vdhamer

Although impolite to compare this to one of my own photographs, see

this one. Admittedly mine was taken with a macro lens, but it was handheld. Holding my breath while focussing was thus one of the issues, if I remember correctly ;-)

This dog passed by and its owner (a middle-aged lady in Seoul) game

me permission to take pictures while she chatted with a neighbor.

Seems that dressing up dogs, putting shoes on them and dying their

hair is fashionable in Korea. Comments on e.g. the frame? Thanks.

Your 7/7 rating is IMO overated, Daily. Firstly, the aestetics are largely thanks to the artist who created the object (sculpture) - so how much credit can go to the photoprapher? This is a philosophical point that does worry me sometimes (yes, I read your bio): when does the photographer add value to capturing something that is already beautiful (model, artwork, or nature)?

Secondly, this particular (new) sculpture is constantly being photographed. About 95% of the pictures are taken of the outside (a chrome bean fit for a giant). But, as a visitor, you will always find someone beneath the artwork taking a picture similar to mine. Yes, my camera and technical grasp of the camera is better than the average tourist (and I took the trouble of passing it through DxO and adding a frame), but how can a picture be original if 1 person/minute (0.3 MPerson/year) notices the same "photo opportunity" (albeit often by seeing the previous photographer)?

This is a cold young lady after swimming in an unheated outdoor pool

(Northern Italy in May). The portait is unposed. The picture is

_almost_ unmodified: the top has been lightened a little.

Looks like your digital film melted in the sun. As usual, we have to think hard to understand your puns, Sakke ;-) Dali + London Eye ferris wheel = DaliEye. I first though it was a spelling mistake (Daliezed -> Dalieyed).

One specific question to you viewers: In the original, the bottom of

the tower was slightly wider than the top due to the angle of

photography. I fixed this digitally (using DxO). Does the "straight"

tower look natural? Food for thought: this is probably what the

picture would look like if I pointed the camera horizontally rather

than slightly upwards (e.g. wider angle lens and crop off the

bottom). This is also probably what a tilt and shift lens would

create.

Thanks for the kind comments. This was taken underneath a huge Chicago scupture named Cloud Gate completed in 2005. The camera was pointing straight up to the curved, reflective ceiling. See my other photo of Cloud Gate. As tourists take maybe one comparable picture per minute (?) of the artwork, I would rate the originality low ;-)

Impressive photo of an impressive phenomenon (6/6). Especially because it was taken on film rather than digitally. The trees do not look sharp, but that may have been the wind during a 15" exposure.

Any comments are appreciated.

Uploaded a color (sic) version which is a bit lighter and has a larger frame. Previous version below. Please click on "Larger" above.

Feel free to link to your version or post a small JPG. I am kind of surprised that the picture scores well on originality - but maybe not too many people have seen the Bean yet? It is certainly one of the most photogenic things in Chicago - although I would have like a smoother surface as it doesn't do justice to my lenses ;-)

Nice. To make things more challenging (and to make good use of the books), try showing the entire cat. This because the bottom of the books and the bottom of the cats do not allign: are the books floating above the book sheft or are these stuffed cat heads? Simplest solution is to move the books down and show only the top half.

Any suggestions or comments?

Thanks for having a look. Any comments?

Here is what the other corner of the same building looks like.

Detail of the Rookery Building completed in 1888. According to some

sources, the alley on the left doesn't really have a name so the

owners just named it after their building ;-) Comments?

Interesting colors. The shoe is distracting, though.

Any comments? Converted to monochrome because the original was hard

to distinguish from B/W anyway.

This was taken at the Canon stand of the Photokina 2006 exhibition.

Comments?

Nice atmosphere and colors. Like the frame, but not the electrical wire running through the scene (aren't Finns supposed to be into wireless ;-). You can estimate the focal length: the photo spans about 10 sun diameters = 10 x 0.5' = 5'.

Powerpoint's Org Chart feature?

"Bulb fact" is the opposite of "Bulb fiction" - but you probably had something else in mind. Well seen and nice colors.

Sharpness - probably OK (see 100% unsharpened crop) but the depth of field is very limited.

Composition - agree that all this could be better. But the picture is unposed, the model is dressed as I ran into him and photographed using available lighting.

What can I do to improve this picture?

Interesting. With a bonus reflection. Nice frame.