joe_hodge

I like the complementary tones of the woman against the background; everything is very warm feeling, which seems appropriate given the subject matter.

The picture does not seem to be very sharp, to the point that the thumbnail looks better that the larger sizes due to the downsampling. Looking closely, the fuzziness looks like an intentional effect. If possible, I'd like to see a crisp version to campare with.

This is a nice natural shot, but looks a bit overexposed to me, too. Have you examined the neg to check if there is detail on the highlights there? Since this looks like a higlight and not a shadow problem, scanner Dmax is not likely to be a issue.

I couldn't even look at this until I downloaded and rescaled it to fit on a 1024x768 monitor. Before you upload, please rescale to a reasonable size.

That said, I don't hate it. The washed-out color that predominates contrasts with the well-lit front wall very nicely, and the blurred people let my focus on the space while making it obvious that this is a vibrant place. Is the effect intentional, or did you get lucky with the the camera picking a slow shutter in the low light? I like it either way, but I am curious. I would like it much better without the chair back in the left foreground and the gentleman in the right foreground, because they grab my eye without actually being interesting.

I'll admit I do not know what I'm looking at, but if there were an angle without all the cruft showing inside the main superstructure, I'd like it a bit better.

Wow, I was ready to dismiss this until I scrolled down a bit. Good work to take an original picture of a subject like this.

Nicely done. Depending on when I look, this makes me think of either a stadium, a parking garage or a prison. It makes me wonder about it's context without strinkng me as intentionally enigmatic.

I'd like to see the photo graph this is based on; I find it hard to judge how much of that original reamins. As an image, this is nice, but as a photograph, who knows?

Technically very nice, but does not really appeal to me personally. If I were selling these in a catalog, I'd probably love it.

I have to second the "composition" comment, but with what is here, maybe a crop?

Very, very nice indeed.

I suspect that the jpeg compression/recompression has seriously degraded the mist, since it looks pixellated rather than grainy to me. Because I love this picture, I really hope that jpeg is the problem, and not the negative. Of course, with Delta 3200, I'm sure it is grainy, too, but that can look good.

I'm from New England, and the image of a lone figure looking out over the water makes me homesick. This image looks cold, and bleak and yet still beautiful. Normally, I'd be tempted to crop a large featureless area out of a picture, but here it is the contrast between that largeness and the small, indistinct figure that speaks to me.

Your upload is a little small to judge by, but it looks as if you were shooting with a fairly wide aperature, and missed getting the baby's face in sharp focus. I like the colors and that you caught him "in motion", and the framing is nice too. Simple but roughly in line with the rule of thirds.

 

Oh, you've classified this as "underwater", which you might want to fix.

Scott,

This is a 48bit scan of the negative, 3-pass in Vuescan. Levels and Curves were adjusted in 48bit mode to return the colors to reality without clipping the histogram; not much work was needed to get the result presented here. USM was applied at ~(90%, radius 1, threshold 0 levels). Evaluating color negs directly is something I've never learned to do, but I can see where it would be valuable.

I'm surprised to see this grain in 100 speed film myself, but I'm sure it must be my mistake somehow. Maybe exposing for the face did not leave me enough latitude for the sky.

I suppose the colors are a bit dull, but that is how it looked in the bright but cool/clouded light.

Mmmm...no. I like some pictures of flowers, and I'm not necessarily opposed to effects, but this looks too much like a sub-par photo the has been manipulated to stylize the problems away. Maybe the original flower is crisp and clear, but this looks muddy to me.

Technically very nice, especially around the upper right curve.

Pretty nice -- want to buy the kid a beer? I'd lose the framing however; it reminds me of those silly motivational posters.

I would like this better without the bottom of the foreground object -- that off white curve distracts my eye. The light is beautiful.

Nice overall, but the snow on the front bench looks blown out.

The aspect ratio makes me think that this is already cropped. Is there any material available on the right side of the frame? Even a little more mosaic on the right would improve the picture for me. I would not crop out the foreground.

The Capitol does not seem to be in focus -- is that a scanning problem, or is real? Also, I would crop this to get rid of a lot of the foregraound and sky.

Before I saw the title, I thought it was a closeup of an animal's eye, with the DOF shallow enough to focus on the eye socket but leave the pupil blurred. If that was your intention, congradulations! If not, your photo has still given me the idea.

The streetlight shining through the man's head bothers me. Probably nothing to do about it, but I'd much prefer the shot not have him in it at all.