Hi Rand, Hi Bob, thanks for the reviews. Both of you have done really nice job by doing extensive reviews (rather than one words reviews we usually see, like ok, good bad) :-) The image I submitted was an experiment on my part to simplify (or rather use simple subjects), which obviously has not succeeded, since two (and possibly more) people agree that it is not done right. My answer is: I will try again. Comment on contrast is possibly right, even though my monitor is calibrated and perhaps Rand's too. As I said in the comment-line, I was interested in the subject after seeing Chip Hooper's photos at Weston Gallery (e.g. www.hooperphoto.com/images/large/captiva.html and other photos on site). Obviously, I did not shoot or print in b/w (which I normally do, and will do in re-tries using similar subjects) leading to poor tonality. I was under the impression that I was doing ok composition-wise, but probably it is also un-interesting. Anyway, thanks for reviews and will try to improve. I am lazy scanning negatives, so I am mostly submitting images captured by 2mp digital camera. thanks, achal >Achal Pashine - "Clouds" >http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/pashine.html >While I really want to like this image, it is just a bit too >muddy on my >monitor. Enhancing the contrast would do much improve >it, at least to my > 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.
