bob_pictaker

This is a fine shot Tim. I've followed your work at this museum for some time with great interest.

 

It is a spectacular place. My first visit there was in 2001, and I was without a camera. It wasn't until a year later that I was able to get back there and shoot. You are very lucky to live so close to this wonderful subject.

 

As for this photo, the only thing that I wish could be changed is how the girl sits within the window frame. Having her head touching the frame is a distraction for me. If she were slightly lower and to the right a bit within that frame she would be in a more comfortable position. At Least for me. I didn't have time to read this entire thread, so this may have been brought up already.

 

Otherwise a very nice job.

Hi M!

 

You are very kind. It's true, I haven't been around very much lately. The main reason is that I've been so busy that by the time I get home I need to get away from the computer.

 

I do miss this place, and your post reminds my that there are some very nice folks around here. Thanks for the very thoughtful post, I truly appreciate it.

 

Bob.

Very well done! This has the look of one of those Hollywood portraits from the silent era.

Unfortunately the lighting in this image serves no real purpose other than to illuminate. Lighting must be used to bring out texture or form, or to lead the eye around the image. Lighting can make or break an image, and in this case I'm sorry to say it breaks it. Compositionally you have far too much foreground that serves no real purpose.

This is very nice! There is a wonderful movement to this composition. The tones are handled very well.

The first thing that strikes me about this image is that is was shot on an overcast day producing rather bland lighting. Good lighting is the most illusive aspect of landscape photography. Compositionally I feel that the water and walkway are competing with each other for our attention. They tend to pull me out of the image instead of leading me to the waterfall, which should be the hero of this image.

 

Interesting how much attention this image received without a critique request!

I left a brief comment on this image before it was chosen as POW, and would like to expand on my thoughts now. Why? Because it's here!

 

I do a lot of photo-manipulation for my day job. The one rule I always

follow is that the process must remain invisible or it will only serve to distract the viewer from enjoying the image. In this image the process is front and center.

 

In certain situations believability is not an issue, such as the work of Pavel Kaplun and Lasse Hoile, who's works represent fantasy more than reality. In these types of images the look of manipulation is fitting. However, an image such as this POW is meant to present a believable scenario. The obvious duplication of boats destroys any believability. If repeating elements do not add to the image they must be avoided at all costs. This image had potential, but it fails in execution.

This looks like it was lit with the on-camera flash. That type of lighting tends to flatten any texture in an image, which is exactly what has happened here. It's an interesting subject, but needs better lighting.

The Photo is correct, this is clearly a manipulated photo. Actually the manipulation stands out quite clearly. I have no problem with manipulated images, that is of course until the photographer checks the box claiming that there is no manipulation.

 

To create an image like this correctly one needs to watch out for any aspect of the image that repeats itself.

Valiant attempt, unfortunately very little of the bird is in focus. Crisp focus is paramount for a shot like this. Nice color.

I'd also like to offer my congratulations to G on getting POW. It is well deserved.

 

Sorry to say that I haven't read the whole thread, but Mr. Spinak has made some very good points concerning the composition, so I feel no need to elaborate. Although I would like to say that truer words were never spoken when he added, "Remember to be at your most attentive, careful, and meticulous, when creating pictures like this". That is indeed what it all comes down to at this level. And when all you need are some tweaks it means you're very close.

 

As for the lighting, I've done a good deal of light painting over the years so I know how difficult it can be. I'd say you've done a very fine job here. I do favor the background of the original post over other version you've attached, but this simply reflects my personal preference to minimize distraction.

 

Again, my congratulations on POW, and for a fine photograph.

Hi Karen, and thank you for the kind words. I haven't spent very much time on PN lately because life tends to get in the way, but it was a nice surprise to find your comments. Thanks for taking the time. :-)

I think that Brian summed things up nicely. It's a nice shot, but just nice. For me the main reason this image falls short of being great is the lighting. It's rather bland.

 

Taken under better lighting conditions, possibly with less DOF, and better exposure control to avoid the over exposed surf at the top right would result in a very good image. Getting all of those elements to fall into place is very difficult, but that's what separates the nice shots from the truly great ones.

Hi Erin,

 

No I haven't heard from John. I guess he doesn't visit PN, silly boy. Thanks for your comment. :-)

Hi Erin!

 

It seems you've stumbled upon our manly-man talk! That's OK, It could have been a lot worse.

 

Sorry to say that the only thing I know about this Violin is that it cost me $80.00 at an antique shop. It did come with a case though. :-)

Every day people are contributing their talents to society. Be it a wedding planner, an architect, a fashion designer, a construction worker, a sailboat manufacturer, a golf course designer, a welder, a sign painter, yada yada yada... These are just some of the people who contribute in a physical way to the world around us. The world that we aim our cameras at. Capturing in a photograph the fruits of their labors is a very large part of what we do as photographers. The goal when doing this however is to create something that goes beyond the simple documentation of the existence of an object. With skill we can create and show our vision of the world.

 

As I mentioned earlier I've been to this museum. In fact I've been there three times, twice with a camera. So I can speak from experience when I say as stunning as this structure is, it is still very easy to take a bad photograph of it. Believe me I took a bunch of them. Are the many flawed compositions I created on those visits to be credited to the architect as well? Maybe these failures were a result of a sloppy design? No, they were my fault (rats!), and I take the credit for them. Just as I take the credit for the handful of images that didn't stink.

 

"Now imagine the exact same shot in a different setting. Instead of an art museum, it's a barn or a mosque or a quaint country church. Instead of a bowler, it's a John Deere hat, a fez, or a slick new hairdo. Imagine that everything is essentially the same, only totally unplanned, totally spontaneous.

 

Would that be a better photo?"

 

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter because it would be a different photo! As if we took "Moonrise Hernandez" and asked what would happen if we moved it to Brooklyn, New York? What if the moon was blocked by an apartment building? And those beautifully lit white crosses were trash cans? Would THAT be a better photo? Again, it doesn't really matter because Ansel dealt with the situation he was presented with, just as Tim has.

 

As for the topic of a spontaneous photograph verses a posed photograph, I'm happy to say I like both equally! I admire the work of both Cartier-Bresson and Newton, but comparing the two is a bit of an apples and oranges thing.

Comments are always appreciated.

This is a very nice composition. I was struck by the contrast in styles within this image. Very conservative attire in a very modern setting.

 

There have been several images of this museum posted on this site, including 2 of mine, but this is the only one that casts the museum in a supporting role in a very human story. Nicely done!

 

Michael, I believe I responded to your comment on Carl Root's POW. This time I'll just say I agree with Albert and Phil.

I'm only a force to be reckoned with on the golf course. But that's strictly from a safety standpoint.

 

If I had a nickel for every mediocre (or worse) photograph I've taken I would have one huge pile of nickels. I took a week off last year just to go out and shoot for myself. Every day I ventured out excited about what I might find. You know what I had at the end of the week? Nothing!............. Zilch!............. Nada! I was skunked!............ A loser!.......... A sham!

 

I sucked I tell you.

 

But that's nothing new. It's always been a struggle, and always will be. From my perspective I'd say your batting average is pretty darn good Doug. However I will admit to taking some comfort in knowing that I'm not the only one beating my head against the wall. :-)

 

And now the shot. This is a very cleaver approach to a very common subject. That ain't easy! You've used the sun and shadow very well here. And when you think about it, you've demonstrated to any fledgling photographer who reads this that you have to work for your shots. Aside from the occasional lucky shot, point and click won't do it. Somewhere on this site I mentioned what a wise old photographer once told me back when I was about 20 years old. Another thing he told me was when I find a subject that interests me to milk it. Shoot my brains out from every possible angle. Shoot lots of film and just work it to death. You worked this one, and it paid off!

"See what I can do with Photoshop"? No, it's "see what you can find if you take the time to look!" An artist sees beyond what is apparent, and is not afraid to explore it.

First, congratulations Carl on your 2nd POW!

 

Let me address for a moment the issue of who should take credit for this artwork, the photographer or architect? When a photographer chooses a subject , be it natural or created by man, the photographer still needs to do his (or her) job. True, the architect designed the building, but Carl chose the composition, the lighting (the reflected objects need to be lit), and made all of the aesthetic decisions in post. I'm willing to bet that the architect would be pleasantly shocked by this image. However, to give the architect the credit for this image would mean a photograph of the Grand Canyon should be attributed to God, or erosion, but not the photographer. I hope you get my drift.

 

I like this full frame Carl, but I feel that a slight lowering of saturation would be an improvement. As is it seems to be more about color than shapes. Also, my compliments for using curves! That's what real photographers use. :-))

Sticks are funny things Andy. You take your eye off of them for one minute and POOF, there gone! Sorry about your feet and butt Phil. It's amazing that you can take such wonderful photo's with those kind of distractions!

 

So what about you Andy? Still have a full head of hair? I'm getting to like going bald. It saves a lot of time in the morning. :-)

Don't worry Andy, I like "Antiques Roadshow" too. I wanted to go on the show, but I had to face the fact that all of the crap I have in my attic really is crap!

 

Actually Doug I'm the only one in my family who doesn't wear glasses. I'm also the only one who's going bald, so I got the short end of the stick when you think about it.

Thanks Andy! I can't remember the name of that curly thing either. :-) I've really been into shallow DOF lately. Maybe I'm rebelling against having to keep everything razor sharp during "my day job". I'm glad you like it!

Hi G!

 

An Artist? Thank you very much! However I should give you the email addresses of some friends because they will confirm that I am clueless. I've always been envious of other people who (I assumed) were able to envision something and then create it. I usually start out thinking one thing, and end up with something else. I've also always assumed that it would eventually get easier, but it doesn't.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm clueless. :-)