It's just my opinion;
Hilary:
Comp is strong, but the left side weakens the image. Also, just because
she's moving doesn't allow justification for a soft image. I like the image,
but would have chosen a simple technique of using flash to freeze the moving
subject and a slow shutter, say 1/4 of a second to allow blur. To me, that
more depicts motion than simple blurring.
Landesteg:
Great comp. It's obvious that a long exposure was used, so why is the
foreground and the public dome on the right, soft? I have no idea, but an
image of this quality deserves more sharpness. Crystal clear subject matter.
The image otherwise succeeds. Colors are phenomenal, comp is working and
subject matter is classic.
The Haves At Rush Hour:
Great image. Comp works, color vs. b/w works. Motion vs. still action works.
Subject matter works. Very successful shot. I do see a softness in the
buildings and the bordering technique is obtrusive. It simply doesn't work.
Ruby 2000
This images is intense. A human being that is lost in her world and
disregards how any one may interpret that world.
The image is of course soft. Why? It doesn't add to the ambience of the
individuals life, it doesn’t add to her plight. There isn't a profoundness
in that interpretation of the subject matter. It's just soft. To see the
real subject, one has to ignore the failing of rendering the subject, sharp.
The softness can not be blamed on grain.
Yes, I have beat a dead horse. In my time, I have studied 10s of thousands
of images. This image offers no real comp. in that the shooter has placed
her subject right in the middle of the frame, and it's out of focus! This
image would have been even stronger, had the shooter squatted to the floor
and shot up into the women's face.
Hylocereus Study:
Fascinating subject composition. But again, and I am tired of this, the
subject is not in focus!!!! This subject suggests that many topics were used
to create the final addition. Multiple frames layered one onto the other
which can create some amazing images, but especially in sharpening. In
Astronomy, it is the technique commonly used to gain more sharpness of a
planet or moon. Thousands of images are stacked to create one very sharp
image.
I do like the image.
To qualify, I am using a 45in HD monitor. If all of these subjects are
indeed sharp to everyone else, then I apologize. But my monitor does render
a lot of these images as too soft for qualification.
But not all of them.
Portrait:
It's a little wooden, good call._grin I see this image as a play on the
ancient wooden Indian. The wax rendering. Someone's idea of respect or
flattery. Cute. Having no idea who this bust represents, the comp. is
boring. But maybe that's okay if the topic of this image was to simply
render a copy of someone's sculpture. As a rendering of someone's art. But
basically it appears as a "file" image.
Foggy Morn:
Classic. Nice image. Good soft detail of a foggy atmosphere with classic
ships. The image works in every way. I would have cropped more of the left
side, say, just after the first float just after the third ship on the
left?? Great image.
Searchlight Mining Shack:
What the hell? Focus is horrible. Composition and exposure are dead on, but
why is the focus and therefore the depth of field so problematic??
The Exit:
Again, why is the focus misplaced? The subject is confusing as is the
caption. There is no focus of the subject or the camera. Determining what we
are looking at, fails.
Decaying Grand Old House:
Nice, if not even great black and white. The comp. is out in that the tree
on the left should have been included, as trying to lose all of the limbs at
this angle would have been impossible. It would have also included some deep
blacks. The other problem is that the house is leaning out of the center of
the comp. A wide angle effect that can through an image out of it's text.
The perspective isn't working.
I love the atmosphere and the black and white rendering of the subject.
But, as I mentioned earlier, it's all just my opinion. I would though,
question why so many of the images were out of focus. Can anyone clarify????
Gregory
Gig Harbor, WA.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Davidhazy
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:10 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: 10 new photographs in PF members' exhibit space on 11 JAN 2014
The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated JAN 11, 2014.
Authors with work now on display at:
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html include:
Howard Leigh - Hilary
Klaus Knuth - Landesteg
Art Faul - Rush hour
Tina Manley - Ruby, 2000
Trevor Cunningham - hylocereus study
Dan Mitchell - Portrait
Bob McCulloch - Foggy Morn
Bob Sull - Searchlight Mining Shack
Christopher Strevens - The exit
Yoram Gelman - Decaying Grand Old House
NOTICE: There is a new series exhibition in Gallery-10. Photographs by Randy
Little on Children of Beijing. See it at
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery-10/index.html
Last week the counter read 10440 and when this collection was installed the
counter read 10760
Enqueued for future installation: Miller, Pires, Little, Palcewski and
Ferguson. Additional contributions always welcome!
To participate in this activity find instructions at:
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery-sub.html
Please do not send images until your last one was installed. Saves
headaches. Send your contributions early and anything you can do to prepare
the photographs so they do not require additional adjustment would be much
appreciated. Especially keeping them near 1000 pix in longest dimension and
200Kb in maximum size. Large images that run off the edges of average
monitors are a pain. Larger is not always better!
Please take an extra minute to abide by this request but if you have doubts
about how to prepare images just send them anyway and the capable gallery
staff will adjust them for exhibition.
Did you know you could have a series exhibition? Learn all about it on the
instructions page mentioned above.
From: Roseanne
PS: do you know of other persons who might be interested in subscribing to
PhotoForum? See below:
FYI - for subscription instructions and other informational files visit the
PhotoForum's website at: http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photoforum.html
FYI- to unsubscribe from PhotoForum send, from the address you subscribed
with, a PLAIN text email message to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with text
"signoff PhotoForum" on first line of message body. If you use HTML
formatted mail it will not work! Contact list coordinator if you have
problems: andpph@xxxxxxx
PF on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=234442540144&ref=mf
