I think the auto settings were wrong. -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gregory Sent: 07 October 2013 07:34 To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: PF members exhibit on Sep. 21, 13 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.
