> The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html includes: Sorry if I repeat anything already said because I thought I'd go back to reviewing blind ... that is not reading other reviews first. After last week's gallery brought Qkano down to earth (his Street Art photo is one of his favourites yet elicited only *one* comment) I think I'll just be brutally honest again ... or is that just brutal? As an overall theme for the gallery somehow "Consideration" came to mind. Consideration for the viewer. When I look at an image that has clearly been carefully prepared for presentation, I appreciate the gift. If the gallery is to receive 250 "clicks" it warrants more than just a minute's work to present the image. >Jim Davis - Fetch Rover Fetch Nowhere near your best work Jim. Don't get me wrong, as a candid it's fine but it has much much less "grab" than the fisherman & boy shot had the other week. There is interest there, but on my screen the stick is not quite prominent enough ... and the space to the left of the two chaps appears a bit heavy I'm confused about the choice of off-level horizon and verticals though? To me a simple 1.7 degree clockwise ... and a crop improves this picture greatly ... or maybe it's just a piece of reviewer-bait? One thing is for sure: little of the slant is explained by any false-horizon effect: unless the lamp on the industrial complex opposite was really leaning. Consideration? For this reviewer at least, would have got the basics right ... > Don Roberts - Father and son OK: I'll review this not as a Don Roberts' shot but as a young Don (1958) Roberts one! First: technical quality, crispness and colour are down. Maybe we put that down to the filmstock and age ... had it been a digital file the paper tape would have been eaten by mice a long time ago :o) It's clearly triggered by Jim's shot ... as you note. You have a father and son (presumption) interacting with something/someone out of the picture. This time in "our" direction or even behind "us". The *extreme* tilt of the shot causes me problems as a viewer looking at it in it's entirety. Like with Jim's shot ... I can't see why you chose to show it that way? I thought for one that the rod had become the false vertical but even that is not quite. Sure, the shore opposite is receding from us right to left so there might be some false-horizon effect but the perspective of the foreground tells me it's a long way short of what we are shown. To settle it (in my mind) I used PF to crop off the top so I can only see the sea. It still looks out by 3.5 degrees based on the recession of the waves on the water surface alone. Back to the "whole" though: it is of course that the image was taken to capture a moment. In that it succeeded. >Tim Holmes - Matty Damned good portrait. Well framed composed and focussed. I'm not sure if it's trepidation or slight arrogance (confidence) I see in his face ... he looks like he's clinging to the railing ... almost dreading to be pulled out to face that pitcher. If I could improve it at all I would try to lighten up the kid a little - especially his face - without overdoing it. >Dan Mitchell - Still life It is still life, it's quite a nice arrangement of elements too. I'm a little uncomfortable with the cropping of the rim of the board along the right hand border. Minor: There's a distracting tide-mark on the teaspoon (minor) but to my failing eyes I'm seeing just a little too much softness. The focus is on this side of the board but by the time we get to the asparagus it's slightly soft. Am I guessing it was hand held and the aperture (indoors) a compromise? If you were not using one ... tripods are still the way to go for good still life shots: these veg. were not going anyway in a hurry (unless the missus was stood behind saying HURRY UP) >Emily L. Ferguson - Right after the start This suffers from a similar "expectational deficit" to Jim's shot: your last one was so good I can't but compare the two. It's not as dynamic for sure. I want it to be just about the man and girl, but unfortunately there's that other boat in the background with a brightly lit occupant. I love the cropping overall though: it works not to show the whole sail. The picture looks level to me even though the bank opposite slopes up slightly - suspect this is indeed perspective. If only you had been a few feet closer with the camera at water level - some daylight the pink baseball cap and the boom would have helped. >Karl Shah-Jenner - prickly pear Well, from the title I was expecting a group portrait of Faul and Little :o) Lots of colour (you still using the old colonial spelling over there I see :) colour-contrast, saturation and diagonals. It's a simple image with a simple message. So much is out of focus but that almost draws my eye in towards the pear itself. I'm not even convinced it would have worked so well had everything been sharp front to back ... I suspect it would have become just another botanical record. Just a thought though ... If you had taken this with a digital SLR how would auto-white-balance have coped? There's no neutral tones anywhere. Come to think of it ... how exactly is auto-white balance supposed to work? >Gregory David Stempel - A Dark Tree On opening this shot is trying to tell my Browser it's in NIKON Adobe 4.0.0.3000 sadly my Browser can't handle that. Opening it in PhotoShop twice - with and without profile conversion - shows me a much improved picture ... much better colour saturation and contrast than as seen in the Browser. (Note: I converted to sRGB) The picture is fine as it stands to me: I think the bird would hold more prominence in an A3 print than as shown at web size but they are an important component of the shot (albeit 1/20th of a sec too soon? I think some of the very top of the sky is redundant ... adds little to the effect for me. As displayed I felt 50-pixels crop provided the optimum ... any more and it lost too much of those (essential) dark foreboding clouds. I don't suppose anyone else will comment ... I get the impression the horizon is about 0.75 degrees out of true ... :o) The placement of the tree works well. Waiting for the clouds to move away from the upper branches - perhaps you did - you might have lost the moment. But out of consideration ... remember to "save for web". Your shot looks much better as you intended it. >Terry L. Mair - The Falls Terry. The person in the picture - classically positioned helps this shot - you resisted giving them the clichéd red umbrella though :o) First thought ... the rather small display size of this image reduces its effect for me when taken against the other exhibits. There's potentially a lot of fine detail in the shot which even 600-700 pixels width might have allowed us to see (though of course me might all have "stolen" it for sale as postcards :) I can't see any obvious flaws with this shot but it's still not grabbing me. I certainly prefer the "real" water to the overly blurred candy-floss effect ... or maybe that was not an artistic cliché but for the lack of a tripod? >Pini Vollach - A strangely compelling image - the strongest by far this week. At first sight - thumbnail - it's just another "group of blokes sat round a table so what" sort of shot. Opening it full size there's a real atmosphere. You can't help following their gaze to the toppling queen. I'm wondering if B&W is a better end point for the shot though. Converting (mode change to Lab then delete the a and b channels) produces a more "focussed" product. The colour for me adds nothing to the moment, to the tension. Oh, and thanks for keeping the verticals vertical!! >Christopher Strevens - Martinique - Artist How come you can show this woman's face and not the beggar girl? Overall it's not a bad entry. The background is colourful, no argument, but is not really that appealing to me. Where it does not work for me is the unpleasant washed out effect - light-haze? - over her face. Was that intent or an attempt to lighten the shadows on a backlit subject? In no way does it count as "a painting". If you wanted a painting you should have bought one ... she does not live in Brighton by any chance? Oh, headbands are an excellent way to conceal electrodes! > From: Alberta for the PF exhibits staff Oh, your an Holiday, I thought RIT was in New York.
