gdw

Rob, you obviously have not been in the position to pay to have graffiti removed from your property or you would not wax poetic about vandalism and defacing private property.

Jim, as mentioned the lighting makes the photograph and this is very well done. I have a couple of minor gripes the most important of which is the shadow created by the nose. It give a strange shape to the face profile. Not knowing for sure if this is a posed shot or done during a performance would determine the severity of the problem. In either case, catching the head when it was turned slightly more toward the light would have solved the shadow problem. The other is that even though the guitar is defined by the neck and tuning keys, it would have been nice to see more of the body to complete the image..

 

Beyond that there are a couple of small tweaks that could be done to pick the shot up as it is. Toning down the two highlights on the left shoulder would help keep the emphasis on the profile and the lighted side of the body. Especially the one on the far right of the image, it seems to float unattached in this small size, maybe not in a larger print, but still needs toning down. The other is the highlight on the bottom of the left wrist. The highlight on the top of the arm is fine and gives defination, but the one under the arm could stand to be toned down, not removed, but darkened some.

 

Jim, these are all relatively minor points and to a great extend a matter of personal opinion. Over all it is a very nice image and with a few tweaks could be an even better image. Hope this helps.

 

Antonio, after some consideration, no. Taking out the legs and the single person on the right and you would be left with a nice record shot of the square.

 

Let me say that you have done an excellent job selecting the time of the day for shot so that you still have some blue sky but the lights are on to increase interest to the buildings. This helps take this image out of the ordinary. However the pattern in the pavement from this angle presents a barrier to the eye. Instead of leading into the image they keep sending the eye to the edges.

 

The legs on the right serve as the entry point into the image, first because they provide the only strong contrast in the image so that is where the eye tends to go first. They also lead to the pattern in the pavement, which leads the eye to the person in the distance who is looking back into the image from the same angle as the opposing lines in the pavement. So as convoluted or sophisticated (which ever you choose) the legs do serve an important function in the image. I do think that if the three round toped windows on the right were cropped out that the effect of the two figures leading into the image would be strengthened. That would put the right hand figure on the periphery of the image giving it less importance as an element that you wish to emphasize.

 

Would the image be better if there were more of the figure on the left. I don't know. Because of the strong contrast a full figure might have become more important than the rest of the image. As it is, they leave some mystery without becoming the center point.

 

I am attaching a suggested crop. Notice how the eye immediately goes to the most contrast, the legs, and how putting the far figure on the edge strengthens the line between the legs and the figure. So the eye follows the pavement pattern across to the figure on the right, which stops the eye from moving out of the photograph. The gaze of the figure on the right directs the eye back towards the central arch and tower. The two figures are players in the scene but the buildings are still more important.

 

Just my opinion. Thanks for the opportunity to share it with you.

 

William, I would call your self portrait unconventional rather than weird. The way the figure seems crouched tightly against the edge of the image combined with the dark and not easily identified abstracted shapes creates considerable tension maybe even anxiety in the image. It is difficult to read the facial expression; it is almost as questioning as it is uncertain. The interesting silhouette of the chair is difficult to identify and leaves the viewer guessing momentarily what it could be.

 

You have done a laudable job of makeshift lighting, very ingenious uses--I can't help wondering how the telescope fits into the lighting scheme. It appears that you have done considerable post processing on the left eye because it is whiter and brighter than the lighted right eye. But that is okay because it adds considerably to the questioning quality and mystery of the photograph. IMO, I would have liked the drapes not quite so prominent and identifiable, but otherwise this is a very interesting, although unconventional composition. I can understand why you are partial to it.

 

Rachel, a fairly simple freehand way would be to clone the iris color in toward the center of the eye, then take a hard edged burn tool or a darkening too and darken the center for the size pupil you want. When it is like you want it, soften the edges to blend. Minimal number of steps and easy to correct if you don't get it the right size or shape the first time.

Katherine, as a photographer you have a choice to follow the rules and make your photographs as nearly like all the other rule followers or you can make your own rules. I lean toward making your own rules.

 

I think this is a very nice strong triangular composition. The arms make strong leads to the eyes (think giant arrowhead), which is the important part of a people picture. Yet you have included enough of the table at the bottom to help keep the eye from following the arms down and out of the photograph.

 

The setting worked out to provide an interesting secondary framing for the face, the dark strip with the "frame" like borders. If the forehead bothers you then that is a problem. I personally like tight crops so I am not bothered by it.

 

Ninety percent of this image is in the top fifth. The rest is story that adds to the viewers knowledge of the subject, the uniform like shirt with rolled up sleeves, the sleeve patch, the caf頢ooth setting, the casual arrangement of the hands. In all it think it is an excellent photograph.

 

I see only one objection, the left eye is too dark. Actually it looks like he has a shiner (black eye). It appears that when you adjusted curves or levels you got some posterization in the dark areas that needs to be backed out.

 

Ben, (opinion only) First, I do not think the image is too cluttered. The sharpness of the foreground and midground combined with the aerial perspective in the background gives a nice feeling of depth to the image. The stillness of the water; the movement in the clouds that compliments the complexity of the foreground are all interesting elements.

 

There are a couple of things I would like to mention.

 

I do not know if a higher or lower viewpoint would have been possible, but I believe the feeling of depth would have been increased if the tops of the large rocks in the foreground were not "kissing" the distant shoreline, especially the left side of the lighter large rock where it seems to be to continued with the darker distant hill. Either a lower viewpoint where there was more overlap of the foreground and the background or a higher viewpoint where there was some water separation between the foreground and the background would possibly have increased the feeling of depth.

 

The large rocks in the foreground seem to create a "fence" keeping the eye within the oval composition of the foreground instead of leading to the distant shore (see illustration).

 

I have included a diagram to illustrate a couple of possible croppings with lead in lines.

 

The original image is, IMO, very nice as it is and neither of the objections I have mentioned are image killers; they are simply things to think about.

 

Rebecca, this is as clever an attempt as I have seen on Pnet. You must have moved at breakneck speed to get there before the timer went off.

 

Although without the comment I would have missed the wings altogether. A few ideas that might have helped. Move slightly closer to the subject. I don't think you needed the first exposure. Since your arms waving up and down are not going to completely block the background I think the transparency would come through without the double exposure. Maybe, if the background were a little darker the effect might be more easily seen.

 

I do hope you have an opportunity to try it again because I think it shows a lot of creativity and I would like to see you carry off the effect.

 

It would also be interesting to see a snow angel at his feet for a shadow effect. It would also give some redundancy to the "wings" so they would be more clearly understood as such.

 

James, if you have even minimal knowledge of PS layers you will find this can be extremely simple. You don?t even have to mask if you do not know how to do that yet.

 

Do your set up, just like you have here, except leave just a little black background showing between the upright and the flat objects. When you have it set up like you want it and composed in the camera (on a tripod), remove the upright objects. Photograph the flat objects. Then before you remove the flat objects replace the upright objects, again when composition is correct remove the flat objects and photograph the upright objects. Now you have nothing but black background to reflect in the upright objects.

 

Be sure that your exposure is correct and take both photographs at the same settings and croppings.

 

In PS, put the photograph of the upright objects as a layer on top of the flat objects and set the blend mode to Normal 100%. Of course, you will not be able to see the flat objects when you do this.

 

Just take the Eraser Tool set at 100%, make sure that the top layer is highlighted so that you will know for sure that you are working on the top layer, and erase the black that covers the flat objects being careful not to erase up into the upright objects. You will have the completed photograph with no reflections.

 

If you will be extremely careful when you do the erasing you can actually have the two objects overlap in the photograph as you have here but having an area of black between the two gives you some wiggle room and allow going outside the flat objects without showing.It couldn't be simpler.

 

And yes, you can use masking and more sophisticated techniques when you learn PS better, but the simple erasing of the top layer over the flat objects will accomplish what you need to do.

 

Just merge the layers and one photograph without reflections.

 

Alpo, sorry to rant on, but one more thought. Shadows are most often seen as ancillary elements and I think that happens in your original post. After comparing the two images on the same page I realized that when I look at your original crop my eye automatically goes to the horse and really wants to see more of the horses' head. That is where it wants to stay. I think it is a good possibility that most viewers, like myself, are seeing a rather unusual composition with a truncated subject. It is a good possibility that many did not pay a great deal of attention to the shadow beyond it being a compositional element.

Al;po, my usual reaction, when I see the "I wasn't rated as high as I think I should have been" or the "3/3" whine, is to want to plug in a 2/2 for lack of maturity and go on my way. You, however, are a better photographer than that.

 

Outside of a passing cleverness factor, this image, to me, is not particularly interesting.

 

I will share another thought that I have about critique sites. A lot of the photographs viewed out of context of the site are better than they will ever do on the site because here they are surrounded by photographs with considerably more impact and photographs that are unbearably uninteresting. That association on both ends dilutes a lot of images that frankly should be but aren't received better. I feel certain that the average time that most images get viewed for rating is counted in seconds if not microseconds. That is inadequate for seeing or reading a photograph.

 

I occasionally look at the ratings of those that complain about the ratings they have received and frequently they may range from a 2/2 to a 6/6 for the same image. That should tell you that there is a lot of flexibility in the way the viewers perceive the images on critique sites. A lot of it is the luck of the draw on who sees your images and pushes the rating button. If you post to a critique site, you should not expect that everyone is going to see your image in the same light that you do.

 

Although I grew up in Texas and appreciate not only the beauty of horses but the part that they have played in our history as well, I have no desire to really get close to any animal that is larger than I am and has the potential for smelling much worse. So I am probably not a good critic for horse pictures.

 

However, I will take on the cleverness factor of your image and tell you what it would require to get a higher rating from me. I cannot speak for anyone else.

 

I will spare you my painter's add, photographer's subtract lecture, but the image, if cleverness is you point, can be given more impact by simplifying the composition to really bring that home. As it is, it is difficult to say if the horse or the shadow is the intended subject, so I would get rid of the horse, the green grass, the swishing tail the fence post. I have included an example. I did not even see the "rock eye" until I got rid of what I consider unnecessary elements in the image. Now when I look at the image I see color harmony that unifies the image, I see the cleverness of shadow horse with the rock eye and I have enough of the horse, the legs, left to put the image in perspective. I don't rate photographs but if I did this would rate higher than the original image.

 

By "cleverness" I mean the ability to see and capture the unusual, the unexpected in a way that the viewer can enjoy. "Weirdness'" would be to rotate the example ninety degrees right. Hope this puts some light on the image from one person's perspective.

 

James, shoot the two groups separately and then combine the images in PS. It should be pretty easy to do with the black background.

Kent, very well done.

 

I'm sure some will find this cropped too tightly, I don't. What it says to me is that this is what is important; everything else is excluded, shut out. Which I think is a very grandparental statement.

 

It is interesting seeing the two images posted together. Strictly from a standpoint of composition, this one is centered, the other offset. This one seems to me to be well balanced whereas in the other he seems to be slipping out of the lower right corner.

 

I think either would work as color or bw and either will be something you will treasure, which is after all, why grandparents photograph grandchildren. Well, that and to brag a little. So, to address what is really important; yes, it is apparent that Jeb is a very seriously solemn and quite handsome young fellow. Well done.

Claire, knowing that it is from a single image makes it even more impressive. I thought to myself that you did an excellent job of matching the two blue frames, now I understand why. Maybe I should check portfolios before I critique?

Claire, IMO, you image does work as a graphic. I am not too hung up on "original." Most everything has been done before and is likely to have influenced what we do today. Has someone photographed these three objects and grouped them into a triptych. Not likely. So from that standpoint, yes it is original

 

I am always curious when someone presents an image like this what it was that lead them to make this particular grouping, how they chose the particular images used. Your title to some degree answers that, three textures that you found that are related by location, the city of Aldeburgh. Because they are related by location, to me they have more significance than the same three images assembled because the photograph liked the arrangement.

 

What really works about this graphic is the one man out; two blue, one red; two diagonal, one vertical; two solid, one transparent. Of course the most striking visual element is the slant of the diagonals on the two outer images building to a peak in the center of the graphic. In all it is a very interesting grouping put together as a single element.

 

I am not wild about the framing of each of the images, but that is mostly a personal thing and you should display your work the way you wish.

 

Nicely seen and constructed.

 

Daniele, this is impossible to critique by any standard but emotional response. You have done a wonder job of recreating the pathos of the Little Tramp in spite of the strong features of your model. Very nicely done.

Todd, beautifully funny. Brings to mind a cover that appeared on Infinity magazine probably back in the 60's that created quite a ruckus because of the way a high wide angle shot foreshortened the models body and left her appearing armless and legless.

 

As with all your photographs, beautifully handled. Thanks for sharing.

 

NC, this is clearly an out of the ordinary technique, which makes it very difficult to critique as a photograph. Do I understand correctly, this is printed on a special blue tinted paper and then scanned?

 

When a photographer chooses to use an unusual technique, it calls into question whether or not other elements of the images are intended or unintended. For example in this image there does not seem to be any texture or detail in much of the highlights, so I have to question is this done from lack of ability to manipulate the printing or scanning process or lack of knowledge regarding photographic tonality or is it done intentionally to add a certain ethereal feel to the image. Also is the unusual frame something that was just left over after the scan or does the photographer feel that placing the photograph in the lower corner of the frame a statement about the image or the subject.

 

Is the use of the blue paper something that was done simply because it was available or was it done with the intent to create a certain style look to the image.

 

An artist statement that gives some indication of what you wished to accomplish with the image as it is presented would greatly assist in providing a meaningful critique.

 

Just because a technique can be done doesn't mean that it should be done without reasoned intent. Every element in a photograph or art, including printing somewhat washed out on blue paper needs to be done with clear intent upon the part of the photographer to add a specific statement. It would be interesting to know your intent in the case of this image.

 

If you want it critiqued simply as a photographic image, it has some issues. I find the model lovely, the attire interesting, the framing of the face with the arms nicely done and the background well handled. The things I find poorly handles for a photograph are listed above. There is a lot of good and bad when considered strictly from the standpoint of photographic capture.

 

However, the unusual technique implies that you wanted it critiqued as art rather than photograph. If so, it does require some indication of your intent and why you have chosen to present the image in this particular manner to determine either the success or failure of the presentation.

 

Carla, don't let anyone fool you, this is suburb all the way. The softness contrasts beautifully with the low angle, which give her an aloof but very domineering appearance. The pose, the color coordination is right on the money. You have a very strong statement that this is a woman to reckon with. Beautiful.

Lee, I usually avoid the one line back slaps, however--superb!!

Dan, answers to your questions would be easy if there were only one way to look at photography. There isn't, so, it's not simple. Here is my opinion.

 

It can be boiled down to a question?what do you want your photograph to convey? That you don't say so I have to question if you know..

 

From your posts you are clearly experimenting with selective color. Is it because it is a technique that you are fascinated with or do you see it adding some statement to your images? Or, do you know why you are experimenting, are you just doing it because it can be done?

 

I am not against experimenting, it is an excellent way to become familiar with your software and what you learn carries over to other uses.

 

However, a technique for the sake of technique can make for very dull photographs. Any technique that calls such strong attention to itself does so at the expense of the overall image. Then it simply becomes gimmick and is difficult to take seriously.

 

Because I occasionally enjoy applying gimmicks to my photographs I am willing to cut some slack as long as you understand it is a gimmick. A gimmick in a photograph ninty nine percent of the time says, "I've got the really lousy photograph and I am desperately trying to do something to make it interesting. Please tell me this works!" Actually, it screams bad photograph. There may be one percent of the time when a gimmick actually adds value to an image, maybe.

 

There are commercial application and art applications where gimmicks work, but there you want the photograph to scream because you are trying to attract attention. In those situations it is all about attention so no one cares if the photograph is bad. But here, you have left it to be judged as a photograph.

 

Stephen, first let me say that it is always great to find someone making creative use of flash during the day. I think everyone will admit that it lifts your photograph above the ordinary sunset image.

 

A great deal of this may be due to the difference in our monitor setting, but the image comes off as lacking contrast on my monitor. As a result is looses a lot of the drama that this image is capable of achieving.

 

I have done some work in levels and truthfully, it is a little heavy-handed but it does illustrate what can be achieved with this image. It required working on each of the three areas separately, sky, middle ground and foreground.

 

You have some very nice images in your portfolios, most of which take great advantage of the drama of light. This one, IMO, seems to need a little work.

 

Having fun with a new wide angle. Why do I want to sing, I feel

pretty, oh so pretty? Maybe it is because I am better looking from

this angle.

Therese, this is beautiful. The western deserts are as beautiful in a winter snow as the eastern seaboard is in autumn color.

 

You do not mention the type of equipment you are using but this is an image that calls for the very best you can achieve in sharpness. Personally, I avoid all snow, so I hate to suggest setting up a tripod for this shot but that is really called for.

 

I opened your larger post and did two things that I thought helped; first I used Levels to brighten the whites in the snow. I like the atmosphere you have captured so I did not want to make any changes to the darks or middle tones, just the whites. Then I applied an unsharp mask to give the image some crispness.

 

Because the foreground and middle ground are slightly soft even after being sharpened in post processing, the viewer is unable to discern all the wonderful detail that this image holds. I will admit, were it myself standing out in the cold hand holding a camera you would have been lucky to tell the mountains from the clouds, so I can't admonish you too sharply.

 

Irena, train tracks are fascinating to lots of photographers and people that aren't photographers. As photographers we see repeating pattern, we see converging perspective to give our images great depth. Both of which are always exciting. Then for photographers and non-photographers the "rails" hold the romantic fascination of implied adventure just around the next bend or just over the horizon. As a young person I frequently visualized what it must be like to "hop" a freight car and go wherever it took you. True, we may get there faster and in more comfort today, but nothing will ever replace the rumble of clanking steel on steel of a moving train carrying you to distant places. Yeah, train tracks add magic in both the real world of our photography and in our imaginations. And they are slow enough that you have time to admire the beauty of autumn that you have captured in this image.