chris russ

I had rated a previous picture of this church a 7/7 -- it was taken from the back and showed the sides as well as the front. This one is great, too, and you've done a fabulous job gettign the dark detail as well as the light.

 

Excellent.

Love the color. I agree about the clouds. I think I know where I'm going to scuba next...

I really enjoyed "Geometrical illusion with apple" and this is a further development of the same:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2207583-sm.jpg

New elements that I really like are:

* perspective

* colors

* reflection of the grid on the pots

 

The two things that I miss from the previous image are:

* perspective in two directions (which I really loved)

* the strong red of the apple

 

Excellent. Keep up the good work.

He's a good egg.

(sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

I like this on several levels. I do have a question, though -- even though you've got lighting from the left and top that is white, why did you use tungsten (I presume? or a red card) on the right? The gradient is cool, but I'm just a little surprised to see a rosy skin color on a socket wrench.

First of all, I like the concept very much. The tricks with perspective bring my eye right to the apple, and everytime I look away, it brings me right back.

You have a shallow depth of field (which isn't a problem by itself), but it is the fabric at the corner that is in focus, not the apple. This is a problem to me because I'm continually drawn to a place that is out-of-focus.

ROTFLTSCOMN (Rolling on the floor laughing 'till sprite comes out my nose)

 

Great! (Good lighting, too.)

Not only do I like the idea, but I especially like the execution. The placement of the river along the sole of the foot on the left is fantastic. 7/7

Very very impressive. (Definitely not faint praise.)

I'm curious, have you tried taking multiple exposures, say one for highlights and another for shadows and blending them together? I'm the author of Optipix and I'd like to give you a copy to play with if you're interested.

Right now I'm trying to come up with exposure series (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, .., 1/128) that fully brackets a scene for creating a high dynamic range image. (Let's not even address the problem of what to do with it when you're done.) Since I don't have the talent that y'all have for composing these images, I'm relagated to writing plugins to "massage" the images.

Stunning. 7/7

I like your image quite a big. For grins, I played with it a little bit to suppress the dynamic range and look at the detail. In the process I turned a very beautiful pastoral image (nice job) into a surreal one. But, I was curious what kind of detail was really there. Answer -- quite a lot.

If you think about motion blur for a moment, not everything in the scene is moving the same. (OR SHOULD BE.) For instance, the man with the goatee on the right is moving about 9 pixels to the right and slighly downward (about 5 degrees from horizontal) as he is stepping down. The heel of his shoe isn't moving at all. His toe is moving down at about 15 degrees from vertical. The lady with the glasses to the left of the couple is actually moving up slightly and is also moving about 9 pixels in this frame. But her leading foot isn't moving because it is planted! There is some evidence of an USM because the highlights and dark detail on the people in the background are amplified, but it is a great shot.

Excellent. I'm curious about the highlight on the droplet -- the one shaped like a 6-pointed star. Was that an effect caused by the light source or the lens itself? Way cool.