An even number of pictures now on display at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html includes some art, some craft and a lot of help from the computer ... Don Roberts - Tin Bales Complete unadulterated rubbish - or is it "trash" over there. As to how the subject (the rubbish) works as a picture. I think it's a promise for the furture. This picture neither is far enough away to place the bales in context nor close enough to do justice to at least half a dozen abstracts begging to be taken. Pictorially the biggest killer for me , as shown, is the dark bottom right Herschel Mair - Omani Boatman OK first out I like a lot about the photo. It's got an interesting subject, some good lighting, nice reflections in the near choppy wavelets. You kept the starboard side of the boat within the frame but, sadly, just missed off the tip of the engine's tiller handle. As shown its a bit "tall" for my taste, maybe I'd be more brutal at the top of the photo losing some of the water. Or maybe it's that the boatman appears to be looking just down and out of the frame left which draws attention to the extra sliver needed. Whatever, I still like it as shown Lea Murphy - Rachel, 11 months Cute baby shot. Nice expression and she really was "watchin the birdie". I like the expression and pose: I'm not convinced about the faux grain, because actually it looks more like digital noise. That is, it's fairly constant in both shadow and highlight areas and it's all pixel-level (not the variablr size clumping you get with very grainy film For presentation, it looks a bit too central for me. As shown the image is 525 pixels wide. The right side of the picture is diluting it's effect for me. Progressivelt trimming it just kept improving it for me. I got as far as 425 pixels wide (100 removed from right) before I felt it started to lose something. Terry L. Mair - Brent While on cropping, this images too for me has dead space both to the right and at the top. That said, it's a very nice portrait. I like the overtly circular lighting effect. The subject's lean to the left, even though he looks straight at the camera, still drives my eyes to the left edge of the picture. What the heck, it's good, just not perfect. Guy Glorieux - City lights interesting semi-fisheye shot. Does not work for me as a pictorial image though, nothing's grabbing me. Most of my attention goes to the two (non-overlapping) cranes and the twlilight sky. But there's no interest for me in the lights I'm afraid. David Small - At Christo Gate expo. Central Park That orange ... what's behind it? The immediate thought is Guantanaomo bay, illegal detention, torture, murder, all without charge, or even evidence for that matter. Best not to go there, but I'd not be giving the whole picture if I didn't declare that association. Googling, it's a piece of "art" (allegedly) costing vast sums of money. Still can't find out why it's orange though. There's even a satellite view of central park: http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/spacepics/central_park_12Feb05.jpg The challenge for a photographer here (especially a street one) is to include the art without making it the main subject. That's what David has attempted to do here, For me though, without the narrative I would not have realised that. I feel we are a bit too far away from the meditation circle to realise they are the main subject. But are you breaking copyright including them in your photo? "Christo's publisher claims a vast new degree of copyright and trademark protection. They claim they will prosecute anyone who sells their own original photos of The Gates; who makes and sells a drawing of The Gates or who even uses the words, The Gates, without their permission...." http://stayfree.typepad.com/stayfree/2005/02/christo_says_do_1.html Mark Harris - A B&W view of The Gates, Central Park, NYC 1979-2005 Yes, get rid of the orange. Good move. It's clearly not a tourist snapshot. this picture is more about the shadows of the trees than the bizarre saffron drapes. I'm not sure I like the two walkers having thier backs ... a couple walking our way would be more powerfully street. Michael J. Mulley - County Fair, 1988 A mixture of reactions from me. Technically its a bad scan (?). Too cantrasy for my taste. Content wise it's a seen moment. The "saus ge" is very big in the frame: the quick cuddle competes for it's attention but does not even come close to rivalling "The Kiss" for it's spontenaity :o) 1988? I guess that answers the question about it being a scan. Do you have anything more recent? Trevor Cunningham - fishing nets A very pleasant little scene, well seen. Nice arrangement, no distractions, just the wall, baskets and nets. Presented well, I like the false matting and even the shadow effect. It benefits a little from a small levels shift on my monitor: I set it to 0-247 with gamma 1.00 and it lifted it (or maybe I should calibrate the monitor) Christopher Strevens - Flower Shop at Morden Once again, I'll bet this does look better than the original. It's a 100% computer generated effect but the author is still the one who gets the final say as to whether we should see it. The patchy edge-effect kind of works for it but I'd prefer sommat other than a blank plain pure white background. Maybe a faux piece of sun-browned parchment? Q PS ...
