Stuff on display at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html includes: Peeter Vissak - Garden. Boats. Unforking paths. Lovely shot Peeter. Of course I noted straight away it was presented downside up. Good choice though I think, yes, looking at it flipped it was a good choice. The bright patch of grass at the bottom (as shown) seems like a foreground feature in sunlight. It fits. The "correct" way up it becomes an attention-seeking distraction in the background. Nope: if you had shown this rotated 180 degrees I'd have not been complimentary but as it is it works. Aside: Around here there are too many forking paths, forking roads, forking gardeners and sometimes we even get forking lightning ;o) I don't understand the title ... BTW: personal preference. Photos so nearly square as this I prefer to be square. Never did know why. Maybe it's because being so close makes the mind thing they should be but at the same time the eye can tell it's not? Dunno ... just an idle thought ;o) Laurenz Bobke - Gorge at Dawn The colours in this - and the exaggerated vignetting at the corners - remind me of one of Emily's lighthouse shots. It's two things. 1) blue sky before sunrise 2) Velvia slightly underexposed. It's a calm scene - quite evocative. I'm not sure I like the exaggerated blue though. I converted it to B&W (auto-levels on R,G and B individually then convert to Lab and use just lightness channel) and it looks much nicer to my eyes. I'm convinced it is a little tilted judging by the water. At least it looks so. A nice scene all the same. Bob Talbot - Insect Yup, six legs and four wings. That's an insect! Next. Per Ofverbeck - Happy family Everything about this shot from the foreground to the goats is nice and sharp. Beyond that thought the high-contrast bright background has caused the foreground to under-expose. I want some light on the animals but the bight yellow background shouts too me. It's a common problem: it looks worse on film than it did to the eye. Mmmm ... does the same apply to digital? I have a lot of bird shots with similar loud backgrounds. Ultimately I never show them, I can't. Imagine this scene with a dark background and sun on the goats: that would have been stunning. Alberto Tirado - e-Clipse A nice shot: only a 25K file so could have been shown larger ;o) An example of two things. 1) using the moon as part of a night-time landscape 2) using the title to fill in the gap (i.e., I would not have noticed the eclipse without it). Strangely, I'm assuming it was a tripod mount, the moon looks sharp but the buildings just a tiny bit soft (at the scale shown). It is very well composed (planned I expect) with just the right amount of sky. This is one example where a tighter crop might have unbalanced the shot. Gregory David Stempel - Mopping Up Great shot, seriously. The silhouette provides just enough interest to add human context to the scene. It's almost monochrome but it does need the slight tint of gold it has. The sunbeams though the smoke work well. I don't actually care about the context - the fire - it's just fine as a photo. The man: is he alive or propped up (impaled) on that spike ;o) Emily L. Ferguson - Flash on floor Such a contrast from last week's shot. I love the effect of the shadow below the table (the down-turned horns) but not the vertical member above. In the digital age that would go ;o) The floor has taken on a weird character in this lighting. Overall though I don't think the image is quite as strong as the previous example. The flash reflection is a bit harsh and we don't have the wonderful texture of the wood grain. Shawna Hanel - Pachyderm More bluddy rubbish. Plastic crap. Posed or found? If posed then Shawna really should have done something with the two stalks coming out of focus between us an the elephant's trunk. They are the only distractions in the shot. The colour: nice and bright verging on a little too saturated. Can't decide which. Focus is on the ear not the eye (important IMO even for a toy). It's show as a square: perfect square with the eleph. diagonally placed albeit central. The central placing seems to work - not sure it would had the elph. been horizontal not diagonal. A nice picture. Jose Luis Vasconcellos - Old film an explanation for the poor technical quality or is this a scan of a print. It looks a simple enough scene: the child has "room to move" but sadly her shadow has already left the picture. That I noticed means it may have mattered to my eye. The image as shown though is either unsharp, blurred or simply too grainy to tell. The ultra high contrast - well, actually it's not clipped but it seems that way. There is no detail in the girl's dress but it's not PhotoShop white. Nor in the shadow on her face but it's not PS black either. I suspect a print scanned. Can't appreciate it as shown I'm afraid. Veli Cigirgan - How do I read this shot? Is it "street"? Is it a snapshot? How much thought went in to it? It's beautifully exposed - really nice texture and colour. Catching the blur of the hand just a moment after the dart left: the crowd intent on seeing art in the making? I do wish the blur of the dart was visible - with 2nd curtain flash to highlight it - that would have taken a lot of luck. What of the woman behind the barrier? The artist or just a guard? Does she help or is she a distraction. Perversely I think "what if" about the arrow on the far wall. What if it had been a bit lower - aligned with her eye. Curiosity got me - just tried it. Oops, yes, it exaggerates the woman's gaze. http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/tempery/cigirgan-2.jpg Would it be better still for the arrow not to be there? Just tried that too and no, it seems part of the picture now. Or should I say, now I've seen it I wouldn't have it any other way. Bit like me missus actually ;o) All said and considered there is something I like about this shot. Jim Davis - Walking on Water Yes, I love coots and moorhens. This one is definitely a coot. The shot has caught the splash/bird positioning perfectly. Despite the fast "film" speed quoted the water droplets are not sharp. which is a shame. What was the shutter speed? As with many nature shots taken in the wild (or possibly in a reserve) is that when you get the action you want you can't always get the setting. The background in this shot is natural but still bland. I wish the light was better on the bird (so I could resolve it from the shadows) but then again it's black so not easy. A seriously interesting shot nature wise but some flaws photographically. Trevor Cunningham - Birqash Camel Market A blown out sky: a swathe of empty foreground. Looks a prime candidate for a panoramic presentation. The interest to me is the other side of the fence. I can see a lot of potentially interesting photos but this, as shown, was not one of them. Too much featureless black. Andy A full 12 images are a lot to review!!!! The last few weeks of 8-10 have made me lazy!!! Thanks to all the participants. Without the pictures there would be no review. Without the gallery all the posts would be about computers, email etiquette and HTML ;o) Bob
