phule

Having some extra time on my hands, I pulled the image into photoshop and simply up-ed the levels. All the detail of the interior of the cafe behind the window is pulled out and it's pretty clear to me it's not a photoshopped image. Staged, perhaps, but that only would highlight its excellent execucution. If it is staged, I see no difference between this and studio work, which is equally valid and good. If it's not staged but perhaps a happened upon situation, even better. Overall I think the image is a great one.

Fred (or anyone else),

 

I've seen a number of people on photo.net mention they've found their images on other sites. Do you simply "stumble" across them on the net or do you have a specific method for searching? As I'm a beginner in photography I'd probably be flattered if someone "stole" my images to use on their site (unless they were selling them, I think) but as far as finding them I wouldn't really know where to begin.

 

Now, I should add a critique of the shot to keep this post more on topic: wow. This is really good. The frozen action of the water is excellent but seeing a shot with more "fuzzy" water would be an interesting comparison.

One of the things I've been interested in is using my Rebel 2000 for night shots like this, but for maybe longer exposures (~4 hours?). I've read other places that one can open the shutter with the lens cap on, lock the shutter open, and then remove the battery. Set the camera on the tripod and take off the lens cap. Time your exposure and then put the lens cap back on when you're done. Put the battery back in and the shutter should close.

 

The Rebel 2000 only uses the battery to keep the shutter open so for long exposures (~6 hours) the battery would be dead.

 

Maybe I'll give it a try later in the year when it's colder out and the air is more crisp. :)

How long of an exposure was this? Did you keep the battery in when you took the picture?

A fair amount of space on the top of the image w/ the young girls foot cropped off the bottom is what I noticed right away. The bright background in the upper-left tends to pull the eye away from the subjects. Other than that, a decent portrait.

The faux drop-shadow is drawing attention away from the photo. I love the textures and the use of flash.

First, a comment/response to "-- Dennis --":

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..."

 

I don't find the photo "humerous" but I do think it's a great slice of life. A moment begging to be caught on film and shared; which is what was done here.

 

I see the expression on the young boy as a neat twist on Rodin's "The Thinker."

This is a photo? It's very difficult to get any detail out of this unfortunatly. There's nothing letting the viewer know we're not just looking at an ad that someone uploaded.

 

If this is HR - London, show some London! :)

and he told me to get out of there because it was private property, and he would call the police if I stayed.

Wow, what a jerk that guy was/is. I've never had anyone react that way to me before. I wouldn't think most people would care. It's not like you're poking into peoples windows or anything.
If you can get back there you could either 1) lie and say you're with the city and are making a tourism magazine *grin* or 2) (probably the better way), find out who's pier that really is, and offer them a 5x7 or maybe 8x10 print of your best shot for letting you out there to photograph the bridge.Good luck!

A couple things. I think your exposure is too long for the bridge but just right for the building. Given that your subject is the bridge, I wouldn't see a problem with a shorter exposure time. Also, maybe decreasing the DoF by opening up the appeture will make the subject of the bridge more the focus. I do like the building in the background (that would make a decent subject by itself), but maybe softening it up will draw the eye more to the brige.

 

The forground objects are pretty distracting. Of course, it may be a case where you can't get close enough to have them fall off the bottom of the photo, but anything you can do to minimize them would be good.

 

Finally, I think the colors are good, less the overexposure bit, Maybe standing on top of something (a car?) and shooting with more water in the frame will help you flush out some of these issues?

 

Just some random thoughts :)

I guess I don't see why this is on photo.net. Yes, it and the others in the folder are amazing. I'm a huge fan of fractles, but why is an image that's been completely computer generated here and not on another site?

On one hand I'm very confused by the attack on this weeks POW, and on the other hand it doesn't surprise me one bit.

I think George Day said it best in a previous comment:

I think this photograph is fantastic. I love the connection of the shadow to the object, and I think the textured background draws out, for the eye, the curves on the chair. I wish I could capture something as well as this.

One of the reasons I've only really lurked on photo.net is because of some of the out-and-out attacks Ive seen people wage on others over issues of "art." A critique is one thing but the venom with which some of the holier-than-thoughs lace their comments is mind-boggling. Amateur photography and amateur photographers are just that. Now, Im not suggesting that everyone join in a big love circle and pat each other on the back just for loading the film correctly in their cameras but some of the comments (on photo.net) just go too far.

With all that being said, I have seen a number of great comments here (in this thread) and I encourage that sort of discussion. Finally, I congratulate the artist on having one of his pieces selected for POW.

The flag is distracting but other than that, a nice photo. I like the capture of the other buildings in the windows.

Torn. The woman gives perspective, but a confusing perspective may be what you would have wanted to go for? It would like to see this shot without the woman to compare.

I'm a huge fan of close-up and macro photography. This is quite good.