sammm

Great concept - I think it would be a bit stronger if you got better sharpness on the keys and the lettering. It looks like a slow exposure - perhaps there is a bit of camera shake in her?

I love the statute and rug in the background, and the way they complement the tone of his face. I don't think the left side of the background works as well - it detracts and having the white next to the light hair and face washes the artist out a bit.

 

I do think the whole series works very well together - there is a common tone and style to them that is very strong, including the one's that you have on your website that have not yet been posted here.

It's a fine portrait, but the subject comes across as a more precise and meticulous individual than the others. He has an inquisitive look on his face that seems focused on the person he is talking to. Maybe not all artists are flamboyant?

 

On the background, I think the table with supplies arranged is helpful; the window does detract for me.

Very animated. I think the lighting is a bit too harsh on his face; the setting and moment are wonderful.

Nice classic portrait - I feel like his eyes and hands are very strong and important.

Interesting. I thought the lens was good, and helped convey a kind of "soaring" feeling, almost a feeling of forward motion.

My impression is that Fili was trying to give her an "angelic" feel, and that the hot highlights are part of what gives her the glow in the original. I think Doug's probably reflects more of the original, a sensitive portrait of the individual, while Fili seems to be looking to reflect more of an abstracted ideal.

 

While the facial highlights seem to add to the mood the photographer is looking for in this one, I do have a quibble, as I find the highlights in the background distracting. There, the white is overwhelming and draws me away from her face. In the darker version, the background is less distracting; my suspicion is that it is even less so in the original.

 

I, too, would be interested in the process on the conversion, and in seeing the original.

I'm not sure more detail in the cinnamon would be a good thing -- there is a lot of detail in the lower half, less as you move up the photograph, and I think this helps focus us on the incongruous little one.

 

So who is the third adult? Is that Aunt Sue out with Mom, Dad and Jr. Cinnamon Stick?

I have a feeling that the flaw Doug has pointed out is the result of scanning. The background texture is very important in this shot, and to lose the texture over that broad a surface would be too bad. I'm betting there is more there there in the print.

 

For me, this shot is a wonderful exploration of texture more than anything else. Yes, I read a few stories (or perhaps better, analogies) into the arrangement and sizes (that's one cute little cinnamon stick there), but they are just fleeting bits of imagination, and then it all comes back to texture.

Heida,

 

Montage in this situation means a picture made from a number of other pictures; it is often used for a series of images contrasted against each other in a movie for effect (the classic example being a shot of old women gossiping followed by a shot of clucking hens).

 

 

Thanks for the comments. Marc, I think there's almost always another angle worth exploring - though oddly in my own self-critique of this photo I had not focused on the angle. And, with kids, it's a pleasure to have the time to chase them around trying to find that angle.

 

I now note that another critical element in getting this expression is really his tongue, and the different angle would get more of that as well - the key being staying enough on the side so it's still a partial profile.

 

Thanks - this is exactly the kind of input I come here for!

 

 

 

 

Brooks, No ND filter, but this was getting on towards evening, and was not a particularly bright day. The grain gives a little hand to the bokeh I'd have otherwise on the background and foreground, so it offsets some of the effect of the step down - I didn't record what I shot these at, but this was part of why I shot at 1600 instead of 3200 on the ISO. I should try some of these with ND filters. Best, Sam

Interesting. In my mind this is the weakest of the series, with the background attracking too much attention. But others seem to like it quite a bit.

The smoke is a great touch.

 

I love this series.

The detail in the hair and brow and the expression are all great, but the composition really does it for me on this one - the slant of the bookcase seems to go just right with his suspenders and his smile. Well seen!

Ronnie - You may be right that this is both grain and some kind of post-production reticulation. All but the best scanners are pretty rough on grain. Another source of the pattern may be some sort of specialty paper. Regardless of the source, or whether there IS a cleaner image to see, I think the grain was an aesthetic choice by the photographer. If you look at his portfolio, I'd also say he has some level of control of the process -- and I actually prefer its application to a couple other pictures there.

Vincent,

 

If Carl Root shoots that rust, sure.

 

To some extent, your response to this photograph assumes that a good photograph is one that clearly depicts a scene, as opposed to being an image in and of itself that is visualized or abstracted from a scene. But if this is your view, we should clearly all stop shooting Velvia, with all those oversaturated and distorted colors.

 

In my mind, grain is just another of the characteristics of light, lens and film that are tools to producing images - whether we use a grainy film, an oversaturated film, black and white or color. In this case, the grain complements the idea of this image as a bucolic and dreamy old image, one that may be only a half remembered and idealized truth.

 

I do think the choice of a heavy grain can be questioned, but better some grain in this to evoke the feeling than no grain.

 

Best,

 

Sam

I note that Ramaiah has another wonderful shot, called "Herding" that uses similar grain in a similar context, and he has a very bucolic photograph of a cottage at night that uses a finer grain to good effect.

I suspect that is grain, though it is rough enough so that I asked the question of whether it was grain or an applied effect pretty quickly. I'm guessing that this may well be a heavy crop from a shot with finer grain, or it may have been processed to emphasize grain and contrast - I'd be interested in what the photographer has to say. Still, the grain is pretty consistent and well controlled across the image.

 

This is a wonderful shot, where I think the use of grain to emphasize and complement the rusticity of the scene adds to the shot. I do wonder whether a finer grain might have been preferable, which makes me think more about the choices the photographer made in taking the shot.

Lovely photograph; my only quibble might be to have used a slightly longer lens to lessen the perspective distortion on her hand, but on second thought - no, this is really just right.

Nice shot. It would be nice if the kids were just a bit darker to fully silhoutte them.

Nice composition; I like the trails. This is by far and away the best composition in the series, in my opinion. I think it would be good if had more sharpness in the foreground, though such a small aperature may well have raised issues with motion blur.

 

I like this quite a bit. I assume the double image is the result of a photoshop cloning, and the seem could be a bit less obvious there, but the shape, shadow, and dof work well.

This is another of my intentionally high-grain shots (shot at 1600

with Ilford 3200). I'm particularly interest in compositional

thoughts - is the rail he's resting his chin on too dominant? Many

thanks!

I think you need something to draw more compositional focus to the pidgeon (perhaps lighting that brings out the bird; even a bit of fill flash so you get the detail on his head), and, at the least, should crop this to straighten the pillar.

 

Best,

 

Sam