jerrymat

Hi Susan, I deeply enjoyed looking at your wedding work, and stopped to write you at this one because it is especially a capture of happiness and joy. I used to do weddings as a side line business (I was a high school teacher). I started as a high school junior (1956) and did them all on film except for the last, which was digital (2004). Congratulations on memorializing so much human happiness. Sincerely, Jerry Matchett

Very lovely layered effect. Jerry Matchett

What I especially like is that you have put the camera close to the child's eye level. It gives us more of what he is experiencing. Alas, at my age I can't bend down fast enough anymore. My regards, Jerry Matchett

Christine, This is wonderful in that it makes so many suggestions as to meaning. The contrast between insects (biting? stinging?) and naked human flesh instantly captures the viewer's attention. Then the fact that she is holding a revenge weapon (fly swatter?) begins to even the score. Then the realization that she is holding a jar or other glass object that may have insect aquatic infant stages begins to suggest that perhaps the adult insect's motivations are justified. It was good fun studying the image and recognizing the elements. It offered for me a succession of revelations. If I could make a suggestion for change it would be that the far right third of the picture (dark with radiator) does not seem to have a visual purpose. Were this mine, I would consider cropping enough off of the right side to change the picture ratio to about 4 to 5. Most sincerely, Jerry Matchett

Anette, You have captured on of those precious moments in the growth of a child. If I could make one tiny suggestion, it would be to crop the image to eliminate the parts that don't contribute to the story. If you crop out the far left and the top you will end up with a rectangular picture that really focuses attention on the little girl and her activity. My regards, Jerry Matchett

Remarkably beautiful!! It is seldom I say I wish I had done this one, but I say that here. You have created a masterpiece. My warmest regards, Jerry Matchett

Amy, My first impression was that this was an underwater photo. She does seem to be floating. It is very nice abstract, and since it is labeled as number one, I assume you will be building up the collection. I look forward to seeing the rest. Regards, Jerry

I too have noticed how easy it is for the darks to predominate in digital photography. Basically there is a five stop range of brightness - sort of like working with old Kodachrome film. It required setting the exposure for the highlights - and let the shadows fall where they would. One of my postsed pictures is taken in the mountains of Colorado and someone commented that he would like to see the dark forest less dark. Impossible on Kodachrome film of the time it was taken. I finally discovered the digital technique called "expose to the right" and adopted it. (you can find it on the web). I find that it gives me much more control over tonality by preventing accidental underexposure. In simple language it says, since there is only a five stop range and the brightest stop uses one-half the pixels available and each successively darker stop uses one-half of the remaining pixels, it is important to get the exposure exactly right at the highlight or right end of the range, so as to leave enough pixels at the darkest f/stop portion of the picture. Instead of just looking at the image I have taken, I set the camera to show both image and exposure graph. If the right side is not nearly exactly at the right end, I adjust the exposure and take another picture. That way all of the pixels are being used to express the image. In film the characteristic curve was a curved line and gentle shadow handling was close to automatic. In digital it is a straight line and frequently post processing adjustments can improve the shadows. That is after the "expose to the right" procedures during picture taking. My regards, Jerry Matchett

Andrea, You have used just the right amount of sharpening (focus and depth of field) for this character portrait. Depending upon what is done with it (mounted on a page with other photos, perhaps) his look to our left strongly causes us to want to see at what he is looking at. Just imagine that this is on the page of an album and to the lower left is mounted a picture of ...... 1. his grandchild or 2. his pile of dirty dishes 3. his faithful dog. Make it a picture of the pretty next door neighbor and you could have him in trouble. Regard, Jerry

And a cute little guy he is. I suspect he is male because most birds decorate the male and camoflouge the female - sort of backward to the way people do it. If you have many birds in your area, purchasing a local bird ID book can be useful. Most bookstores carry them. One great thing about birds is that they have officially recognized common names, so one does not need to memorize Latin words to name them. Your composition is fine (rule of thirds?), however I would suggest using a smaller f/stop to get greater depth of field and image sharpness. Regards, Jerry Matchett

This is a fantastically creative idea! I might suggest that there is room for a much bigger balloon - I think that would give more support for its possibility. Jerry

Jose, This is really beautiful! I am far to old for mountain climbing anymore, but I do wonder where on earth this is. The crisp appearance of the central mountains is especially wonderful. My regards, Jerry

Esteve, You have me confused.  You seem proud of the lens flair on her face.  All of my photographic career this has been something to avoid.  I can remember it appearing in photo magazines in the list of common errors. Jerry Matchett

Hi Michael, Somewhere back in the days of film and before digital, I attended a workshop where there was a serious discussion regarding pubic hair on nudes. One speaker showed photographs that were of a certain sub era of classical Greek statues and for a period of time they lacked pubic hair --- statues! Both male & female! He suggested that the alternation of shave and leave natural regularly cycles throughout history - we just don't have enough evidence to convince anyone. I do remember the first nude I photographed. She was blond in both areas. Therefore when a modern blond model turns out to have dark pubic hair, I wonder. A speaker at the workshop was from an art-photography gallery and he said photographic nudes then sold 10:1 in favor of no pubic hair. He said that painted nudes had similar sales results. At least, then, pubic hair was a negative thing. It was no more than 5 months later when I was contacted by a European model who was traveling from Italy to various parts of the U.S. and she wanted to book a photo session while she was visiting my locality. To my great surprise, when the model disrobed, her axial hair looked like a black mat of steel wool and then her pubic hair looked similar. The mats were each large enough to hide a softball. To me, esthetically awful, especially with the thought of her in a short sleeved blouse or a bikini! All of this has me wondering. Does removal and display of pubic hair cycle? Is there a cycle for axial hair? Are the two cycles synchronized? Since some models have begun to use electrolysis to remove pubic hair and they say after a certain number of applications, the lack of hair becomes permanent, how will they stay in harmony with changing fashion? Maybe there will be a market for labial wigs. For others we can run classes in how to braid the pubic hair! My regards, Jerry Matchett

Ringo, This is a very intense and emotional image!  Upon enlarging it, I looked first at her cleavage (well, I'm a man and can't help it!)  Then I noticed the several drops of moisture on her left breast (picture right) and scanned upward to realize that she was crying - trickles of tears dropping down her face, moist eyes.  Then I read the caption.  Nice capture of an emotional moment! I have a tendency to over-analyze things, so I came up with the idea that there needed to be more picture space above her eyes - show more hair, put those emotional eyes in an even stronger position.  But that would either make the picture awkwardly vertical or cut off the brief but important lower black part of the costume. Probably you have found the optimum compromise. Jerry Matchett