Hi Andy and all, I know this frustration feeling when nobody relate to your posting. Sometimes it happen when posting images on this gallery. I wrote your review and agree with almost all what you said. My remarks: >> Bob McCulloch - Daisies - The image is a little bit underexposed. It seems that you let the automatic do the work but at least the white petal needs some correction. >> Dan Mitchell - Cathedral >From this low POV usually the lines converge upside unless you use shift capable lens or camera. In this image I have the feeling you fixed it in the computer but a little bit overdone. (The right side columns are falling to the right.) In one Phase One instructions - they recommend not to fix to 100%. A little bit of convergence is good for the image. Another point that I have different idea than Andy is my pic of the week: I have seen a lot of tree's bark images and quite fill up with them. ( although the lighting in Yoram's image is very unique.) My pic is Elson's boy although the writing is distracting me. Pini -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 8:12 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: PF members exhibit on 11 AUG 12 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 > > >
