Interesting. Nobody said a word about my feedback. I'm fairly sure it was sent, as I received it back from the list. That's fine, I suppose, but a bit discouraging; a bit like trying to carry a conversation with a cliff face. In fact, as far as I could tell, nobody else said a word about this week's offering. Ah, well. perhaps next time. Andrew On Sat, August 11, 2012 5:19 pm, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Sat, August 11, 2012 8:27 am, Andrew Davidhazy wrote: > >> The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated August 11, >> 2012. Authors with work now on display at: >> http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html include: >> >> >> >> >> Elson T. Elizaga - Extraordinary Claims >> > > Beautiful portrait. Since the text is so large, it is the subject, > though. This looks like a good commercial ad, but it detracts from the > very nicely lit portrait of the boy. I will say, however, that without the > text, the boy may very well look simply very unhappy, and not quizzical at > all, especially since it looks a bit wet under his left eye, as if he had > recently been crying. > >> John Palcewski - Dogs >> > > Well, Jan mentioned you like butts, and here's one, albeit on an amputee. > Without the title, the butt's the subject. However, with the title, it > becomes rather an amusing photograph, since the titular dogs are really not > interested in the photograph, and are themselves on their way out of the > frame. > >> Scott Thurmond - Needs work >> > > A good idea, but the composition is too static. Perhaps it would be > improved by black and white (or much more saturation, to draw attention to > the emblem still proudly sitting on a rather sad carcass), or maybe > slanted, or maybe off center, I'm not sure. > >> Bob McCulloch - Daisies >> > > Pretty flowers, shot with a wide aperture. It is simply a pretty picture, > and needs something more to be something more. A wider aperture (or > longer lens) to further blur the background and isolate the subject would > help; the background blur is distinct enough to be a bit distracting. > >> Dan Mitchell - Cathedral >> > > There's something HDR'ish about the photo, yet the windows in front are > totally blown out. The verticals are mostly vertical, and that's good, and > I'm wondering what's going on in front with a long line of folks in the > center and spectators on the side. A wedding? A funeral? A baptism? Seems > like a small affair, though, dwarfed by the number of empty seats. So the > question becomes, what is the subject? The tall arches are the most > distinct and easy to see, and look as though their exposure was adjusted > in post. So, that's the subject for me. If that was the intended subject, > that's good. > > >> Yoram Gelman - Bark Gargoyle >> > > My favorite this week. This is something I would have photographed. It > might as well be in black and white, and perhaps should be, except... for > the green sprout growing out of his head. I like that, and would hate to > see it go. But perhaps in black and white, increasing the green in the > conversion process would turn the sprout white, making it more obvious. > Also, the circle of light at the top right is distracting and makes my > eye jump back and forth from the great face and the blurry light. You > could easily crop it off with no loss to the photograph. But these are > nits; I could be convinced that the light is the moon, and this fellow is > a wood gnome that only comes out in the moonlight. > > > Andrew > > > > > > > -- > http://andrewsharpe.com > > >
