james_oneill

Good idea, but it gives me a feeling like vertigo to look at it.

This is a good shot, although it is in a folder with some excellent shots and it suffers in comparison. It's very nearly monochrome, but it still works better like this than reduced to mono.

I spent my honeymoon in Iceland, and I keep saying I must go back. Looking through you're folder I think you should be getting a commission from the Tourist board ;-) It also reminds me that when I get my new scanner I must scan in my Iceland pictures.

Don't like the false colours, and the flowers look out of focus. The Crop is bad - with distractions in the bottom right corner and the left edge.

I have to admire your courage when you have rated at average below 2-2 to put your own pictures up to be be rated by others.

I'd call this a textbook shot, which is a little bit double edged. The repeating pattern of the boats, good reflection of the clouds, the way the boats and water are nearly monochrome (but note that red boat at a 'rule of thirds' point) converging lines of perspective, and horizon high in the frame are all good technical features. Also the border defines the edge without interfering with the picture itself (something others would do well to note). With so many good things to say about it, I'm sad to say it just doesn't grab me.

So some of the other comments look a bit odd ...

He posted something "Common[sic] people- Babies are just a way to get points". I think he meant "come on people". He slapped a low score (1/1 I think) on the picture.

Good photography and PS work (and its rare to get both in the same picture). Got to be a candidate for potw

 

 

Work has taken me through here several times, and I've seen this shot on the way through. I like the way you've caught this.

Allan you may be right or wrong... but before "compensating" the scores it might be as well to answer a couple of questions. Starting with is this a good picture or a bad one.

Babies, are one subject (of several) where some people will not rate objectively. So: Does this lighting work ? Was the baby caught with a good expression ? Does this very tight crop work ? What do we think of the frame ? I really dislike the frame. I'd crop even tighter and squarer, to get rid of the dark blue cloth on the right. The direction of the light putting the face partly in the shade ? Well that's personal taste as is the expression.

Bottom line, I think if you put this in a frame and gave it to the grandparents, it would get pride of place, but most photographers are inclined to be snooty about it. So who are you trying to please ?

Careful with the irony, someone will be along to tell you it is their constitutional right to bear a fork.

Well, Investing in an ND filter would make this easier. There is a big gap in the light levels between the tower and the building on the right.

Every AF system needs a certain amount of light to work. If you're getting grainy prints with very long exposure, you may find its because you're negs are a bit under-exposed - the lab will compensate for this but I would bracket exposures. Once you get beyond a couple of seconds metered exposure isn't accurate (thanks to reciprocity failure)

It's nice: On your comment I've always been able to get a full range of contrast from Kodak HIE - although I follow the advice of bracketing +/- 2 stops and sometimes still need to print on harder grades of paper.

What are you trying to with the frame - if you are trying to create a vertigo effect it's working.

 

Looks a little underexposed. You've got plenty of space left and right but not top and bottom. So Portrait format might have worked better.

I'd hand tint this: the "drawing" effect, tones and pose already have pre-raphaelite feel to them I'd colour it to fit that. Nice as it is though.

Actually I like the background, I like the sleepers as "floor", and the train as "back wall". The clothing is interesting, and the pose is good. Maybe the light is a fraction harsh but I'm struggling to find something wrong, I'd say it was a good picture - maybe some people don't like that it is a bit fetishy ...

If I was going to be picky I'd like a fraction more contrast. The lighting is good, I like the toning, and the pose is very good and very original.

What I think - honestly - is that the dark tones of this don't work at all well on screen. My guess is it is a lot better as a print than we see it here.

And for a night view of the same scene (probably from the same spot) see this one of mine

Hi Doug, came this way after you scored a couple of my pictures (nothing to revenge or mate rate on there - just a name I didn't recognise, and someone who doesn't feel they have to put the same scores in both boxes).

This has two of my favorite things - ir and panoramas. You might want to have a look at my Infra red folder.

This is the most striking picture in this folder, but the composition is odd - sort of inside out - because the interest is at the sides, and there isn't much in the middle. Still its a very striking image.

This idea of two good shapes superimposed on each other is a good one, I'm guessing it was hazy enough to get the two tones. Having the main elelments of both parts as vertical lines also works well. I'd crop the gas holder on the right edge, I'd probablt cut through the point of the second post in, and possibly do the same on the left. I'm not a fan of this type of frame ...

Hmmm. I've done one of the "committee" shoots, and I vowed to shoot on my own. Now here I would normally say I don't like the pose, and I don't like the lighting either. Oddly though in this one they work quite well in combination. Work backwards. If you imagine the stool cropped out and lit with a couple of lights in 3/4 position its rather dull. Now put space under the model by using the stool, getting better.... now go for dramatic lighting, and you get this ...

It might be worth trying it in B&W as well

All I can do is repeat what I said to the other one from this series which up for critque

"A lovely picture, from a folder of lovely pictures. They are very cute, but (and would say I have a low threshold) not TOO cute. Super work. "

I notice there is an untoned version in the folder, but I prefer it as shown here.

You could call it a little silly if you were being unkind, or say it had charm if you weren't. I think "playful" was just the right word. Technically the use of depth of field is good, the lighting works well and the gentle toning is a nice finishing touch.

Someone looked at the rating I gave and called it hitting below the belt, and mailed me to say so. I made it quite clear mine was one opinion among many, how I rate and why I didn't like it.

 

Your contribution to discussion of this picture has been what by the way ? You gave the picture a brace of 6s but spent your time sniping at me instead of saying what it was you liked ...

I think the framing and perspective are a little bit better and the pose quite a lot better in this one than in the other one of the pair that you put up for critique.