james_oneill

It looks like a postcard. That is double edged, it looks great and its very well executed, but its not very original. I hate scoring pictures like this... so I won't .

There's not much you can do to improve this. The exposure is very difficult, because you have a lot of highlight detail and shaddow detail (and digital copes less well with that) in difficult light. Considering all that its pretty well done. The composition is just about right, and you did the right thing to clone in the top.

I have tried so hard to work out why some of your pictures work. I can find about 6 things "wrong" with this picture; I've come back to several times - it works. I'm here to learn what I can from other people but if I caught my model with her smile lop-sided, a knee and ringed hand poking in out of focus, arm going out of the frame oddly, and cropped through the forehead I'd have a disaster. I wish I knew why I find this a 6/6. I don't think it it is just the quality of the model

Thoughts ?

See tech notes. Interested in comments about the tinting process ...

Hi Rod, at the moment it is on blu-tac'd directly onto the wall - the print I have was the first time I printed something that big on the epson. If I get round to framing it I will print it again without the boarder and have it mounted with a black matte on it.

To me there are three kinds of nudes. (1) Those that try to be art. (2) Those that try to arouse (Porn). (3) Those that don't really try to do either - what I term "Just another pair of tits". The only kind I actually object to is #3. Well this isn't the same old pose showing the same old body parts in the same way.

I don't mind porn, although these days I'd rather read it than look at pictures. "Porn" as a label tends to convey "Something which should be forbidden", when instead it means something to please the dick rather than the eye. Was this photographer trying to create something of that sort ? I don't think so. Why light it like that ? Why use that texture ? OK there's a vagina in shot, but its not emphasised, quite the reverse. There's nothing to say "screw me" in the picture at all.

so that leaves art. We can have a long discussion about whether the photographer was successful in creating good art.

Tom says "The pose of this model was not designed to celebrate the natural curves of a woman's body" and I've got to disagree with that. It shows the body as something interesting in its own right. I can't see how anyone can be disgusted by this who wouldn't be disgusted at any form of nudity (I pose such people the question "Venus de milo: High art or some bint with her tits out ?").

I'm curious to know how peter defines art too.

 

I don't know it is the print, the scan or the way it's been served by p.n but the technical quality has gone - its very blotchy almost like we're looking at only 16 or 32 shades not 256, and at large size I can see dust in the corner. It might be worth trying to re-scan this because I don't think what we're seeing here is doing justice to the picture. I like the pose and the way the harsh lighting shows up some detail in her abdomen.

It's very well done, not my taste I'm sorry to say, but the effect is good and shooting through the branches works well.

I don't want to get into the photoshop vs photograph thing (which seems to have replaced 'is it cheating to use filters') but its good to be reminded that one can produce some great effects with an old camera, some slide film and a sharp brain.

Katherine, you could do a lot worse than to look at this one of Brian's>

Also I followed up something you said to This one with some general firework advice.

I notice you sent someone looking for help on firework shots here. There's a couple of things for anyone looking for guidance to take note of.

1. Try capturing more than one burst (we can see two clear bursts, in pink - but there looks like a third which gives a whiter burst lower in the frame).

2. Get something interesting on the ground as well as in the sky. Getting the exposure right for stuff on the ground is hard - so a Silhouette works well.

3. The Outline of statue is sharp even though this exposure would have lasted several seconds ... I'm assuming this was NOT hand held. If you can't take a tripod, look at one of those camera clamps which also works as a mini tripod, and goes in a pocket. Or find somewhere that you put the camera down to take the shot

Net result of all this is something which is much better than most of the post 4th july shots we've seen here.

The camera seems to focused on the background not thr poppy.

Originality scores are a complete mystery. People either automatically put the same score in both boxes or they use it as a way of saying "I (dis)like the thinking that went into this" - which ends up as I (dis)like the result. Its rarely used as "I have (not) seen many of pictures like this". People do seem to take the route of not offending others, so I got a lot of flak for giving this one a 6 for aesthetics, but a 2 for originality. The photographer and his freinds hit my three most recent pictures (happy snaps of horse racing since removed) with low ratings, although I've never seen a picture of horse racing on p.n

As for this, well sorry but I just don't like it. Some people might go for the clouds and squiggles (like some people go for Jackson Pollock's paintings) but I don't. Its brave to try it in b&w when we expect those streaks to be in colour. And I have to admit it might be impressive really big with dense blacks and crisp whites, but on screen a couple of inches across.

I like this and *7 as well, actually I like the composition and blue tone of that better. It that one there seems to be some dirt on the floor which has been cleaned up in this. The lighting needs a little bit of fine tuning, and I would move the jug a little to the right and get the whole of the bowl in the frame.

First off, a quick nod in Anthony's direction. Most people find it hard to give that much constructive criticism. His points are all vaild. I would have given most thought to the pose. If they are watching the fireworks (as in the title) why are the facing away from them ? And they're holding each other tightly but looking into the camera smiling their best "say cheese" smiles. It makes the pose a bit stilted. I would tried putting them square on to the camera, or even in a slight v shape with their backs towards the camera, and had them look into each other's eyes.

But the key thing is what Anthony said - shoot plenty. It costs nothing on digital (and even on film unless money is very short and your time is very plentiful saving on film & processing is pointless). The font is nasty, and putting it in primary red like that keeps drawing your eye to it, and what purpose does it serve ? I'm not interested in their names, and they and their friends know who they are. If it was a special event, put that in, but subtly!. As for a cut out... it took me less time to do this example than to type the comment.

The thumbnail of this looks rather feeble - because you only see the streaks, but viewed at the proper size where you can see the smaller dots I rather like it. Firework pictures don't have to be big bursts.
Note for Katherine (or anyone else who thinks fireworks are hard). I had some advice on a Kodak sheet that worked well. It goes:

(a) But the camera on a tripod, or other support - a convenient wall will do.

(b) Focus on infinity, and set the lens apperture to f/8 for 100 ASA film (f/11 for 200,f/16 for 400 etc)

© Hold a picece of black card (or your hand!) in front of the lens

(d) Set to B and open the shutter with a cable release. If you don't have one or your camera

doesn't support one use the longest shutter speed you can (e.g 4 or 8 seconds)

(e) Lift the card to expose one or more bursts.

Kodak have an article here with more info.

Panorama's often don't work on screen (see this one of mine.) but this one succeeds because of the strong shapes. As a print I guess the trees along the skyline are more visible. The layout of the windmills really suits this treatment. I Like the sky colours, but I'm not convinced you've picked the best colour for the border.

I've seen this building, but I wouldn't have recognised it. Good eye to spot this detail.

I find the windows on the left spoil it, and there's something black top right which you could lose. Here's how I would do it...

I like the vintage feel of this - toning is just right.

I like the style and pose - it's just a fraction dark - although it may be my screen, the dark background and dark dress merge together a bit. Like the toning, and her grace comes over well. There's some other stuff I like in this folder. Must go over them.

Glad to see another from this set. This is at least as good as the others. Anyone who hasn't clicked the folder link to look at the rest really should. They're a great set.

Should she not be holding a hammer instead of skull ? In the style of a propaganda poster - Red background. Without the blindfold it would be scary but with the it ... she might be expecting me but how's she going to know when I get there ... The lighting is good (as ever) and I like the physique of the model. But overall, sorry it just doesn't work.

If you're interested the result is Here.

One description of someones eyes

"Blue. Tally Isham blue. The clear trademark blue they're famous for, Zeiss Ikon ringing each iris in tiny capitals, the letters suspended there like flecks of gold"

Or from Count Zero, chapter 14. "The man smiled up at Jane Hamilton, who smiled back - her wide blue eyes clear and perfect each iris ringed with the minute cold lettering of the Zeiss Ikon logo... ... she was both actress and camera, her eyes worth several million new yen and in the hierarchy of sense/Net stars she barely rated... ... A week later, Jane and three others, half the series cast were dead... ...The series had to be cancelled and Turner was the on last plane out... he encountered [a man] carrying an aluminium case, like a camera case, it's sides dull with condensation ... lengthy labels explaining the precautions required in the transportation of materials in cryogenic storage. "What's in the case ?" ... "They weren't damaged, only some minor abrasion on one of the corneas, They belong to the Net. It was in her contract".

Sorry to be a pedant but a sigma lens ? And wouldn't a zoom be a but eye popping. .... Good idea though, and well put together - but now I've got to do mine.