chris_hulett

7 for aesthetics - because the real world isn't pretty

My roommate got new shoes last night and I thought one new

shoe - one old shoe might make an interesting image. This

morning I scanned the slide film and did the spot color thing in

photoshop. Any comments would be appriciated.

 

Thank You

*note - in my browser this image looks much more green than it did in photoshop.

This is a Piezography B&W print on warm tone Tumbridge paper. I made it by scanning the color slide original as a 16 bit grayscale positive and in PS 6 altered the tone of different areas with adjustment layers, layer blending modes, and lots of masking. The most significant alteration I made was to correct somewhat for the perspective of the orignal.

That said, I have two questions with two parts each for you critiquers: First, do you like the image? Compared to the original? Second, is there any way to make this image in the darkroom from this original? Considering the original type, the burning and dodging and the perspective correction I don't see a way one could have done this and maintained image quality without a computer. This isn't about me promoting digital imaging or anything, I'm just interested if there's a way to do it without all the ones and zeros. So if you think it could could do it, how?

And finaly, if I hadn't just told you this was a digitaly altered image would you have suspected any foul play?

Thanks for checking out my work,

Very interesting photo. It illustrates a singular relationship between two people within larger unrest.

 

I think it's unfortunate that you can't see the cop's face. Even if he didn't react, the photo would be more whole.

 

You might think about posting this without all the text though. Let people decide for themselves what is happening.

What are they looking at? All the deer focusing on the same thing gives the shot a great look, and sets it apart from 99% of the wildlife photos I see. I might suggest cropping it to a panoramic type size. Full frame the image kinda breaks down into three stripes.

Motion blur in photoshop? I really like this image retouched or not. If it is photoshop, you could clean up the halo that is especially noticable around her arms using layer masking and a <100% opacity brush instead of a selection. If it's an unretouched photo, I'm even more impressed. I really like the blown highlights in her arms and the use of only three colors.

I really like the tone of this photo. The buildings look more like a painting than a photo. Great shot.

I shot this at Camp Sherman, Mt. Rainier. I very rarely have

people in my outdoor photos, and would like your input.

Cool shot. I haven't seen any macro work with the D-30 until now. Seems like it's working well for you. If this shot were mine, I would try to smooth the background a bit in Photoshop to make the ant look sharper.

I like the clouds and the distortion of the sign. What kills it for me is the power lines, and there's not a whole lot you could do about them, except digitally.

One way to think about it would be that a photograph isn't a picture of an object or scene, it's an impression of the light reflected by the object or scene. Therefore, it's the light that is important, that makes the difference between good and bad photos. Even work that expresses emotion or beautiful shapes, or beautiful people is defined by the light and the physical borders of the light (composition), not by the subject. Anyone can take any object and make an uninteresting picture. But by refining how the light is used, and what part of the light is used, a good photographer can make any object or scene interesting, without any obvious emotion or physical beauty. Anything is interesting if you look close, or far, enough, or at the right angle. So, what makes the kitchen scene is bad composition and use of light, not the subject. That's a very badly worded way to say it, and most of my points don't make much sense, but hey...

I like this photo because I took it in Amsterdam, and the cruiser

bicycle is one of many great metaphores for that city. However,

I'm concerned with a few things and I would like your input.

Mostly, what do you think about the blue tone and the contrast

around the bike? It doesn't really jump out at you. Anyway,

thanks for checking it out. - Chris

Hi - Thanks for checking out my photo. I took this for a story about

skateboarders making a movie. Lately, I modified the photo in p.s. to

blur the background and remove 2 people that were sitting in the

backrgound. Anyway, let me know what you think. - Chris

cute kids. The image could be a little darker and a little more contrasty. It's cool how they're both looking off the frame at something.

although I don't think the other passengers on the plane would been too crazy about rapid decompression at 30,000 feet so I could get a pic... Perhaps I should also clarify my question to all you great photo.neters. I'm not really looking to sell this image outright, so maybe my use of the phrase "marketable value" isn't appropriate. I'm just wondering if the image is cheapend (sp?) because it was so obviously taken from a commercial flight. Thanks to all who have taken some time to check out my work.

If you want to see WHY this guy got busted check out this photo (he's the one on the bottom): www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=375945

I uploaded the image I started with to get this. So if you're interested: www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=375847

The fire was really blazing yesterday. Pushed by 35 mph wind it was rushing towards the valley floor pretty quick. Anyhow, the image doesn't look quite as contrasty on the web site as it does in P.Shop or on the slide.

Howdy,

 

I shot this last night at the Purdy fire outside of Gallatin Gateway,

Montana. The image on this site doesn't really do the slide

justice. It's really brighter and more red. Anyhow, my question

for you photo.neters is about the angle of the image. I had my

camera (A2w/70-200,2.8,wide-open) at an angle on the tripod to

get the moon in the corner. Is the angle confusing or

distracting? I wish I had a flat frame to compare with, but I don't.

I know there isn't a law that says your frame has to be level with

the horizon, but you don't see a lot of published landscape

images that aren't.... Anyhow, thanks for taking a look.

I uploaded this one about 30 minutes after I took it... Long enough to remove the power line from the bottom left. Anyhow, I give mother nature a 6 for asthetics (it was prettier earlier, but I didn't have a camera) and myself a 1 for originality (I walked out the back door of the store and pointed the camera, on auto, at the cloud. Also, the exposure date is September, not August.

Nice Photo. I would really like to check out that area some day. Could do without the frame thing though.

Cool fish.

Really interesting photo. My only real comment is that it might look a little better if the highlights on her face weren't blown out quite so much.

It's not like I had a whole lot of creative control over how I could

take this picture... I was on a BA 747 from London to Seattle

shooting through the glass with a 28mm lense on a Contax G2.

Basicly I'm wondering what people think of the wing being in the

photo. Is it a distraction? Does it add perspective? Make it look

'touristy'? I could possibly remove the wing in p-shop, but then

the photo is damaged goods. So, is there any marketable value

to this photo with the wing, or with the wing removed, or is it just

crap?