Herewith my review of this week's gallery, worth no more and no less than one plugged nickel:
Michael Hughes - It hasn't killed me yet. This bloke with the nicotine stained fingers is pleasing in that he's like King Nestor, who refuses to yield to the sorrows of old age. In fact, his overall demeanor is that he doesn't feel old at all. As for the esthetics of the portrait, well, I think the lighting is too flat and uniform. I think it would have been improved by more contrast, more shadows.
Dan Mitchell - Tate Modern. The girl has a face that reminds me of my favorite ex-wife. Sort of Georgia O'Keefe-like. But she's not sharply focused, and I'm distracted by the wash-out of the book or catalog in her lap. The railing and the walls do little to convey the idea of an art museum, other than the red, blue and yellow thing on the far right.
Don Roberts - Autumn. The reds and yellows might benefit from turning the background to a richer black.
Jim Snarski - Evolution. When I was studying photography at New York University we displayed our images and got critiques. I showed one, and remarked that it was mostly an accident. The professor shook his head. "Never, EVER, devalue your work as an accident. Instead you should insist everything was by calculation and design. Why give your critics ammunition?"
Jim Davis - Trees. The image would be improbed by a sharper focus, because I assume the great sweep of detail is what caught your attention in the first place.
D.L. Shipman - Solomon's castle, Arcadia. Very odd architecture. Looks like the house was covered in huge sheets of Aluminum foil.
Christopher Strevens - Alien Visitation? This would benefit by a tweak in contrast.
