Although I have been a member for some time, I hesitate to offer critiques.
Reasons are that I am very un-forgiving, I assume.
Bicycle:
I fail to understand the point. If comp is the only subject, the image
works. Contrast, color levels all work, but the image seems soft. My monitor
maybe? Tightening the comp would have been my choice.
Smiley Tower:
Again, the focus of the image seems to fail. Are you trying to juxtapose the
road with the tower? Good contrast, color levels but the point (titling) of
the image it seems, is lost in that I have to look hard to even see the
tower much less define that tower. Is it a rock formation, an old castle?
Failing to understand the authors point, and according to the title, I would
have tried my best to hike into a more focused point of view. Grab your gear
and put yourself in a more according comp.
Memorial:
First, why are you standing to the left of this memorial? Second why is the
focus so soft I can't read the entire memorial's scripture? (Again, my
monitor?) Blown out highlights. No fill flash? Imaging the memorial in my
opinion, means squaring it off, and allowing the viewer to read all that is
engraved on the stone. Using a Pete Turner (a graduate or RIT) approach,
hire a lift that allows you gain a more significant rendering by elevating
your camera to see not only the (readable) memorial, but the landscape
behind the memorial as well.
Elevate yourself to a higher ideal.
Smoke:
An interesting viewpoint. Although, much of the right side of the image has
little relevance. A tighter crop would have worked better. But, what is the
point? Smoking? The model does not entice me. Her exhalation is more
reminiscent of a bygone era. Her midriff bulge suggests a women with some
experience in relationships. Is that part of the indented story?
Crooked Mile:
I respect Yorum's work. This image needs something to break up the lines
both the shadows as well as the fence line. An awesome addition would have
been a natural inclusion of say, a horse in the "V" section of this image or
a contrived addition such as a couple making love, or......???
Arches:
Clever use of Photoshop or some program that is similar, and yet boring.
Dramatics would have succeeded had the author presented a more intense
rendering of this site (a little more focusing on the landscape) and then
added his humorous addition. This image is boring.
There are those, who assume they are great, i.e.: lots of success. But
sometimes, that requires an arrogance to sustain that success. The end
result is, that person can not see failure.
First Camera: OK, so what?
Andrew Davidhazy: Another in his series of motion imaging. This images lack
knowledge. Should we simply defy understanding? Motion is obvious subject?
If so, then why the defined hand? Technically, the image works without
needing to know how it was achieved. But adding the hand involves confusion.
Also, the background looks like low-res pixilation.
My thoughts are intended to criticize but not bash. I would appreciate any
comments.
Gregory
Gig Harbor, WA.
