I don't know if it's dew or a plant spray but the water droplets only marginally improve the shot. The quality of the lighting lifts it: there is something ethereally 3D about the little blue "eggs". I've tried cropping in closer (just to the head itself) - square format. A different shot: it becomes pure abstract. Love this one just as it is. Greg Fraser - End of Summer Shit happens they say: you don't have to photograph it though. The curves are indeed curvy. The car is saturatedly colourful. It's well composed. But why did your kid deposit those "bumbles" in the boot (US=trunk)? Nice picture Vlad. D.L. Shipman - So much potential and narrowly missing being a real winner. It caught a moment's action in time. However: it's just too confused around the beak/ foot. I know there is nothing you can do about it. I know in the real world things get too confused. But it's still got something. Kostas Papakotas - the amazing light conspiracy Yes: I like this and the slanted presentation. Surprisingly for me I don't mind the light blue triangle. I'm sure I should moan about that ... what do you reckon Greg? Now on to dangerous ground. No matter how often I look the girl's face comes over as somewhat androgenous. Without the boobs I'm sure I would have referred to the singer as he. I'm taking it this was a live performance. Good work. Gregory david Stempel - Waiting on the Metro Hahahaha. In a "guess the photographer competition" I would have plumped for David Small. David: if you are reading this let me know if you agree or if not in what way it wouldn't have taken your eye. Oh, saying I thought it was David's is a strong compliment BTW. The shot is just simple, graphic but potentially booring. However, the inclususion of the slice of a human takes it in to the street. Andrew Fildes - Now THIS is a kingfisher... INDEED. Yes, the best kingfisher ever shown on PF by a long way. Err, I'm sure they were called cook-a-burrows last time I went to the zoo. The shot is a truly beautiful portrait of this bird. Makes it look such a little cutie: butter couldn't melt in it's mouth. Oh, and the emotion in that sultry little eye. Feather detail is adequate - perfection would have kept the tip of the beak sharp: it's just turning soft. For a real nature shot though you need to show the "tooth and claw" aspect of these critters. Ripping the eye out of a wounded joey ... that sort of thing ;o) Dan Mitchell - Remembrance Siple shot. it works. I like it. I suspect I'd like it a lot more full size as the flower (subject) is just too small as shown but I get enough impression to know it works for me. Achal Pashine - Clouds Sorry Achal. Thought last weeks shot of the windows had wonderful lighting and arrangement. This picture works not at all for me. I've looked at least three times now and that impression remains. Fred van Sand - Newburyport Bridge Colour cast!!!! Oh well, I started being critical and sadly I'm struggling to find much to praise in this shot. IT appears unsharp - or maybe it is camera shake. I can see the plan: the curve of the railing leading us round to the bridge but these is just something missing in the realms of technical quality ;o( Leslie Spurlock - Boy at chorten chorten? Chorten? Where's that? Another picture that isn't grabbing me I'm afraid. I'm trying to work out why. If Jeff Spirer had been there for this shot I'm sure I would have been praising it. o what would he have added that's missing for me here?. Maybe as simple as the eye level. This is flat: the perspective has no real challenge. A lower (or much higher?) camera? A bit closer to the boy for the wide angle effect despised so much by Jim (and everyone else newly hampered by a "1.6 focal length multiplier effect") Don't know for sure. it looks like it should have been a cracking shot but for this bloke it's failed. Bob PS ... feedback on feedback is always welcome. I'd rather be hated than ignored ;o) > There is currently 1 photograph by Ferguson enqueued for future exhibition. Totally accurate Andy. 1 by Ferguson. Oh, and the one by someone else you forgot!
