Rare can mean undercooked or infrequent, take your pick, I will
probably get in trouble for this.
The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated OCT 15
2005. Authors
with work now on display at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html include:
Included so there's no posts asking "Where's the Gallery?"
Pini Vollach - Sumela Roots
I'm not one for nature photos (you'll hear that a couple times in
this review), but I've generally liked "roots" photos. This one
brings something to mind, though, that bothered me for a long
time. It looks like it was shot with "hyperfocal" distance
set. After years of using hyperfocal distance for things, I found
that it was always the case that the foreground was uncomfortable
because of even a slight unsharpness relative to the area where the
focus was actually set. What I now do is focus on the closest thing
I want in focus, use a small aperture, and assume that the farther
something is from the camera, the less important it is to be in sharp focus.
To summarize, I would like this a lot more if the foreground looked
sharper. Also, the tones are a bit dull.
Bob Talbot - Orphans
I'm all in favor of experimentation and should do it more. This is a
very interesting idea, and I think it would lend itself well to
something much longer, a foot-long panaromic version for
example. The inexact cutting makes it even more interesting. 'm not
sure I like the top and bottom slivers though. The paintings in the
middle seem to be effective in bringing out the photographic slivers.
Rubin F. Diehl - Good Friday 2005 - Old Lady
A shot that could work really well with a better background. I know
that sometimes it isn't possible to choose the background, but a
different angle or a few more steps and it would be a lot more
interesting. Also, the focus seems to be on the hat, leaving the
face feeling a bit mushy.
Peeter Vissak - Halluci Nation
As much as I don't care for nature shots, I do like this one, a lot,
probably because it could be used to illustrate Alice in
Wonderland. Nice balance in the composition, nice colors, nice
effect, works for me.
Jim Davis - Miho Beach
This photo is very flat. Just some minor adjustments with curves
makes it much more effective, given all the depth that can be in
it. Hey, it looks like you followed my rule on depth of field
:-) Otherwise, not really my thing but well put together.
Robert G. Earnest -
Hmmm...reminds me of some impressionist painting, probably a famous
one. Has humor and all that. I'd really like to see more of your recent work.
Laurenz Bobke - Derwent water before sunset
This is very well-done, but I feel like I've seen too many shots like
this. Might be my nature problem.
Sue Butler -
This one fits in that "nature" category and I can't really comment on
it. However, it's also flat, take a look at your histogram.
Gary Perdue - School House
I can see why you like the building, but the light is kind of drab
and the fence is out of focus (see above.) Also, the trees interfere
with the framing. There's probably a better framing that deals with the trees.
Marilyn Dalrymple - America?
I'm not sure why the images seem to need so much work this week, this
has a serious color cast. In Photoshop, open up curves, take the
white eyedropper, click it on one of the white bars on the flag,
preferably on the bottom one where the highlight is. Totally
different look to it. Awkward composition, this could be improved by
cropping and/or a better angle. But I happen to like it anway.
Cheers.
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
