noizy

Are those shrimps with a swirl filter?

Canadian Winter

There is so much post, I guess I can post some non-pertinent one too.

 

Is the kid real or is that a puppet? He's so rigid

It's so beautiful. Futuristic look. I live in Montreal, and we have very few skyscrappers.

I think I'm going to cry. This looks exactly like a Chinese painting books.

Funny montage

That is canada 6 months a year. Well 5, since global warming.

With the rain and all, i'd rather not buy the couch.

One of the shot I enjoyed the most on all aspect (technical, aesthetic, creativly) until now on photo.net. Seriously. Bravo!

A nice border would probably enhance the picture, because of the high variance in the tones on the side of the picture. Also it would help even more to give a close and intimate feeling to the picture. The light is like a little bubble and the couple is inside it.

Before seeing the title, I would have bet it'd be called "Two".

Technical question. Is this a studio shoot or is it natural light. The background looks like a backdrop, but it's mostly the light that tipped me.

Talk about candy! Would be nice to use light through the transparency of the candy to create a colorful effect. The color of the subject is a monochrome compared to the foreground subject.

 

Regarding ratings, roughly I'd say they are worthless. I sometime read them after, sometime before I look. What do they mean? Are they suppose to make me enjoy the picture more if the rating is above 7? You either enjoy a photo emotionally or you try to analyze it intellectually, but the rating wont help in either case. I personally think they destroy the effort of making your own opinion and to believe in yourself about what you create and perceive.

 

I will eventually create a user and I will post some of the most unknown picture from famous photographer and try to see how people rate them, I hope this will be conclusive to prove my point. Be aware everyone when you rate a picture from John Smith, you might be rating Man Ray.

 

Regarding previous comment, it made me laugh a bit, sorry to the rater. You said he used a different perspective then usuall and still gave him a 5 at originality, anyway, I guess ratings are very relative.

 

Oh yeah, my comment is, everybody loves Porto, mmmm so good ; )

You have a technicaly good portefolio, so I doubt you had time to learn proper 3D, but this picture is so unreal, I'm stunned, I don't know what to say.

Do you have any other shots of this place, different angles, different light or different polygon count or texture maps ?

: )

Oh, it's you! It's beautiful as usuall. ; )

As a thumbnail and looking at it very quickly I thought it was the ultimate abstract photography. I still think it's nice, but it's not what I expected before I clicked.

Superb!!! My comment is cliché, but it's worth it.

The red "thing" hanging from the top is now flying in this perspective. The red and the gold are wonderful (and you even shot it with Kodak). If the pic would be horizontal, i'd put on my desktop.

Looks unreal, almost like a sci-fi illustration of the 60's. : )

It's weird how the D30 interpret the out of focus areas...

Well... if you produced the same picture then the one that got on the cover of a book... it's means something... probably that you had the photographic eye to use the "best" point of view.

Maybe working a bit more with lighting would be nice... some hard light to create an harsh and long shadow for the key... and to enhance the texture of the paint on the wall....

 

You got a digital camera... go crazy... try 100 shots with different lighting.. high key and low key lighting techniques...

Thanks for reading my text.

Oh yes, I see! A pool, it makes sense, a big pool.

I approached your photo because you had a presentation that said "please criticize my quasi-minimalist foto". You applied the label yourself, that is why I cared to debate about it.

What made the Dadaist great was the shock value of the piece. It was a political/artistic statement to question the line that separated art and non-art.

"I totally disagree that an artist ought to use art as a means of communicating definite ideas. this may happen, but there doesnt seem to me anything wrong with a work just making someone go "huh?". "

Are you sure you totally disagree that art can communicate?

I have nothing wrong against "huh?" But it still is something communicated. Art is a media.

Sorry about the lazy, but you asked for criticism. I gave my impression, I can be wrong or right, it still is an opinion.

There are various things that can make a piece of art valid. Technique, aesthetically pleasing, shocking, original, ... If it is interesting to no one except yourself, I doubt you really achieved something. Artist always have a very different perception about their work then the rest of the world. It's like a family picture, do you really want to see them, probably not.

Art is not easy or everybody would do it. It is special because people who achieve something that is really appealing to others are rare/talented/hard-working. Few people are willing to make those sacrifices because it is an uncertain career. To be able to transmit to the public what you had in mind when you did your work is a rare occasion. People admire artists because they know that what they do is hard. Most people have tried and failed, that is why they can understand what is so special about it. Having talent is not everything, and our mothers have all told us that we are talented and special, but genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. (Quote from Thomas Edison)