benjamin.portraiture

David, I believe Ronnie probably used a flash to freeze the magic carpet motion. I know that's what I always do unless I want the implied motion that the blur gives. As to the bird issue, I think he may be pulling a fast one with regard to this being unmanipulated as I think I see a spot where he photoshopped a bird out of the sky.

 

Looks like it was a fun shot though...

Looks like a piece of glass placed over fabric (like a sofa cushion) with a petal on top taken outside in order to get the reflections of the trees and clouds. Not fully sure what to think of it. It is eye pleasing in some respects. I think it'd be better with the street light cropped away on the left. That would pull the petal farther from the center. It evokes the sense that the petal is "floating" downstream through the channel between the tree reflections.

But I have to disagree with the comment that we don't want people messing with Lady Liberty or that the towers are a "grim reminder". The towers existed in the past. Their existence here may be a reminder, but not grim. Had the photo been of the towers on fire or the rubble and smoke of the aftermath, that would be a "grim" reminder.

 

As for the picture (rather than the comments about it). I don't think the title is fitting since the clouds aren't really storm clouds. It's a neat concept, but it doesn't carry the impact the title would suggest. Additionally, when I first saw the image I thought the statue could be creating the clouds rather than absorbing them.

When I ran across this picture. It immediately caught my eye. You don't see too many verticals of "the canyon" but this one really works.

...that not all photographers have lost their marbles....

 

Excellent color saturation. Does the pattern inside the marbles come from the surface they're on?

Yeah, you can get rid of the carriage, but I see it as another element of the picture. You know it's a wedding and the carriage approaching is fine. The yellow line is a bit distracting, but in the PS'd example it leaves a yellow "stain" in the flowergirl's dress. You could probably fiddle with it enough to get rid of it, but leave the carriage.

Somewhat Escher-esque. I first saw it as a series of steps and arched doorways with a staircase on the left only. The larger image helped clarify the reality of the situation but I had to readjust my preconcieved perspective first. I really like the quality of light and shadow on the plaster undersurface of the stairwell. Best image in your portfolio.

Thanks for making a former Kansan wistful. I used to love to watch the wind make golden "waves" in a sea of wheat.

...regarding the cropping of the lower part of the image. However, what's with that second paragraph? I've lost film to humidity, spills, and others have lost their negs to fire or flood. At least with digital you can make multiple copies, keep them in diverse locations and recopy onto new technology periodically. I work in IT and whole business are backed up electronically. If anything happens to their ones and zeros they may very well stop doing business. As far as I can tell not very many of them are relying on microfiche....

 

Nice image. Maybe a bit overdone around the church (looks like a stain) but the tulip really sets this composition off.

I would have preferred this a tad lighter. But it's a great shot. Looks like a James Bama painting.

It's a tad too contrasty maybe. I'm wondering what the shot would have been like if you'd swung the camera to the right a little, pushing the window toward the left-most edge and incorporating a little bit of the darkness to the right of the light on the wall.

 

I'd also like to see an exposure where less of the space is swallowed up by darkness (although that'd wash out your view of the outside - unless you do two different exposures and layer them).

OK. Nobody use sepia anymore. Dan's already seen it once. Sheesh!

 

If you're going for a period look I'd want to see something other than a solid black background. A wall with a tapestry or perhaps the corner of a picture frame dipping into the empty space to the photographer's left. Cool idea for a senior portrait though.

...a greasy meatloaf pan or skillet just dropped in the dishwater (after most of the suds have been used up on the other dishes. I think I'd like it better witht the flash reflection (or overhead light) cropped out at the bottom.

So, was the smoke on the left a bit of serendipity and you noticed the "face" and came up with the idea? Or did you come up with the idea first and digitally manipulate the smoke on the left to look like a face? Either way, interesting and creative shot.

Great lighting. Perfect exposure.

 

As far as retrieving the EXIF info you can do it in Photoshop or other photo editing packages. I think Windows XP will show some of the EXIF info if you right click and select properties. I'd be shocked if you couldn't also do the same with a Mac.

Was browsing your portfolio after viewing a more recent photo and this caught my eye. I really like the concept and don't think it would work nearly as well with the sheet music being black. I'd try bending the sheet music to make it "flow" but I don't think I'd make it any darker at all.

It does look as though the image was dodged around those two areas in order to keep the shadows from blending in to the darker areas of the clouds. The area around the sign seems to project into the lighter part of the sky between the clouds, at least on the right side.

 

I think, absent the sign, the title would go well with the picture, but this looks more like little protesters or something....

If you shot it in RAW, Photoshop CS has a tool (can't remember what it's called) that adjusts both highlights and shadows and pulls all the info that's available from each. If not, you can try a couple of things.

 

Try a levels adjustment layer and tweak the histogram for each channel separately to see what you can bring out.

 

Another thing you can do is to make a copy as an adjustment layer and fiddle with that. Try using a mask to preserve your sky if that's the way you want it (I might like to see it a bit brighter myself - which could take care of some of your foreground shadows at the same time).

 

Overall, I really like the shot though. You might want to invest in a graduated neutral density filter for next time though.

The lighting almost makes this look like a composite of two different shots of the left and right side of the face. Looks like sunlight from the photographer's right and too much flash from the left. The dark shadow down the middle bothers me and the exposure for the flash leaves the eye on the right too dark. I like the skin tones on the right better as well. Good, subject, I like the way it's cropped, but I would have tried it maybe with a softer reflector to open up shadows on the left while exposing for the right.

But the photo seems flat to me and a little under exposed. Since you were using a slow shutter speed anyway I'd have tried going slightly longer to draw a little more detail out of the dark corners and brighten up the foliage in the top center.

Thanks for making my day....

 

I'm thinking this was a spur of the moment thing? You were just out somewhere, saw the leaf and were struck by the idea?

If you think the frame enhances the picture you might try a simple, white border instead. This looks like a photo of a framed picture with about 50% of the area being the frame rather than the picture. In this case it's a "good" image of a frame with a picture in it which would be true of any picture you stuck in the frame.

I think the hands are distracting in this particular shot. I'd either reshoot with the hands out of the frame or crop this tighter (my personal preference) so that there's less empty space on our left and very little of the dark top at the bottom (maybe half-way between the lowest point on the neckline and the botom of the necklace which is not very visible). It's just about right on the top and right (for my tastes).

 

You could use some bounce from a reflector since this is set up and reflectors are fairly inexpensive, but not so much that it flattens the light.

Don't walk your small dogs near the animal park....

 

Really good shot. I'm guessing your lens didn't have the reach to bring it in close without the cropping. Were you shooting from an elevated vantage point? It doesn't look like the angle is from too far below.

I'd have hidden the color version, it spoils the idea this might be a photograph rather than a capture.

 

Oh, please... In a day when virtually all prints for publication are either captured digitally or scanned I don't see your imaginary distinction. And what's with the comment about the photo never being any better than what it is on the monitor and then sniffing at the use of photoshop?