What a great gallery this week. Not a single duffer amongst them. Amy West: A clean clutter-free shot. No distractions around the edges of the frame. Just the child - deep in thought - and the blue. The first thing I noticed in the thumbnail was the slightly off-centre subject. Full size the child looks to the left with the greater part of the flowers behind. Cropping / shot selection - we all have our preferences. Was this all Amy's choice or was there stuff just out of shot that forced it? WRGill: My, a lovely spot to visit. Lots of careful composition in this: the lower branches of the foreground tree in particular not eclipsing the rocks behind; the mid-ground rock to the right just having separation from the far peninsular above. Curious presentation though: the horizon not-quite-level. I'm fairly certain this isn't a "false horizon": not at that distance. Very good picture all the same. Scot Coveyou: THUD! That's the sound of the saturated colours hitting the back of my skull. This shot is all about (only about?) colour. Are the front tulips really that colour? They appear almost unreal. Snapper Bob: Good choice of format: square works brilliantly for this shot. I like everything about this, the fire especially, the bicycle wheels, the backs-to-camera ...the slight motion blur. OK, maybe I'd have panned left a few pixels (assuming it was a landscape original) as the "movement" of the subjects in the scene appears that way but its fine as it is. Jim Davis: It says "golden hour" yet the foreground is all in shadow? I don't get a golden hour feel on my monitor. The shot: I'm presuming this is a boardwalk at a nature reserve/park where Jim gets his excellent bird shots. A quiet scene: no real action, no real centre of attention. Is that a white sign on the opposite bank? It keeps pulling my eye. I'd lose it unless it's crucial to your view of the scene. Elisha Page: What an unusual shot: far from run-of-the mill. What this picture lacks in pure pictorialism it gains from it's uniqueness / interest. At first I read the title as "morning steam" and took a few seconds to realise it was the back of a horse not some frothing mire. OK, I would not hang it on my wall but really do appreciate having been shown it - maybe I'll post the picture it reminded me I had taken sometime ... Kostas Papakotas: Well, the image and it's composition are fine. Studies of rusting metal are hard to pull off (never seem to look as good on film as they do to the eye). Maybe digital could help as it is better in all ways than film ever could be ;o). A single pixel from a modern camera contains more info than even the finest grained medium format dinosaur. But with digital, seriously, filling it that boring white area should be a breeze. But why can Kostas not go digital? Perhaps the answer is in an email he made recently: <<1. the operator I was referring too is distant family...so this is a bad PR move>> If you go digital how will the operator make a living? Pini Vollach: Another "photographer's picture" if that expression translates to non-native English speakers. I really love the concept and the execution: it's not just another mundane snapshot of OPA (other people's art) but it has taken the scene so much further. My mum would no doubt say "why did he take that" - but then for he pictures are just records of things and people. This really does cross into art. >From a presentational viewpoint: the cropping could improve an already good image. The thin triangle on the left top edge (another part of wall) just does not need to be there. Actually I'm not convinced the statue need to be there. Well done, thanks for sharing. Jeff Spirer: Creep ... there, I've always wanted to say that ;o) Judging by the link we were posted a couple of week's back this manikin has as much hair as Jeff. It's a stark image: almost typically Jeff. "Too much black"? Well, I don't mind black backgrounds - after all, why should whites be superior? "high key" shots seem to get gushing praise whenever shown but blacks are a no no!!!. If there is a flaw in the background (?) it is the little circular highlight on top left third. It does not enhance the picture for me. I still like it though: if it were mine I would just crop off the left side to leave a near-square format. Trevor Cunningham: Well, I'm waiting for the shots from Tyneside. For now, I'll just take more from Egypt. I like this: it's a well presented, framed and exposed image. Some might whine about the window being overexposed (digital would have done so much better) but frankly I think the balance is right on this one. The detail inside the room is sufficient for the atmosphere without being just dark. If I had taken the shot I would have taken two frames from a tripod and tried to do something with the window - combining the "exposed for indoor" and "exposed for window" versions later. But this is really good as it stands. Thanks to all the contributors. I take full responsibility for all the comments I've made in this review and in the past and for any humiliation that might have caused. However, I won't resign because really, underneath it all, I think I was right ... ;o( Bob
