ross_hight

I wouldn't call you a "cheater" for using this technique, and I'm curious as to the substance of the accusations. What, exactly, was their problem?

It looks like you have good tonal control here-- nice job on maintaining the hat and hair against the full black behind them. It looks like the only thing you really lost was her knees, which look full black in this scan, and they aren't as important.

 

I would consider cropping the left border until the edge of the door (?) is gone. That prominent vertical there doesn't do anything for me, and I think it'll be a better shot with that crop made.

I like the way this photo doesn't look blasted with light and super-saturated. The use of low values and black shadows in the plant, and the mild colors of the butterfly, are very appealing.

Have the scan and my monitor caused the details to drop out in the highlights of all three structures, and in the terrain to the lower right? If all that is really gone in the negative, I weep for you.

I think the dewdrops and the narrow DOF are both important in conveying the scale. Good shot-- love the interesting out-of-focus fields of color!

Yellow triangle bad. Word bad. Grass bad. Idea good.

I'm not sure if it's lighting problems, exposure problems, or scanner problems that make the wet rocks in the middle look so black. This would be much better if they looked more like the rounded, dark stone in the foreground.

 

It would also be interesting to see a version of this with a little more senic quality to it-- keep the three stones in the center, but lower the camera and tilt it closer to horizontal, showing more still water in front and more recession into the distance. But I do like the composition as it stands, with the "path" wandering from top center to bottom left.

Nice going, Richard. We had a nice tradition of sepia=antique going until you came along with this and ruined it.

 

Actually, though, I think the sidelight flowing around those heavily textured objects gives them a "sculptured" look that's very reminiscent of old pictures. Thus-- sepia just seemed appropriate. I don't know why you took this picture, but if you took it because you liked the light I think you had good reason.

If I saw this in the viewfinder, I'd take it as a safety shot, but I certainly wouldn't be happy with it. For one thing, you appear to be shooting with the sun near your back and fairly high in the sky-- hardly optimal lighting for these strongly textured formations. And I don't think you got nearly as much as you could have out of your foreground. By moving your viewpoint in, you could have made the close bushes and the stones on the lower left much more compelling elements, at the same time eliminating that dead space in the lower right. As for the sky, if you think darkening just the right side of it is worth that wide-polarizer gradation, suit yourself. I can't say I care for it.

 

So basically, you mishandled the foreground, the middle ground, and the background. (Of course, I've never been there myself, so I don't count.)

When I squint at this photo hard enough, it looks like a giant black sun rising over a wasteland, with a little creek trickling off toward a lake on the horizon. Therefore, I like it.

 

Truly, though, the reason I like it is the way that accidents and wear have turned something manmade into an oddly natural sight. Good eye.

You know what would be a good version of this? Black and white, background in focus, second person still there. I think it would beat both of the ones you're showing now.

I think it would have been worth speeding up the shutter, thus turning the dark forms on the left into silhouettes, if that would have given us more information about the surfer. I get the feeling that he's coming toward me with a board in his right hand, but I'm not 100% sure on either of those. I probably wouldn't even have known he was surfing if you hadn't told me. Even with that, though, there's much to like.

Well, you've got the centering argument waiting to happen, the frontal nudity, and the Photoshop. All we need now is a moderatorial reference to a respected figure (H.R. Giger? Carolyn Cole?) and we've got a picture of the week here!

 

Seriously, though, your working methods are fascinating-- great combination of labor/meticulousness and "make it happen right now with what we have in this room." And I think the image is a big win.