stu_rosenbaum

I agree with the first comment except for the cropping. I think the girl lying in the dark area offers some sort of symbolism. Leaving the bright area below her only adds to the effect. Also, it could be just coincidence, but she may be lying where she is because it is cooler in the shade. Leaving the bright/sunny area at the bottom of the photo will also convey this.

Was this image changed in photoshop at all - sepia toned? Just curious how you got the overall tone the same with Kodak Gold film. Great shot.

Shane,

 

I like this picture. Very crisp - almost too crisp. Were you trying for that? If it were me, I would have preferred to have just a little more motion in the water, to make it more obvious it was a reflection and not a picture turned upside down (I know, the boats at the top give it away, but they are very small in relation to the rest of the picture). This is just a matter of personal preference though.

 

Nice job!

Happened across this scene while walking through the Key West

(Florida) Cemetery.

Seems pretty dark - was that your intention?

 

If not, I would have opened up a couple of stops to lighten the hippo. Looked at your whole animals folder and they are all pretty dark. If that is what you were trying for, it worked. Otherwise, it may be your camera's metering system is a little off.

A cardinal at 4 days old.

 

The nest was right next to our front door in a potted ficus tree. I

was careful not to disturb the nest during the time it was a home to

this young cardinal family. They were gone 10 days after they

hatched.

Taken 7 years ago, while "wrestling" with Sergei (14 months at the

time).

Aditya, great lighting on this picture.

 

Had a moment to briefly look at some of your other shots - love the one of the rowboat in the water.

 

It's too bad, there are some bad apples that ruin it for the rest of us on this website.

 

I happened across this site in my quest for knowledge on the subject of photography - not to discuss political issues with closed-minded individuals.

 

The photo critques are meant (IMHO), to discuss the creativity and aesthetics of the particul photo in question. Discussing the politics of a company's film is way out of line for this particular forum. Where do we draw the line? If we find that a particular company reduced it's contributions to the United Way this year, do we rate someone's photo less than it deserves because that individual used film, or a camera, or a lens produced by said company?

 

P.S. Keep up the great work, Aditya.

Totally awesome!

Agreed -I like the bird in the frame too.

 

Picture almost looks like a tidal wave about to crash onto the mountainside.

My wife, waiting for me to head out on the town, not knowing I was

lurking in the shadows with my camera.

I like the concept. Would it have been possible to place the windmill further to the left though? Or, possibly crop out the empty space in the left 1/4 of the original.

 

Nice work though.

 

Wish others would take time to rate my photos too, LOL (hint).

Please critique

First, let me say, "nice pic".

 

Second, does it really matter where Kodak spends its money? I'm sure if you did some research on Fuji, you'd see that they gave a major chunk of change to the Japanese Gov't to find ways to make it difficult for Kodak (and many other companies, US "owned" and others alike), to compete in their country. For more info on that, do a search for "World-Trade-Organization-Kodak-1996".

 

Lastly, Kodak has annual revenues of over $40 billion. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could afford to give more than .0001525% of their annual revenues to the Republican Party. How much money did professional photographers contribute to Fuji's bottom line by buying film to take pictures of Bill/Monica/Condit, in order to show us the Democratic Party's sexual prowess.