|
Hi Forum Members, Here are my
personal comments about the gallery found at Emily L. Ferguson
- Need some help, there? This has good composition and it is a pretty interesting
shot. The title would made a bit more sense had the gentleman on
the left not been looking at the camera but rather looking at the
person holding the camera. Perhaps a bit of a white balance tweak
would reduce the red from what seems to be incandescent lighting. Bob
McCulloch - Antique Shop In many ways I
like this photo. There is excellent detail in the shadows, there
is nothing blown out, the composition and the subject are pretty
well done; EXCEPT for that noisome leafless, branching object in
the center of the image. That item kind of ruins the photo for
me. The branches compete for attention with the sign behind it.
Perhaps a slight change in angle from which the photograph was
taken would have helped. I don't think I would be so distracted
if the branches competed with only the door in the background. Yoram
Gelman - Two Women For me there is too much foreground. The photo title is
"Two Women." Personally that is what interests me about the photo
and I would like to see them more clearly. The strong vertical
background for the women is intriguing. The red painted pillar
beside the women also add a bit of interest, although not nearly
to the degree of the background. The bench and feet are wonderful.
The stone/cement in the bottom quarter of the image are
superfluous to the point of being distracting--especially given
their lighter tones. If the focus could stand it, I would love to see this
image cropped a bit to highlight the Two Women. Andrew
Davidhazy - Leaping setter There is a lot
to like about this photo. The action of the setter is superb.
Selecting only one shot of Sue is, at least in my opinion, the
correct choice. I suspect that multiple human images would have
added more confusion than clarity. The resultant image works
very well. What about the
"ethics" of removing the pier pole? My personal opinion is that
if a photograph is made for photojournalistic purposes, that
would have been wrong. News photos [should] exist to show
reality as best it can be portrayed in a photo. Fine art photos
should be manipulated to suit the image the artist wants
presented, whatever that image happens to be. The addition or
deletion of objects is fine if it enhances the image and helps
to complete the artist's vision. This photograph
lies somewhere in between photojournalism and fine art. It is
almost a scientific study of animal action. But since it serves
mainly to demonstrate a concept the artist wishes to show about
the wonderful movement of the setter, I think that the removal
of a pole AND the deliberate decision not to include two frames
of the setter are actions that remarkable increase the resultant
clarity of action, although it fails to demonstrate the rapid
change in forward velocity instituted by the friction of the
water. The result in
this case is an amazing pictorial display. And I REALLY
appreciate the included explanation of changes. It is difficult
to criticize someone's actions when a full public disclosure of
artistic changes are made. While someone could disagree with the
artistic decisions, no one can complain about undisclosed
alterations. Many thanks to
Andy (especially for his artistic contribution) and his staff to
putting this group of images on display. This week was a most
interesting forum! rand |
