joe_miller2

Catherine, I'm curious about your choice of filters--especially since you asked for advice in that area. Did you use the polarizing filter because of unwanted reflections in the water? In my opinion, in b&w photography a polarizing filter will often eliminate the specular highlights that give the image sparkle and life. I don't think you will find that they are used in b&w landscapes that often by the better photographers.

 

I'm also a little puzzeled about the yellow filter in this case. Again, while you might have had a good reason, I'm not sure what it would be. A yellow filter is useful in b&w because it helps offset the films' extra sensitivity to blue, but in this case it may have just darkened the shadows since they tend to be blue. I use one occasionally when I think I'll need a little help with the sky and rarely for any other reason.

 

Unless you are sure a filter is going to help, don't use any at all. Think long and hard about using two. These is lots and lots of information available about filters in black and white photography and, for the most part, there is nothing complicated about it. (Overall, I like the photo but I don't give number ratings.)

Pretty good job Stephanie. One of the things we all have to work at is overcoming "tunnel vision" where we concentrate so hard on the subject that we forget about the rest of the image. Even experienced photographers occasionally have electric poles "growing" out of someone's head.

 

In your particular image you did a great job with the subject but the background, especially the white part, is a little bit of a distraction. Something you probably didn't even notice when you made the image. I try to force myself to look around the entire frame before releasing the shutter but, even after all these year, I still sometimes forget.

 

Keep up the good work.

This is an image that is likely to evoke a strong emotional response from the viewer. What is especially like about it is that it appears you followed your instincts rather than any so-called rules.

Hi Matthew. I think the composition is OK. The center of interest is offset from center enough to keep it from looking too static. It's no big deal but the way the tree on the far right is cropped might be slightly awkard but that would really be nitpicking.

 

What interested me, however, was the shadow areas on each side of center. There is enough detail on my Macintosh monitor but the shadow loses all detail and appears much too dark if I switch to a gamma that is supposed to emulate a typical PC. I wondered how it looked to someone actually using a PC and which you use.

Lubos, I think it is more commonly known as a "lady bug". Not highly original, but a pretty good macro shot nevertheless.

Travis, I like the shot but I can't help but feel that the sky seems too light in relation to the street lights below. You can probably get a quick hint of what I mean by reducing brightness and increasing contrast in Photoshop.

 

If I were to reshoot this, I would be tempted to wait a little later and, of course, use a good tripod.

Hey Michael, why don't you dress that Weim up in people clothes. Wait! Maybe that has already been done. . .(just kidding).

 

Actually the main problem is the busy background, but you already know that. It appears that the light is at a 90 degree angle. I think something more in the 70 to 80 degree range might have been better--more of a grazing light. Also, the contrast is a little high (i.e., the window light is a little too bright in relation to the ambient light.) This dog looks just like mine and if he (she) acts like mine, I know that you only have a couple of seconds to get the shot.

Hi Thomas. To answer your questions, the shadow is fine. In fact, I would think it was necessary. It's a nice open shadow with plenty of detail. I would like to see more of the lady's hand--a minor, but not fatal, flaw. Great tone values! Looks like a well-crafted darkroom print.

Kit, my immediate impression was that this would be the view through a rifle scope.

I agree with Dave. Crop the bottom row of stones.

Lee, while this photograph has a good *feel*, there are a couple of things that bother me. There is no separation or detail in the girl's body. It could be the scan, but it looks like a black blob. The pose and the black clothes present a photographer with a really difficult and challanging situation. It probably could have used a little more exposure. (Some people rate XP2 at 200. I don't know if you had that option with the camera you are using). It seems doubtful that you could see the detail on the negative, but if you can, it might help to print with less contrast or, perhaps dodge the body during printing.

 

It may be just me, but is the horizon slightly tilted? It seems lower on the left.

 

 

 

 

At first glance it looks like a negative. Since the light is coming from underneath the tones are almost compeletely reversed from what you would expect to see. I think it is a very interesting shot. The lights at the bottom add to the mystery.

Javier, I really like your idea here. However, the numbers above the door keep it from working as well as it should. They make what you have done seem a little too obvious. Of course, this could be easily fixed in Photoshop if you are into that.

Paul, it is difficult to judge composition when you have to scroll to view the entire photograph. Post a little smaller image. However, judging from the small photo, it seems to me that the arch is much too centered. Also, another problem is that the right side of the wall is burned out and lacks detail in places. About all you can do is wait for less contrasty light. Sorry to disagree with the above poster, but I would certainly forget about fill flash (unless you could move in a giant softbox :-) ). In this particular case it is likely that the mixed light sources would be obvious.

 

The photograph does have some pleasing elements and is certainly not a bad photograph--it just has some minor flaws. (No need to reply unless you want to comment on something I've said.)