chad_gard

Very static composition - with the trees in straight lines and being right in the middle of the seemingly endless and very straight path, one gets tunnel vision. Typically not a good thing, but it works well for me in this photo. I imagine walking down this pat was very much like walking through a tunnel.

Great contrast between the red and greens, and I love the motivic similarity between the cots/benches and umbrella in the foreground and the bushes/ tree trunks and tree foliage in the background

Great exposure, and love the colors. Composition isn't horribly unique, but works well. The two moving boats, or, rather, the light streaks created by them, are a bit distracting in what otherwise is a very solidly still scene.

Very intense and personal. the fluorescent tubes lead to a rather odd catch light in the eyes. It's definitely not the ordinary eye highlight. But it's so symmetrical, and blocks part of his pupil that it becomes almost a barrier to looking into his eyes. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, if it adds to the intensity of the expression, or detracts from the humanity of the model. But either way, it is unique.

 

The reflections in the window and the pose of the "model" play well together. Compositionally interesting, too, with the two buildings' reflections meeting the way they do, though perhaps the placement right in the center of her forehead of such a bright reflection may be a bit much.

 

It could be an entirely different and quite powerful photo if the model were a real girl (sounds like a Disney film....)

Now, there's a truly original hawk photo!

 

It would be nice if there could be a little more simple a background, which may have been possible with shallower depth of field, but on closer examination, you've already got a fairly shallow depth of field, so relocating your shooting angle may have been required - something the hawks probably would have taken a dim view of.

Fascinating perspective and interesting composition. The simplicity and subtlety of the beach contrast nicely with the jumbled texture of the surf and rock, due to the fast shutter speed (this photo wouldn't work nearly as well with a slow shutter speed showing more motion in the surf).

 

It's just kind of a shame there are so many footprints in the lower-left corner, which detracts somewhat from the simple textures of the beach.

hence the problem with photography and the internet. sigh.

 

I'm using the built-in monitor on a 15" powerbook G4 (the newer aluminum one, not the titanium, but not the newest one with the "oops, you dropped me" sensor for the hard drive). I've calibrated it about as close as I can by eye, but have yet to buy a hardware calibration system, so it could be that my calibration is off a bit, and thus too contrasty.

Interesting effect the combination of lighting and photoshop got for you. There does seem to be an abrupt line in the dark area above the band members that is somewhat disturbing. Perhaps this is where your duplicate layer ended?

 

Depending on how much life you want in "murder of crows", it might be fun to try a similar shot but with a different light source - a fire comes to mind, which would give a warmer and more saturated, ghost-story-esque nature to it. But, since you went to so much trouble with the B&W duplicate layer in photoshop, I'm guessing saturation of interesting colors is probably counter to your original goal...

Nice light to work with, giving nicely saturated foliage. The buildings seem to tilt a bit to the left, though, and that's magnified by the large tree branch in the upper right hand corner. Also, the light is so nice on the foliage that I'd like a bit more of it, and perhaps a bit less of the white sky.

Interesting pose/expression, and I really like the hair. Skin tone seems a bit off/too reddish, like maybe you used Velvia? I also am not sure I like the eyes that close to closed (at least with this light) - it puts a shadow from her eye lashes across what is open of her eyes, making her appear stiff and unnatural. Also, the slight sliver of black cloth at the bottom, matching the background, is distracting and could probably be cropped out to good effect.

Great lines in the snow. Not sure I can really suggest much that you could have done practically. The lowest dark knot on the tree (the one that's mostly covered in snow) is a little disturbing. But unless you had the power to put in another inch of snow of the same texture with the same wind pattern - not much you can do.

 

You may consider cloning out some of the dark flecks on the left side of the peaked drift. they distract from the simple and beautiful lines of what is essentially an abstract photo. But that's pretty minor.

Interesting contrast between the very saturated colors and active subjects in the foreground with the foggy, sedated, more mysterious background. It is a unique juxtapostion of elements.

The left side part is out of the ordinary, but also very dramatic. If you were going for dramatic, my guess is this isn't what bothers you.

 

What bothers me most is what seems to be some motion blur, which distorts the eye. It's a VERY intense expression, coupled with intense and unique lighting. But the intensity of a person is largely carried in the eyes, and our brain wants to look into the model's eye and determine the true nature of his expression. Then we find it's too blurry to really tell.

 

While the left side is different, perhaps what's really bothering you is the same as what I think it is - the eye. Try looking there and seeing what you think.

Interesting tones/colors, but the combination of many many straight lines with the few curves seems dissonant to me.

Interesting idea, but the photo seems very very flat (ie, 2-dimensional), and, while open, not very geometric. I find my eye just bounces around the frame never finding any respite or guide in the direction it should go.

 

While I disagree with whomever gave you a 2/2, perhaps there's a lack of focus of intent (not focusing the camera, but focusing the mind of the viewer on what emotional response you intend for him to experience).

 

The translucent nature of the water is very interesting, and there are a couple of interactions in the lilly pads that could be graphically interesting with a change of camera location. perhaps there's a way to emphasize these interesting elements more and simplify the composition?

The motion blur is an interesting and creative effect. I really like it for the background, but find it a bit disturbing in the center of the foreground flower.

Interesting clouds, but the light seems a bit jumbled, so the sunlit mid-ground portion and small bluish wedge of bluish light on the cloud base seem awkward.

 

Also, the foreground brush is quite blurred, and it's not clear that the clouds aren't as well, leading to the impression of a very shallow DOF.

 

I think having the camera further from the ground, to give a little larger area in the sunlight, would improve the composition, and stopping down more to get a greater DOF could improve things quite a bit. It's a dramatic combination of light and shape that could be really nice with just those simplifications.

Powerful and very gritty - we don't normally get to see women photographed this way. Bravo on the originality front!

 

There does seem to be just a tad too much color in the lips - the eyes are essentially dark, even the blood vessels in the whites of her eyes, and the freckles and such are all in shades of brown, so the red of the lipstick seems in-harmonious. Also, the rim-lighting on the bottom of her nose is a bit disturbing. That could be compression artifact, though...

Nice sepia tone with good exposure. The side lighting is a nice touch, though perhaps a bit too strong on the right-front rose. There's also a disturbing line in the background - looks like maybe some wainscoting or a chair rail with a darker color below and a lighter color above? It seems to grow out of the left rose in an unnatural way, while the rest of the photo is very organic.

I recently hung a print of this photo on my office wall, and have since 're-discovered' it. I

don't recall liking it as much when it was newer, but not it has a bit of a zen appeal for

some reason. So I'd like to see what other folks think.

 

Comment appreciated.

Yet another photo of the Henderson Creek Bridge, one of Indiana's disappearing antique

bridges. I was intrigued by the shape and geometry of the side frames of the bridge's

trusses, and given the horrible light, it seemed appropriate to focus on these geometric

shapes. I also liked the texture of the paint and rust.

 

What about you? comments appreciated.

By "is this a feline," I'm guessing you mean "is this a female." At least, I hope her feline-ness is obvious.

 

Yes, she is a female. While she appears dainty, however, she really isn't. Shy, yes. Loud, yes. Talkative, yes. But dainty, no.

 

She's part Maine Coon, part Domestic Longhair, and I think she may have a little Norwegian Forrest Cat in her as well. 9 1/2 years old when this photo was taken.

Thanks for the comments.

Yeah, I cropped off her left ear. But didn't have any shorter focal length available. At least she wasn't licking the lens at this point ;)

Like others, I'm not a fan of extremely long lightning exposures. Imagine the level of

detail that could be had using large format film to capture a single lightning strike! That

would be more interesting to me. Framing a single strike against the interesting structure

(crane?) on the right, for example, could provide a nice balanced composition, very

detailed branching in the strike, and a nice contrast between the very structured and

geometric shapes of the man-made object and the more random shapes of the lightning

strike.

 

I also think the foreground hill takes up a little too much of the frame and is a bit too

symmetrical, given its dome shape. Since we have the advantage of an overlook of the city

(a rare opportunity for lightning photography, at least in areas I'm usually at), it'd be great

to take more advantage of it, and move closer to the crest of the hill. some is surely

needed to "ground" the photo (not in the electrical sense ;) ), but as is it seems a bit much.

 

But all of that makes it sound as if I didn't enjoy the photo. To the contrary, it's excellent.

And, given the cost of glass, film, and processing for large format, combined with the high

failure rate of lightning with longer lenses and shorter exposures (to isolate a single strike

in frame), I don't know that I'd be willing to take the risk of the approach I prescribe.

 

At any rate, it's really great to see a lightning photo make photo of the week!