joseph_coalter

Nice capture, Ryan. The image is a little flat, due to the lighting. I would add a stronger light to one side, and perhaps another light from thh back to add some separation from the background. This extra light would also provide for use of a larger aperture so more of the cat's features would be in focus.

Very good tonal quality.

a superb use of sunset light.

Nice composition, and good use of natural light.

The lesson we learn from this composite is that if you make an image grainy enough, you can hide almost anything. Are we so bored that we no longer care to see real photography?

Where are my sunglasses? Oh, here they are. Now I can see. Hey, nice photo. Maybe you could up the color sat a bit in PS. Other than that, great shot.

A blended exposure is new to me. Why was it done? Why did it work better than one exposure?

This is a great photograph. One of the best POW's in a while, with great subject matter, composition, timing. Lucky for Grbac, while timing the diver, other subjects also took positions at that moment which give the photo great balance. The exposure is excellent. It just captures the eye, and won't let go. I don't understand the need to compare it with the work of someone else. To me, that's just meaningless dribble. I grow tired of reading the name "Bresson" every time a black and white photo makes POW. Let's grow a little, please.

Alexey, you have a good eye. This is a well chosen composition, quite befitting a POW choice, and comments otherwise are being made by those who don't understand what the POW is all about. This is a thought provoking photo. I want to follow the individual tracks to determine how they were made, and some are not so easy to figure out. Were any of the tire tracks created or eraised digitally?

General rules are just that - "general", and should be abandoned when appropriate, such as with this photo. To my eye, the horizon in this photo is a visually only a secondary concern. The post on the left dominates my atention at first, with my eye traveling from its top to bottom. Then, crossing the photo to the post on the right, my eye then travels up that post about half way, and from there switches back to the left and onto the depth prospective created by the disappearing posts in the center of the photo. Thus, this composition creates a spiral effect which captures the eye very well. For me, the horizon does not come into play. I find this to be a very successful composition.

Some many words about the flower. Does it really matter that its colors might not be natural? I think we should celebrate the photographers eye, in choosing the flower with an idea in mind on how it could make a pleasing photo. What's important is if this image was made with a lense, or with a keyboard. Both have their place, but its nice to know which one you're looking at. I understand it was made by a lense, which I appreciate most.

 

This photo is nicely composed, and appears to be very sharp, at least on my screen. The subject also provides some interesting texture. I like it a lot, as it reveals more secrets the more you look.

Absolutely wonderful. I was not aware of your work, and I am very impressed with your portpholio. Your tutorial is most interesting, especially since I own a Canon G2, and had no idea that it could be used to make such images. Your "outside of the box" thinking is truly inspirational.

Excellent work, Bobby. I noticed early on that someone asked about how this image was scanned, but I didn't see a response. Could you please share that information with us?

Carl, you have a good eye for spying this old piano as a potential photo subject. I prefer the second version, as the "blues" really jump out and catch the eye. Very nice work.

Looking at this photo, one might think the feet were cut of during a fast grab shot. However, taking a look at your portfolio, you do this all of the time. Its a bad idea. I do like this photo, however. It has good composition, and very pleasing colors. The tree shadow on the wall really helps.

Seeing the original will be a treat if it happens. I will probably like it much better that what we have here. As to my views being considered "critical", well, my issues are with the image shown here, and not on the technique or honesty of the photographer.

 

In the real world, images must stand on their own. There is usually no available trasncript to explain if a photo represents "reality" or is a "created environment". People just take a look and develop an opinion. I think most people who would view this photo without knowing the facts of its capture would suppose the Lookers to be models, because their facial expressions are so coordinated and so exaggerated. Is this a weakness? I say yes. This photo appears to be almost "cartoonish" in nature, and probably brings a smile to all who see it. If some want to call my comments criticism, that's OK. Some viewers see Pork Chops and his "shadow man" to be a weakness, but I don't. Are their comments criticism? I don't take them that way. All opinions are valid if they represent one's true feelings.

 

Suggestions that someone should "try it" are sad arguments. Taking photos on the run isn't rocket science, especially with todays auto everything equipment. Any parent who takes a camera to their kid's sporting event has essentially given such photography a try. The fact that this image was taken without the benefit of auto equipment is a big plus in its favor. But it is still the final image we are talking about. Facts are nice to know, but the image's appeal is the bottom line. And if a photo looks staged, regardless of the facts, it still looks staged.

Comments about the blurring in this photo have me looking to see what people are talking about. If there is blurring near the boys right arm, I don't notice it. I think most people would expect a photo taken under such circumstances to have a little blur here and there.

 

One thing I wonder about is the blurring or lack of focus of the building behind the lookers. This doesn't look natural to me. The out of focus appearance seems consistent for the whole building, and I would expect the farther away parts of the building to be out of focus to a different degree. Was this building separated in its own layer, and blurred in photoshop? I think the stark contract between the blurred building and the sharp focus of the Lookers faces may add the the unnaturalness I am experiencing.

 

And those of you who don't like Pork Chops should back off. His presence gives the photo great credibility.

Is "Pork Chops" really two people? My first impression was that the checkered material was a jacket slung over his left shoulder. There were some wild clothes in fashion back then. Since he is in shortsleeves, while the "Lookers" are clothed for cool weather, I'm betting that "Pork Chops" is there alone. However, the timing of this photo is impressive, and if "Pork Chops" really is two people who just happened to line up so closely at shutter release, it just adds to the ambiance of this capture.

 

As for the difficulty involved in taking this photo, I understand the chance opportunity this photo represents. A person could stand at this spot for years and never have another opportunity to make such a photo. And I don't doubt that this photo is real and not posed. But while my brain knows its real, my heart thinks it looks like its posed. Perhaps this photo is too good for its own good.

I'm just not impressed with this photo. I believe what Mr. Malcolmson says, and it may not have been posed, but to me it looks like it was, and I just can't get into it. It looks like they are in the middle of the city, and they had to get to this spot with their eyes closed in order to have such opened mouthed expressions while looking in different directions. Perhaps they were "beamed" to this locaction, and then began to spontaneously and simultaneously take on that "deer in the headlights" look. The technical aspects are OK, but because I can't bring myself to embrace it as a real "moment", and I just can't get excited about it. It just doesn't look natural to me. Except for the guy with the sideburns passing by. Leave him in, because his presence is the only natural looking part of this photo.

I just got my magazine in the mail a few days ago, and greatly admired you photo. What a surprise to find it here. Reading the shot info is especially interesting. This is just a SUPER effort.

Although I disagree with the suggestions to crop this image, I also believe referring to such suggestions as "violations" is a problem. It is not a "violation" to make such suggestions in this forum.

Suggestions to crop are way off mark. Leave it alone. Especially the water, which gives meaning to why the bridge exists. This very nice image captures what appears to be great natural light (no filter is mentioned) which is supported very well by the silhouette of the main subject matter.

COOL !!!

I think I see it now. She must be sitting on a box, with her hand on the corner, and not on the floor as some have suggested. The "blurred" part of the cloth must be hanging down to hide the box, and the angle makes the difference. I still think the choice of cloth weakens the image, even if it is actually not out of focus. I think the material could be approved upon. Something softer to match the rest of the photo. Perhaps a material with texture or pattern similar to her hat would better suit my eye, only in a slightly darker gray.

Ive been looking at this photo for three days, and it has a lot of good aspects. The detail in the models dress is well captured, and the angle of her pose is interesting, and I like the lighting and camera angle. However, I am troubled by what appears to be areas of inconsistent focus. The material next to the models left hip appears blurred, but it also appears to be the same material next to her left knee which is not blurred. In addition, her right foot appears to be more in focus than her left foot, and that bothers me. I'm not sure if this blurring is intentional, an unintended result of the camera, or the result of artistic post photo activity. I just think it detracts from the image. I seems to me that items near one another should be in equal focus.

 

I suppose when I look at black and white images, I expect to see everything in focus, as I think capturing sharp detail is a strength of black and white film. Others may disagree. Anyway, for what this image represents, its a nice effort.