simon_meeds

What has happened to its eyes? They are usually black if I remember correctly. The (presumably) camera-top flash has given a very harsh effect with little depth (in the beak).

The portrait of the little girl is magical. The lighting, her expression, her posture. I am not sure what the other figure is trying to say. There is not enough to make a story. It looks as though he is wearing a working coat, bit he has on a smart tie, and waistcoat and a fancy dress mask. It asks more questions than it answers. He is also much brighter than the rest of the image. The architectural feature (doorframe?) is also intrusive, although the girl and frame by themselves might work, particularly if she were lightened a bit and it darkened slightly. As a compomise between the two halves of the image I have marked it 5/5. It would be higher without the right hand figure, and also probably if there was more to explain what was going on.

 

The comments above were written before reading your explanation. Apart from some inaccuracies in my guessing it doesn't really affect my view of the image.

You have made a feature of this high-contrast light. The tree is nicely picked out against the dark rock face. Very well seen.

I have seen this sort of effect before. Personally I am not sure of the attraction, but am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. I am afraid the quality here is not too good though... it seems to be breaking up over much of the image, but particularly in the bottom right hand corner. This could be a matter of jpeg compression, or it could be in the full resolution image. Either way, presentation needs to be improved.

A very good attempt at low key glass photography. It's almost lost (but not quite) at the top left. Otherwise the glass is excellent. I am not entirely happy about the base - the conventional way would be to used a curved background and therefore avoid the definite line between base and background. I think the main problem is probably that the "horizon" isn't horizontal. Finally I have to say that Phot.net does you no favours by presenting this on a white background. On black it would sparkle!

It gives the impression of spying on the people at the beach. Pictorially I would prefer the foreground grass to be more in focus. The rope fence just creates a barrier to moving through the picture and breaks up the figures on the beach. A slightly higher viewpoint would get rounf some of these issues, but probably better still walk down the beach looking for improved subjects.

You've done well to get the ball, but I would have liked to see the head of the club and the other object (unbrella?) interferes with the line of the club shaft. I like the expression.

The omission of the head concentrates the viewer on the cattle and particularly on the left hand beast. It also adds a certain amount of mystery; I want to see what he looks like, but my imagination is probably more interesting than reality. A very good image. Includign the head would compromise concentration, remove mystery and would probably add too much blank sky - leave it out.

An interesting treatment. The figure on the right is most interesting. Unfortunately the combination of figures on the left is more dominant. but one is in shadow and the other somewhat burnt out.

Very good shot. It's an interesting twist to have a shot of the crowd with the player included (rather than the other way round). The mountain in the background also gives a sense of place. I would be tempted to crop the person in yellow on the extreme left (if it can be done without clipping the player's stick.

Very nice. I particularly like the colours. It could do with being just a little lighter/more contrasty; easily done in the computer (incresae the "gamma" slightly).

The light on the CD is quite nice, but the rest of the image is too flat and underexposed, and the shadow area just too large. Try using a reflector to bounce some light into the shadows and particularly to life the foreground.

I like this very much. The shapes made by the trees, the man, and the rope are very interesting. The lighting would normally be terrible, but the reflective strips really lifet it. The frame does nothing for me, but doesn't manage to spoil the image. A really pleasing shot.

Of course I meant "complimentary" rather than "complementary", but Photo.net won't let me edit comments at the moment.

The frame detracts froim what may be a fairly average image, thoug in truth I can't see past it well enough to tell. The blooms seem reasonably well exposed and in focus, though there may be too many of them to make a graphic image. Sorry, I like to say something complementary, but I'm finding it hard with this one - remove the frame and I'd probably get there.

A great family snapshot, but not a very pleasing photograph. I assume you have used camera-top flash, which has resulted in a washed-out appearance for the child. I assume that the scene on the left is a mural - nothing essentially wrong with that, but it does not add anything to the image. Well done for getting down to the subject's level, but it's a pity he is looking at the (tall) person behind you, which means there is no communication. Also, when posting, it's better to keep the images fairly small so that they appear on screen without the need to scroll (but that's not a comment on the photo).

Since I mentioned it in my comment above, I had a go at the crop.

"Very good" shot. I like the pose and the captured action. I would tend to crop off the sign and the barrier to which it is attached. This would centralise the main figure, but the presence of the second figure (in yellow) would make for an asymmetrical effect. That would probably increase the impact to "excellent" level for me.

Dana,

It's great that you tried out this camera, but I would suggest trying it on something more graphic with less challenging lighting. That way you could get some decent, and maybe very good shots.

I have marked this quite high (5/6), but I ask myself "Why eggs on a clock?" I suppose the positive is that it's made me think, but I fail to see the connection.

I have to ask why this was taken, and I don't find an obvious answer. No real subject, poor definition, flare.

A really nice effect. To make it even better remove the dark object at the top left by cropping the left hand side.

This could be a striking image, but unfortunately you have been let down by flat lighting.

Well done for trying something different. The problem for me is that it presents two separate images: a landscape in the top half, and a close up in the bottom quarter - that in itself doesn't bother me, but the third quarter just doesn't tie them together.

I would have liked to see the top of the hill and the bottom of the boat. Nevertheless the letterbox format works well. A slightly lower viewpoint might have worked better.