On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Andrew Davidhazy wrote:
I agree, it’s a good mood shot. The IR effect isn’t glowing and fuzzy the way I try to make mine look. But the reduction of IR effects may be caused by the sensor. Also, if you are going to put your name in the shots, you might as well add a copyright logo © and make the image ostensibly copyrighted for all those who might want to lift it. There is a site called tineye.com and it is a reverse image tracker. I use it once a year, and am usually horrified by the people who have lifted my work. One year I found CBS on that list and they got a bill.
Where is your focal point here? I recommend that next time you are ot amazon.co.uk, you take a look at Henry Horenstein’s excellent book on learning digital photography and it is here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-Photography-A-Basic-Manual/dp/0316020745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351428323&sr=8-1 I’m not sure why learning digital photography would be different from learning film photography, but Henry is aiming his pen at you. Also available are books by John Hedgecoe and for landscapes, Charlie Waite.
I would like this shot better if the man’s elbow at the left were not there. As noted earlier, your work would use a dose of Walker Evans too, as you do not seem to like facing people and scenes directly. In the beginning it was hard tome to do that too, and then I learned a trick. Today, anybody asking what I’m doing (this goes for strangers, officials, and policemen alike) I tell them I’m shooting for a class so I can get a leg up on my hobby. I tell them my day job is shooting weddings, and everybody knows about shooting weddings and what a pain in the butt they are.
It’s a nice effect and perhaps not repeatable. I’ve always done it by accident. This looks like what I like to call a ‘happy accident’. Jan Faul Art Faul The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com Camera Works - The Washington Post |
