<IMO> What a bizarre mix of images this week: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html I have grave concerns about Don's latest image. However, it's stangely colourful compared to the last two. It's clearly composed by a skiiled photographer rather than someone who just happens to own a camera. Rusty old metal cross, whited sepulchre, though the paint has seen better days, and those flowers. Nothing overlaps that shouldn't. If it raises a question for me it is "what are those little box-structures" either side of the plinth? It's a pleasant enough image: I can't call it art though. Dan Mitchel: Unlike Don's shot this just looks like a grab shot by someone who happened to have a camera handy. The sort of shot that in pre-digtial days, the cost of film might have made the author think twice. It's almost as if you had to be there. <<"Kylie", the author's neice is coming up the steps.>> Nothing else is controlled - the "composition" is haphazard - or perhaps that's an attempt to capture the world " as is" rather than as packaged by a photographer. Is it art? >From Dan, no. Had the author been a highly rated international artist, yes. Oh, it looks a tad soft as well. Peeter's shot. Dark and a curious overall colour tone. Not quite monochrome but generally quite pink. It's dark: that's obvious. Lots of puddles: bet the fields are like quagmires. I kind of like it on many levels but do struggle with the gloom. I want to see more detail on the dog: I don't mind the silhoetted trees but the dog is the subject. I'm growing to love the composition: but the darkness isn't improving with time. Oh, it's not art either IMO: it would be if the author had pickled the dog in formalin then sliced it in half before posing it by the puddle. Pini's shot: of the farm. Seems to be a "wide-angle-lens-at-maximum-aperture" shot. The focus is on the rusty saw and we are given only a hazy impression of the very colourful farm buildings beyond. But the title is "farm" ... mmmmmmm. Strangely I like the shot: haze or not. Looks like there were lots of other photos to be had from the site. ATEOTD it's just a photo though - not a work of art. It's a pleasant record of the scene (enough to make me want to visit) but it's a record all the same. WR Gill's shot(s). OK, an oversized moon (yuk!) in a landscape. It all looks false. Probably, I'm guessing, the angles of the shadows on the land contradict the implied position of the sun (deduced from the phase/angle of the moon). Compositionally, I want the moon further right. Can it be done in PhotoShop? Piece of cake. Open both images Copy the moon (against a black sky?) onto the landscape, set the blend mode to lighten, then move the moon to where you want it. Art? Well, it's a nice enough picture overall but it's still just a "dropped moon" shot. It has some artistic merit: that is the author chose where to place the moon and to create the conflict in the shadows. Chris's image (not a photo). I really don't know what I should feel about this. It's very colourful but it's subconciously marred by an inherent dislike of PS filters (although I'm sure it's probably some other package). Indeed, I bet as show it's far, far better than the raw (unmangled) street scene. If it were produced by a man with a brush, and a set of paints, it would certainly be a work of art. As it is, it's fun, but the product by and large of a machine. Jim observed: "Interesting that a white bird does not always look white. " Doh, Jim, switch off the lights and everything goes black. It's a nice shot, contre jour and all that. No distractions Composition is as good as it could have been. Beak is sharp. Don't really know what more to say. Andy's shot. A history lesson. Bet it was manually focussed (which is surprisingly easy to do). Mid 1960's and an attractive model (naturally beautiful by the look). Fantastic backlighting: grain enhances the effect. There appears to be a little tension in her pose: she's leaning slightly to the right and her left arm looks to be providing the needed support. Oh, I'd forgotten all about corderoy trousers. Have they come back in fashion again yet? </IMO>
