I understand. I would have included that personal touch by focusing a
little more tightly. Thanks!
Gregory,
Gig Harbor, WA.
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: PF members exhibit on Sep. 21,
13
No photoshop accept to ad my little sign.
On Oct 6, 2013 11:34 PM, "Gregory" < fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.
|
