philmorris

Hi John, just went sniffing for news on a long lost photo buddy of mine - You! And blow me weren't you in the UK over Christmas. And up on the Glyders. Wish I'd have known. Nevermind. I was just trying to figure out where Tryfan was in this picture. I was there myself a couple of weeks ago. And then it dawned on me. You're on it! Hope all is well with you and yours. Best wishes,

I don't see the photograph as one of the Grand Canyon, though it features. Rather, it's a photo of two trees and their relationship against a mythological backdrop. Somewhere in there there's a knightly tale telling how a saintly one in a wilderness was tempted by a disfigured one disguised as a maiden. I think the sky closer associated with the backdrop than the immediate foreground. It has drama. If we're into cropping as we seem to be, I'd crop up from the bottom, a smidge from the top, create something squarish, lose the witches feet and the presence of some third character represented by the shadow, and have the horizon running somewhere through the middle, throwing the emphasis on the tree as subject found left. The picture has already been cropped to a 3:4 ratio from the original 2:3 and I imagine what has been removed is from the top and bottom, otherwise the inch or so of branch lost to the left would have been retained. I don't think stepping back a better option therefore. I prefer the tightness here, it contains all that is essential plus a little more besides.

 

I regret the branch should connect the two trees and the branch exiting the frame on the left mentioned previously. That the right sided tree does this is insignificant since it serves as a frame the full height of the picture and I like it that way.

 

The light is gorgeous, moulding the land with brilliant flicks of detail, though may be a tadge too bright on the trunk of the twisted tree. Nice one.

 

Here's the one where the guy commends the blacks. Dead right too. I'm pretty sure I said this last time, but that raised leg plus squashed eyebrow combination has me thinking he's amid a camera shaking fart. A wise move therfore to sit on the one opposite.

Was it this one or the other one? Can't remember. I just remember having fun supersizing the polystyrene cup. Great blacks again. Great square of black in the top right.

The hand is simply gorgeous. It replicates the twisted, knotty, gnarly body poise required to read papers placed left and right of the lap. I find interest in the kind of shabby, non-tailored trouser turnup too. Someone, somewhere in this bunch mentioned the delicious quality of the blacks. I'd love to hold a print on glossy and see the light shine off it.

Not cracked ice. Rather, the more readily available phenomenon of a house brick colliding with a car windshield.

Thank's Doug. Glad you like it. When I began to think how I might make something of the set up, there was this one picture that came rushing out of my memory bank.

'what a lucky guy I am having a mate like Phil'

Yunno, funnily enough I've had the very same thoughts. Hey, may be it's why the pickie came without an invoice!

Cheers PJ

First thoughts as requested; I like the natural colouring and idea and placement of the figure. The pose suggests a fearful man. Someone who has yet to come to terms with his environment and who presently prefers to shut it out. I think the picture has been assisted by what appears to be an overcast sky and the lack of shadows. It enhances my vision that the man is lkely to stay there a while, until he is kissed by warming sunlight.

 

I would prefer to see a thoroughly green lower edge. There are two white blobs (centre and right corner) that interfere with my preference for continuous green. I yearn for some interplay between the man and the largest boulder on view. Something to do with their similar size, fixed position and coldness. But the design doesn't give me that.

Thanks for your thoughts Julien. By around frame 12 I was scratching my head for a different looking composition and fell on this. The 'design' is in the white posts and how they operate to divide the square frame into 9 smaller ones. Through having this idea in mind I am perhaps guilty of over dodging the white posts that divide the frame in the way I was on about.

Thanks guys. Bless you both. Once in a while a blow out does me good. Just like your restorative remarks have. My very best wishes to you for 2005.

Cheers. You're way too kind.

Cheers Doug. I think I'm right in saying that you and I do most of our shooting within a short range of where we live. As such, I'll go out to a destination because I've seen before the shot I want to make. Or I'll go to a place where I expect to see something I'm after. And so I'll take the camera I think will create the pic I'm looking for. Sometimes I haven't got a clue what to expect so I'll take "the lot", leave it in the car and go wander for half an hour and come back later for the right gear. Some other day I'll take the lot loaded on my back. The sort of day when I've been gone an hour say and then it starts to pour down.

 

Hey, ... great to have your input. All the best for '05 mate.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

I rarely post to critters' corner (6 in the last 6 months). I thought I'd go ahead with this shot with my fingers crossed that may be, just may be, insight, reading, connectivity, appreciation and a general interest in getting into another photog's head might have broadened. As the 3.14 for aesthetics and 3.57 for originality suggests (in my humble opinion - and the only one I've got), the plain fact is it hasn't.

 

Wanna know what I think? I think this a rather dainty little picture, the miniature icon well suited to the plastic camera and surprisingly sharp where it counts given the requirement that focus should be guestimated. Clearly, as far as the peeps at critters' corner are concerned, my skill and judgment is below average on both counts. I think there really is precious little point in bothering with the place.

Only the very finest congratulatory remarks sought on this

astonishing shot of a cathedral spire. Ta very muchly.

Opinions sought on this holgagraph

Thanks John. I've struggled with the writing too. Do you reckon the first letter is a 'W'? It might explain why the bench paint's blistered ;)

Thanks for these comments peeps. I love this place. There is a vast collection of the oddest looking constructions you ever did see. And there's also this hierarchy developing where the tumbly ones are at one end and the posh ones with shrubberies, two level effects and a path running down the middle are at the other.

 

G, re nit one - I got the Isola 1 last week. It dates from about 1956. Another example of a MF point and shoot camera for the masses. It's made from fabulous aluminium and plastic. Shutter is 1/30 sec or bulb. Max ap is f/11. Min ap is f/16. And if that's not small enough it comes with a second f/16 aperture but with a yellow bit of plastic across it. You guestimate the distance for focusing and sharpness is poor to acceptable in the middle dropping off markedly around the edges. The thing is you need to find suitable subjects where sharpness and detail are not the major interest. It's a mood and empathy kind of camera.

 

Re nit two, this shot is the first frame from the first roll. All twelve show tight framing. Most cameras will reveal through the viewfinder say 90% of the scene which will end up on the negative. The MF P&S cameras from the 40s and 50s I've used, especially the Holga reveal about 75%. So I figured stepping closer was no bad thing. Except that the Isola will show you 100% and then some. The lesson is when it's framed as you want it, then take two steps backwards.

Er, excuse me. Can the naughty pixie in photonetland who puts the letter a into peoples' names where they're not wanted please stop and put the right one back again! There's an a to be taken off of my name and there's an a to be swapped back to an o in Isidro's. And whoever it is had better own up quick or there'll be no visit from Father Christmas!!

 

That should get it sorted.

Beautiful colour picture G. I'm reminded of something Isidra said last week. It went something like the pinnacle of technique is achieved when it is undeniably present yet unobtrusive. I think that is so here. You know technique must lurk someplace but you can't quite say where because the picture's success is based upon what glows at you and what hides from you in equal measure. Like Tinkerbell and Peter Pan's shadow just got married.

Thanks Colin. This structure is a little over 12 months old. It's known as The Whittle Arches, and is named after one of Coventry's most celebrated sons, jet engine inventor Sir Frank Whittle. Designed by architects MacCormac Jamieson Prichard and structural engineers Whitby Bird and Partners, the scheme is made up of two arches spanning 50 m and rising more than 15 m. It's supposed to illustrate two wings, but I prefer to visualise it as the contrails of two passing jet aircraft. I'm told that at night it comes to life with some awesome 'electric lightning'.

See here for example.

Thanks Bala. It's not as mystical as I would like. But what I'm clear about is a precision lens would be retrograde. The trouble with the bio pic is the reverse. It's scares me for what it details :D

A great series. If these were in print I'd buy. No question. (Assuming the set wouldn't cost me more than $25.00 in paperback).

I saw this some while ago, but I couldn't think of the list of superlatives with which I might describe it. But it was a photo without comments so I figured I could spend a while thinking and then come back and drop something sensational. Well I've looked and looked and then! And then I find I'm not the first! Hell, damn. Knickers, Vests, Pants, Bras!

 

It's a photo of a dog first and of a reader second. And the placement of the window as highlighting surround sees to that if there was some doubt. There's this excess of space to the right shoving the weight to the left. Aw jeez, come clean. The dog ain't reading nothing. It's just a great pic of a dog in all its clumsy, dumbness.