Some images and a few photographs on display at: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html include: > Dave Van Verst - Teton Valley Ranch 1952 OK, I'm not looking at this first, but like another shot lower down the author appears to have presented this with a tilt. Or is it a very effective false horizon?. A transparency from 1952 with almost no fade - well as shown it has a slight desat about it. Now if it had been stored digitally ... it would have had an archival lifespan of 100y plus (assuming the mice didn't chew the paper tape ;o) It's an effective record of a placeand time . Is that the ranch or just the barn? A ranch without animals? Ah, E-1 ... is that like David's E1 below? > Achal Pashine - Fruit Seller, Western India Interesting viewpoint: curious. Clean composition - not pick: space to spare at top yet stool is cropped uncomfortably close to bottom edge. Framing this week (white rectangle) exaggerates the dark image. I'd have tried a darker tone to lighted the dark image. Thoughts ... I keep looking and it's a considered shot but nothing in it is grabbing me beyond the colours. "Observed this guy for almost 2 hrs before taking a snap" Note Achal: real street photographers, the greats, capable of capturning the "decisive moment" from real life ... they used paid models!!! "Would have loved to have some customers there but no customers seen. " Damn, they were all stood just off camera politely waiting for you to take the shot!!! > Dan Mitchell - Secret Courtyard Straight for the jugular: why display this on the slant? It's lacking critical sharpness which makes me even more critical. It's a secret place - maybe. The intersest though is beyond the gates and this seems to be about the gates' silhoette. > Jeff Spirer - M Well, seeing this is by Jeff I'll assume nothing in the image we are shown was there by accident: even the little white diamond coming in from the base was what Jeff wanted us to see. Presumptive - maybe. Correct - only Jeff can answer. A challenging image but looked at positively. Grainy colour? Golf-ball sized grain seems to be linked to monochrome. M - but not a big Mac? Is there a link? Didn't MacDonalds copyright the letter? Streetlight. Why so prominent? Central - where people plce the subject yet the eponymous subject lurks across to the right - shock/horror, not even on a third. Contrail or flare? Why. what does it add. That part I can't understand. On the left a dark, very dark building. Why so dark? Why? > David Small - Under the El First things first: a stunning shot from David. One of the best (no humourous) images I've seen from him. I'm trying to imagine the mood in this shot blown up to A3 or bigger as a real, genuine silver print. Well done David Minutaie. 1) What is the E1? A famous building. 2) Why not show it square? You are so nearly there ;o) > Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. - Ferris Wheel, Navy Pier, Chicago First PF contribution from maris? A tangled mass of white on white. Hints of red: hints of green. Straight lines. Vertical axis of reflection, almost. "Nothing for my eye to rest on " - a damned cliche that phrase but jumped at me over this shot. > Emily L. Ferguson - working the grinder More of an illustrative shot (for people interested in yachting) than a pictorial one. OK, I now know what a grinder is ... I've seen them but not been introduced. It's about two people interacting but without the narrative I'd have been left clueless - the action is not in the photo. Posed: were it posed I'd go for some movement ... slow shutter and blurred arms. Part 2nnd curtain fill-flash (not too much) mainly trying to get som light to the woman's face. Damned hat casts a shadow. Challenging lighting with all the light behind. The bloke looks - err bored. The black tape in front of the woman - bet it's part of the sail but it gets in the way. > Fletcher Jernigan - I'm debating this as I look. Lot of potential but the lighting is shouting: the highlights that is. Would it have been better without or are they needed to offset the gloom? Crop square (from the top)? The red bits in the middle - anthers - something not quite perfection about thier framing. Would it be better if the camera had moved right to stop the left hand onesbeing eclipsed? Point of focus - I want sharpness on the anthers etc but then the shapness on the petals would not be there. But then again, maybe even smaller DOF would have blurred the bits the author didn't want to be the subject and stopped me wanting to see them. Still debating. A nice shot ... could it have been better? To all the contributors: thanks for showing. My comments are not well considered, just ramblings. After a near miss today on the road I'm just glad to still be here - as opposed to embedded in the front of a white van man's van. Bob
