ethan_lewis

Excellent use of depth of field!

I like the muted colors. Overall, not a bad photo, but it doesn't really have any features that grab the eye. Perhaps if you took a photo in the same spot at a different time to get more striking clouds or something.

 

Also, the line of the horizon interferes with the middle strand of barbed wire...this could be fixed by shooting at a slightly higher or lower angle, but it really isn't a big deal.

 

The original can be found in my "action" portfolio. I'm in the

process of learning how to use photoshop, and in this one I was

teaching myself the nuances of the burn, dodge, and desaturate tools.

Very effective use of contrast. Especially the way it makes her eyes stand out from the rest of her face.

I began teaching myself Photoshop yesterday. The filters are rather

easy to use and manipulate, but I particularly like the way this photo

turned out with the filter. This is based on the photo of the same

name in the "Portraits" folder of my portfolio.

An interesting potrait, but his hair blends right into the background. Also, I'm not sure that sepia would really be the best choice for this shot.

The "aura" seems really weird in this situation... It does make the photo very striking though.

...and I get nervous whenever I try to take a photograph in the middle of the street where the cars are coming at me at a measley 30 mph...

This is my favorite of the bunch as well. Your model has a lovely 'photo smile' but it's good to see other expressions as well.

This is an interesting contrast with the rest of the photos in this series...

This one is the "pick of the litter" if you ask me. She seems to be a very difficult subject to photograph "correctly" because her light hair and skin wash out very easily. Nearly all the photos in this series could probably be improved by reducing the exposure one way or another.

That's an interesting theory about Don/Jim...However it is entirely impossible to prove. It is theoretically possible that it is true, and some of the evidence suggests that, but there is another distinct possibility.

 

Imagine that Don and Jim are two distinct persons. Both of them have the habit of lurking in the "Photo Critique Forum", looking at the brand new critique requests, and comment on the newest ones almost as soon as they are posted. That would explain how so many of their ratings are so close together, chronologically (photos do not stay on the top page of the photo critique forum for long). However, it doesn't explain why so many of Jim's comments are simply numbers "5/5", "6/6", etc. It's possible that that's just Jim's 'style'. It's still rather odd, though.

Very nice shot. Let me guess...this was taken sometime in the late morning? The sunlight has that sort of "late-morning" quality to it. The lighting really makes the mood of this photograph.

 

This was actually good enough to get Don Farra to use the word "cute", although he may be using it sarcastically. The word "snapshot" however, is pejorative when he uses it. Don't mind him though. He doesn't seem to like anything.

Don Farra is correct in pointing out that this picture has no connection to the wedding...but since when does it have to be? This photo doesn't have to be a "wedding photo" It's simply a great portrait.

 

The eyes are what really make this picture. It seems she's looking for something. Perhaps she momentarily lost her parents? Perhaps her parents are just preoccupied with other considerations. I know that when I went to weddings as a little kid, I always found them rather bewildering, and felt a little out of place. Being somewhat invisible is both a blessing and a curse of childhood.

looks like a clip from a bad movie....one where a giant robot in the shape of abraham lincoln runs amok in downtown DC or something...

 

Excellent photo...in a bizarre kind of way. No, that's not bad. Bizarre is good.

7/7

that tree in the upper left corner (lit by electronic flash?) is rather distracting. If there was some way to crop it out, it would make the photo better overall

I was wondering how this was even possible...then I read your explanation. It's particularly ingenious how you took two exposures, one metered for the sky, and the other metered for the foreground. This has to be one of the most realistic sunset photos I have ever seen.

Taking good portraits is one of the most difficult parts of

photography. The problem is, just about everybody reacts and changes

their demeanour the moment they see a camera. Therefore, unless I go

out with a duck blind and a very long zoom, I never can capture the

original expression that I saw in them in the first place. Usually

the reaction to the camera just makes them look nervous or freaked

out. The good actors among them put on their 'photo smile' which

isn't much better in my opinion. I somewhat like this one...I'm

trying to figure out if it's just me.

Very overexposed. I don't know if that was your intention, but it makes the faces lose almost all detail

Of course this isn't the first time that perspective and symmetry have been used this way, but I particularly like how the right side is illuminated, as opposed to the left side, which both counters and compliments the symmetry in this photo.

egad that's creepy! I love it! 7/7

Tell me what you think of this. Believe it or not, this wasn't

intended to be a photo shoot. My friends jump off of things just for

fun. I like the way this one turned out more than the rest of the

photos from that day.

I wasn't sure how to categorize this one...the subject is natural, but

not the surroundings. It's not a pet, but it might be a portrait, and

technically it is nude as well...

 

I love the facial expressions of toads. Okay, they pretty much have

only one facial expression, but I like it. My friend who was with me

at the time this was taken insisted that it looked "pregnant" (my

friend is not a biologist, apparently).

 

I took this with a cheap Tokina lens that has nice feature - It's not

techncially a macro lens, but it has a special ring that allows it to

focus on objects as close as a few inches from the lens.

 

This is a flatbed scan of a 4x6 print. Not ideal, but I don't exactly

have access to a film scanner at the moment so I'll take what I can

get. There was a lot of dust in the machine (not a "lot" but I'm

obsessive compulsive about dust). However, when the size is reduced,

the dust isn't visible, and the scan is still higher quality than the

scans I get from snapfish.com...

 

Tell me what you think of it. Specific constructive criticism is

particularly appreciated.

I have never seen a photo that came so close to what the eye (my eye, at least) sees on a fall day. That is...just...wow... I think I'm going to start saving money for a large format camera. When I saw that it wasn't manipulated either...that's the real kicker. There is some stunning work on this site done by other photographers with photoshop but this trumps all of them, IMO. I didn't know film was capable of this.

Absolutely incredible. It looks like it's been heavily tweaked (water particularly) but regardless of method, it's a beautiful piece.