sammm

Yes, then wandered off into your light painting portfolio in general. I'm fascinated by the methodology and it's effect on the rustling leaves and the stream, and would be interested in whether you have some other shots, or perhaps some details of shots, of this scene. I'm also curious about what a 1 million or 2 million candle lightsource might have done. Part of what I like here is that the lightpainting technique makes it all sort of glow, maybe because the normal downward shadows are eliminated. What I like less is that it makes a move toward the abstract without going all the way there; instead it comes across as out of focus leaves.

 

Aesthetically, I find your silo shots incredible; this shot I find interesting. But very original - and I see why you were asking about the originality scores in particular.

I saw the critique request and figured I'd respond before reading what this was. I hit "large" before looking too closely. There is a very strange feel to this; the leaves seem to glow and the focus seems just a touch fuzzy, but fuzzy throughout. Oddly, the water seems to have a sharper focus than the leaves themselves.

 

Do I like it? You've done something to give this a bit of an abstract feel, but yet it is clearly not abstract. It's interesting, and my gut is to give it a respectable originality score but a lower aesthetic score.

 

I hope this is helpful.

Something I really like about this photo is the little actress in the

background. But as taken, is she TOO far in the background and

lost?

 

I like this original, but my judgment may suffer from being too close

to it.

I really like this. We need to call in the bug folks in for comment.

 

What is going on with his front mandibles (or do we call it a mouth?) It looks like there are a couple of out of focus protrusions right below his mouth that I'd expect to be more in focus -- are they more distant (in Macro terms) than I think? The focus on the eyes is perfect, and part of what I think gives the 'hopper the 'tude.

For Bart and all those who want to do more research on Clifford, try http://pbskids.org/clifford/

An image that really speaks for itself. I feel this photo is an excellent representative of a relatively small, but brilliant, portfolio.

This is my favorite of the group. I especially like this in the "large" format, where the bubbling on the paint becomes more pronounced and the textures clearer. I'm betting this is even stronger without the inevitable compression distortion.

A photo brought back to the fore by "ratings normalization" -- this is wonderful, and I'd appreciate as much additional technical detail as you could!

I like this one - the texture and glitter on her hands is quite interesting, and the focus on her face is just the right balance between soft focus/blur. I'm trying to figure out whether the bits of glare on her hand are too much or add to the overall effect -- I'm leaning toward the view that they add to the overall effect, but it would be interesting to see variations with the hot spots toned down a notch.

You've asked the same question that struck me when I looked at this -- the boy is one incredibly cute child, and the idea of catching him half-hiding behind the cymbal is a good one. But at the end I think that because both you and I immediately ask the question of whether the cymbal is distracting, the darn thing must be at least in part distracting. I compare this shot to the one before in your folder, where you've captured a little girl with dirty/glittery hands and focused just on the hands - that works instinctively, no distractions, no second thoughts. Still, the kid's too cute not to at least like this photo a little!

I've now uploaded an image as large as possible given Photo.net file size guidelines and maintaining reasonable image quality - still some significant quality issues - it's much sharper in the original.

I've actually only commented on three other pictures, generally positively, all very recently. (I've rated others, but generally before this summers' "grade inflation" hit). In each case where I commented, I only commented when I thought I had something substantive that would be helpful to the photographer. Which of my comments didn't you like? If any led you to believe I had a "deep experience", please know I'm a confessed beginner.

 

I will not make great claims to originality for the above, but would have an interest in substantive criticism of what perhaps I should have done differently to make it a better photo of, yes, a rainbow. Why did I post it? I rather like the depth of it, the way the rainbow shows up behind the stand of trees in the middle foreground and in front of the mountains in the back; I also like the highlight toward the lower left hand side contrasted with the darker trees above it. I'm not really happy, however, with the contrast and color of the mountains in the rear and of the sky, and with the darkness of the close foreground where the reddish flowers and grasses are.

 

And I will post others occassionally, now and then, to develop the portfolio; I hope you will as well. Some of them may be more original, some may just be attempts to learn from something I've taken, can't quite figure out, and would like some input on.

Please comment -- this is entirely uncropped and unaltered.

This caught my eye as well. The crop, the focus, the skin tone all work for me. I wouldn't lighten it up at all. I'd also eliminate the date, and then frame it and put it on the wall!

I like the pose and composition quite a bit, but the loss of all color or detail in the lower left hand side and in the space in the center just below her left cheek combined with the grass in the foreground throws me. Can you lighten up the lower left to get some color in there and also to get a bit more definition of the left side of her face? The left eye also seems too dark and could use just a touch of fill.