lost and found Bent Fork

Comments always greatly appreciated.

Looks like an insect. I like the DOF you used & I love the colors. Would like to have been in your brain when you came up with this idea.

By far the very best insect photo here. Thx!!

 

tn

Wow, I really like it! I would never have guessed what that was! At this point, I'm pretty much in awe. I like it a lot. Great Job!!

++Radha++

who bent it? I'm almost thinking it's a piece of sculpture rather than a kitchen utentsil/garbage disposal mishap.

 

Whatever, the photograph is exceptional.

Excellent work!

I already gave you my spin on this elsewhere. Its dynamite Bob.

what have you done here Bob?? so much anger and frustration to vent??? :-) i like this, i'm trying to visualize this with your transfer techniques and i think i'm liking it that way. here, i'm not comfortable with the colors and tones at all, and the clinical noise free digital finish. and you're better off not giving such a litteral, awfully descriptive title!!!! :-) you'd rather keep it untitled for that matter. also this highlights in the blurred prongs bent down could be burned in a little bit.

like this maybe?

Hi Balaji!

 

You packed a lot of stuff into that one paragraph. :-)) Let's see. I hadn't thought about this as a transfer, but I have to admit it's an interesting idea. If I ever get back into transfers I might just give it a try.

 

As for the colors and tones, you've touched on something that plagues me with every post. I looked at this file on 4 monitors and it was different on each. So once again I decided to just go with what I saw on my monitor and keep my fingers crossed. It is frustrating because the fine points like the highlights you mentioned are very important. It's like trying to hit a moving target, one monitor will nail it and the next will miss it.

 

As for the title? I will be the first to admit that I suck at picking titles. Usually it's whatever pops in my head. However, leaving this untitled is not a bad idea!

 

The "clinical noise free digital finish" is an interesting observation. In my day job I'm always fighting the battle with noise, and not always winning that battle. This time I won the battle, but from looking at your attachment this might not be such a good thing. I like the noise you introduced to the file. Did you pull it out during your adjustments, or did you add the noise with PS? The stronger vignette is similar to another version of this image I have, but it looked over done on two of those other monitors I mentioned so I backed off on it. Your B&W conversion was very well done. You've given me something to think about here Balaji! There just might be a B&W version of this images posted in the near future. After all I could just use your attachment! Will they ban me for that? :-)

 

Thanks.

i haven't boarded the digital bandwagon. not yet, atleast. i was drooling all over myself when i looked at the specs for the 645AFD and the leaf backs, but it's just way beyond my budget, regardless of how passionate i am about photography. besides, film is cheap and better, and i have a teaspoonful of rodinal every morning anyway.. but yeah, noise is one department that causes nausea there, both when it's there and when there isn't. i try my best to stick to one/same color profile on the scanner, monitor, PS, etc. and it eliminates the variance to a reasonable extent. as for the amended alternative, i channel mixed it to mono, slight burning here and there, a bit of guassian noise, and toned in the end. thanks for letting me mess with it.

Speaking as someone who has a two car garage / workshop, my first technical question is . . . .

 

How did you bend the two tines to such a tight radius without mangling them?

 

Someone recently described one of my images as a fun bit of whimsy - or words to that effect. Think I'll pass it along.

I wish the light had some dappling here, as it looks a little flat. Also, I feel like the focus falls off too fast-doesn't reallt draw me into the whole fork. Great idea, though. More exploration would not be wasted. cheers

NICE ABSTRACTS!

Balaji - You have an open invitation to mess with any shot I post. How else can I steal your attachments and claim them as my own?

 

Carl - I can't take the credit for the condition of this fork. I found it while crawling around on the floor of a small antique shop. Not one of those nice and expensive shops, it was one of those cheap and dusty shops. I love those places. I think this fork was meant to be a small easel for displaying place cards at dinner parties. At least that's what the woman behind the counter told me. I wouldn't know because I don't go to that kind of party. The ones I go to involve paper plates and pizza. :-)

 

Kelly - Thanks for dropping by. The more I look at Balaji's version the more I like it. Is what he did similar to what you had in mind?

I though you took great pride in you critiquing skills?

This is an interesting study in texture and form and dof. I can't help thinking, however, there must be a more dynamic way to frame this. In general, I'm very sympathetic to this type of work, but I think you've got a ways to go before you've captured the essence of THE MUTILATED FORK! Best,Bob

Hi Bob,

 

I agree that it would be worth pushing this a bit farther. Exactly how I'm not sure yet? I would like you opinion on Balaji's attachment however. His version is growing on me more and more.

 

Thanks for stopping by.

Bob, I like both yours and Balaji's version of BOB's FORK. However, I still think there's going to be better photos of this fork. Actuallly, it would be fun to ship this around to a few interested P-netters and see what they could do with it!

you put the focus on a small area with 200 mmm-5.6 on a sinar digital back. ok. it looks like an spider from alpha-centauri. for this kind of insect i would prefere to see the whole body ;-)

This might be the shallowest comment you ever get on these fork pictures:

 

I like the colour one most.

 

Cheers,