alexander_meyer

Actually, I chose the limited DOF intentionally to reflect the music they are playing: Jazz, with one solo instrument and a rhythm group in the background.

 

Thanks!

Alexander

It's probably the film, which I was trying there for the first time. Kodak EBX can give wonderful strong colours, but sometimes they look simply unreal.

The bright spot is the sun's reflection on the metal of the bench. I took a look at the original slide - it is already overexposed there. But I think it helps to make it also look like real shiny metal.

Thanks!

Whether dropped in or not, the moon looks unreal because it appears to be too large for seen with a wide angle lens, the shading of the color does not correspond well to it's angle above the horizon, and there's no reflection of it visible on the water. IMHO the picture would work much better without it.

When I saw this picture for the first time, my eyes were lost between all those windows and oriels. I did't find any stong lines nor a special point of interest they would lead to. The light itself would be nice, but because of the high contrast, the street and the cars in the foreground form a large black block without much structure inside.

 

And besides these compositional issues, I don't find an answer to the question, what is interesting about these fairly usual dutch houses.

 

Sorry about all the criticism.

These statues give a very strong picture in front of this completely black background. Very well exposed.

My first impression: a nice composition with harmonic lines and a clear center of interest. But something is missing.

 

Personally, I like sailing a lot, and I don't really need a reason for going sailing, but the people on your boat do! And this reason should be told by your picture. It's a rather calm, overcast day (making colors and contrast a bit dull.). No fun because of weak wind, and no fun on the sundeck either. It's not a day one would hope for, when going sailing with that boat ... so the story your picture tells is somewhat contradictory, don't you think so?

My first impression: Great picture. Why does it work so well?

 

First of all, it contains only very few elements, giving the eye a clear, single point of interest: the orange scale of the metronome. The contrast to the clam shades of blue which form the background stresses this point even more.

 

And there are these strong lines, casted mainly by the edges of the metronome. They all converge to two points: one at the top of the metronome, close to the 'optical center' of the picture, and the second - balancing the first one - at the tip of the shadow.

 

The only line that doesn't want to converge belongs to the pendulum, thus giving the impression of motion.

 

Excellent, Tom!

I saw this picture and asked myself - why did you think this place is a special one? I couldn't find any spot in the picture my eye would stick on. Overall colors are calm and quiet, which might support your statement, but they don't make a statement in themselves.

 

What makes this day a special one? There's no light which would give depth or color to your picture. The clouds that were maybe the subject you were interested in, are lost in the low contrast of the picture.

 

Some questions remain unanswered:E.g. Where does the way lead to? It just drops out of the picture.

Where does the shadow in the foreground come from? It's somehow disturbing...

 

Make your pictures more interesting, so they attract the viewers eye!

 

best regards

 

Alexander

This is truely extraordinary. Different. Striking. Creative.

 

At the first glance it appears disturbing and chaotic. But the latter dissolves because the eye is captured by the bright pink spot on the left side. Chaos turns into a rhythmic pattern of the contrasting colors of green and Orange. And there's movement in the picture.

 

No matter what the original picture showed - I first thought it was fire or something like that - the picture works, even if one would not call it a 'photograph' any more.

I am actually not aware of that cover picture (since I didn't care much about photography until 1998) However, I'm not surprised that there were photographers before me, who have treated this place in a very similar or identical way as I did. You don't have to be a photographic genius to find that exactly this viewpoint gives a very strong and appealing composition. But I have to admit that a highly aesthetic picture of a building like the Guggenheim Museum is not so much the merit of the photographer himself but of the architect's genius. (So I would certainly be justified to rate it low for originality.)