Thanks for your careful analysis of the photograph, David. In fact, I don't know what the purpose of the poles are, nor of the connecting members. I took the image because I liked how it appeared that the poles were holding up the land, even though they themselves appeared to be unsupported, lending a rather ambiguous feeling to the scene. And thank you to both Trevor and Yoram; your feedback is absolutely appreciated, and always will be, regardless of what that feedback might be. Andrew On Sun, March 17, 2013 12:19 pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > On 2013-03-16 23:51, YGelmanPhoto wrote: > >> This week's collection is much more eclectic than usual -- probably due >> to the scramble to get something in after being told than Nothing was >> in the pot! Anyway, here's my take. -yoram >> >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Andrew Davidhazy wrote: >> >> >>> The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated March 16, >>> 2013. Authors with work now on display at: >>> http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html include: >>> >>> >>> Andrew Sharpe - Bixby Park, Palo Alto, California >>> >> I don't understand what I'm looking at. >> > > Is that good or bad? > > > We're clearly looking at a watercourse, heading off into the distance > left (and you can see a bit of the next turn right in the upper right > corner of the land area). We're clearly looking at reflections of poles > coming up out of the water. The horizontal members must be essentially on > the surface of the water, since we see no separate reflections of them. > (We can verify the bottom pole images are reflections since > they're slightly modulated by the small ripples on the water.) Possibly > they form some sort of dam (perhaps the water beyond them is lower than > the water on our side of them; no way to tell from the photo that I've > thought of), or perhaps they're to limit the spread of the driftwood we > see floating in a number of places on our side of it, or perhaps it's > something else entirely. Is the image about the real-world purpose of > what we're seeing, or it it about itself? > > And after looking at your next four, I see you got out of bed on the > wrong side that morning :-). > > >>> Randy Little - >>> >> The image is what it is. To me there had to be a lot of "retouching". >> The claim of "ZERO retouching only dodge and burn and and some minor >> CC" is self-contradictory. >> > > "Retouching" and basic darkroom techniques were worlds apart. Since > he's using the term, I'm assuming he's using those definitions (since there > aren't any other agreed ones, anyway). > > "Printing" included normal color correction, contrast and exposure > adjustment, and some selective contrast, exposure, and color adjustment. > (Deliberately choosing wild choices, from cross-processing to > solarization to un-named weirdnesses, was generally mentioned explicitly, > but was in any case always obvious.) > > "Retouching" was taking lines out of people's faces and such (generally > by painting dyes on the print or sometimes directly on the negative). > > Fancier compositing was done various ways, from multiple exposures to > extreme multi-master dye transfer printing (mostly used for fancy > advertisements as this was too expensive for most artists). > > So what Randy is saying there is clear to me -- he made small > adjustments to overall and local density, and to overall color. But he did > NOT clone out or in image elements or paint things over or anything > like that. > > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info > > >
