jeremy_smith

January 14, 2005

striking and unusual. i like your portfolio.

January 3, 2005

Very nice light, of course. To me, the problem (and the distracting element) is the rather odd shape of the land (?) in the foreground--like a grasping thumb & index finger jutting out from the bottom corners. I think if this was cropped a little less closely (by backing up a step and angling the camera down just a bit, for instance), this wouldn't be an issue. Otherwise, a very pleasant picture to look at.

January 1, 2005

These huge fields of windmills are about 80 miles east of Los

Angeles. I darkened the photo overall, but left the contrast alone--

is this overdone?

December 30, 2004

Marc, what if the girl was, say, 10 paces to the right of where she appears in the current photo? Would you still say that she should be under approximately the same lighting conditions (assuming no manipulation) as the people in the background? I'm only asking because the surface there seems even more reflective than the one on which she's standing currently.

December 30, 2004

Marc,

I know next to nothing about lighting compared to you--let's just get that out of the way first. But are you saying that shining a bright light (whether it's the source or a reflective surface) at the subject from behind (with the subject between the lens and the light source) will NOT produce a silhouetted image of the subject?? Please clarify, if you don't mind. Thanks,

JS

December 30, 2004

One thing I haven't seen pointed out yet is the fact that the girl is walking on a reflective surface (the sheen of water over the sand), and, as such, the (reflected) light coming from behind her and towards the lens is brighter than that coming off the dry sand on which the others are standing. I would not hesitate to think that anyone standing in that wet area in which the girl stands would be similarly silhouetted (say that fast 5 times!). Of course it's possible that Miguel enhanced this effect, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't.

Is this just a dumb theory? I'm a little stuffy-headed and jet-lagged at the moment.

December 17, 2004

Beautiful-may I ask where this is?

December 12, 2004

Funny! I think beach crabs are hilarious to watch. The background does look weird, as others have said--especially, I think, the feet with the blue flip-flops. f2.0, 1/100th in bright sunlight--was this really your exposure?

December 6, 2004

I don't know--I like the tones in Doug's version, but it's also lost all the texture in the background of the original, which has a pleasing, canvas-like feel to it. I think I'd have to go with the original, messier version. Congrats on POW, Carey.

December 4, 2004

Oh what the hell-- I'm going to call this one perfect

November 5, 2004

i agree, maybe a bit more contrast, but i like it a lot--very unusual.

October 25, 2004

This is a great wedding picture (and refreshingly un-manipulated). Perfect moment. Would like to see some more room on the right and less on the left--just a thought. The couple must love this!

October 4, 2004

This is a very pretty scene, no doubt, but really this belongs in the giant celestial folder in the sky called "Pretty Evening Light Filtering Through the Grass". Most of us, of course, have a few guilty shots like this in our folders (I can provide direct links to mine Congrats, Eric, but a quick glance at your work is all one needs to find more interesting work: even similar stuff.

October 4, 2004

Very nicely composed. Needs a bit more light in the eyes (I'm guessing this was set up). Also like the 'kingsized' photo in your folder. Welcome to PN.

September 29, 2004

Unusual and very flattering portrait. Interesting symmetry too.

September 29, 2004

Interesting--I like this, but I have to agree that the further-away-person seems kind of awkward--can't quite tell if he/she is walking or staring forlornly into the river. Also, I think I might like this rather in true black and white, because this desaturated (or sepia-toned, can't quite tell) version makes the puddle in front of the camera look especially muddy and does not offer the most flattering reflection, least of all that of Notre Dame. On the other hand, I can't say I've seen another picture of this cathedral reflected in a brownish puddle, so points for that, of course. Nice photo. Really a 2 second exposure?

September 27, 2004

With monitor settings of 1024x768 and higher, this is best viewed in

large format. Would just like to know if this works compositionally

and as an idea. Thanks!

September 25, 2004

Gorgeous light and a unique view. Very nice.

September 21, 2004

Don't use a very fast shutter too often, so this was the result of

some experimenting. This is 1/4000th sec; Fuji NPZ rated at 640;

camera on tripod & self-timer. A bit of the top and bottom were

cropped. Hope you like.

September 7, 2004

Apparently my brain has shut off for the week, because I really don't get this image. I truly appreciate the unusual perspective and abstract quality, but I'm just not sure what I'm looking at. Maybe if I could see a wider angle view first before seeing this one, this picture would fall into place. I understand from reading that there is red silt being carried down the river. But the sharp contrast between the dark water (shadow?) and the clear water, and the odd dark trail left by the boat are just not clicking yet. Maybe in a couple of days...