timohicks

Actually, Randford I added the grass to cover some picture noise in the water near the bottom of the picture plane; I shot this on "Normal;" it gives you 300dpi but significantly less image size but you get more shots per 512mb flash card. I took over 960 that day.

Thanks for the suggestion I like it.

"The Three Graces" . . . Nice lighting.

Thanks Ransford; you know there's a certain intimacy in shadows cast by sunlight.

Thanks Ransford for the suggestion but I did not want the moon to dominate the compisition; you know, white moon against the red sky and you wont see anything else in the composition.

Excellent shot; interesting architectural structure;

Wow, this is a million dollar expression; sure you didn't augment it up a bit in Photoshop? I can't stop laughing. Kind of reminds me of the expression on Different Strokes, Gary Colman s face when says --What you talken bout Willis-- Thanks for sharing it and thanks for the comment.

Thanks Ransford; didn't know you saw this one . . .

Interesting, I had no idea that there was such a contingency of pseudo purest on this site; With fine art and abstract categories, one would not expect radical reactions there but they sometime occur. My greatest fun moments are when I manipulate nature or an object to the point they (the purest) can't tell whether its real or Memorex ---this will continue to be a challenge and fun on this site. Actually, the scrutiny serves as a kind of testing ground for the E-commerce site I am building.

Ha! I wonder what he would say of my Sea Port Reprise, it is composed of eight different skies, manipulated reflections in the water, rendered stars and additional clouds and hours of blending trials for each element. Some how that word smells of witchcraft!

 

On another note, I wonder why you even bothered with this piece; it s static, not visually intriguing and the only interesting point in the composition, the odd shape of the stucco fence, carries a rhythm abruptly cut off by the lens crop. I thought I would put my two cents in since I offered the critique. Eliminating the partial view on the left and raising the rhythm (curve) of the fence and flower pot opening, the composition is more interesting, asymmetrical and intriguing. Less is more . . .

 

Funny you would say that about Stieglitz; I have pondered the same about Ansel Adams; he was so dedicated to his reverence for nature I doubt he would change, augment, or manipulate anything. And while a number of his photographic compositions bother my academically trained sense for picture plane enhancement/placement/eyelevel---yada, yada, yada, I find a very most deep appreciation for his patience.

 

Many times I think modern primitives may be too good for them. Moreover, I see them as Ansel Adam want-ta-bes and while there is little wrong with that form of inspiration, Adams was a craftsman and perfectionist to a fault. There are far too many wide (and super wide) angle nature shots on this glorious path. Me, I have to find my own way, follow my nose and try not to get it or me into too much trouble; but what the hell, there is no fun in doing everything right is there? (relative right? relative wrong? etc.). Man Ray s iron, Duchamp s inverted bicycle wheel and urinal, Giacomo Balla s man pointing, Picasso s Baboon and Young; works of the Cubists, the German Expressionists (especially Kathy Kollwitz) and the Dadaists (although few listened during their time) all say emphatically--create do not imitate! (sorry, guess I got on a soap box here). Take care . . . ( can not get the HTML to present text correctly) Thanks for your comments and support and for the heads up on the discussion board.

 

You know Ransford, I am beginning to think that too many of the individuals who rate images on this site are anti-Photoshop; Unfortunately they don't know how to appreciate new images or even manipulation techniques beyond their through-the-lens raw camera bias. I appreciate equally both perspectives (and in between) although I'm a confessed Photoshop junky. I say all of this (1) because I hate 3's; and (2) I believe if you can't see the merit of a 4 or 5 in an image why rate it? This image is underrated---nice work.

At the risk of agreeing with Drew, raising the horizon a little would improve entry into the image; however, what holds this photograph together are the long shadows that record this late afternoon surreal shot. In fact, I would expect a little washout due to overcompensation of the exposure meter in the shadow areas (unless the camera was set on manual and shots were bracketed.) I would like to see a larger image than the one posted here (guess my eyes are getting old). Nonetheless, Josephine your eye for the late afternoon sun is appreciated. I think your natural lighting photos work best--aesthetically that is. Enjoyed reviewing your portfolio---Well done!

A little Photoshop CS2 manipulation; Comments welcomed . . .

Iva, I going to make an unsolicited comment/suggestion--I just reviewed your wonderful portfoilo of photographs; you are a true voyager and event capturer. The above photo is perfect but your name and framing typically competes with the beautiful images you capture in this series; somestimes less is more. Just a thought; someone suggested the same thing to me once. Your photographs are straightforward and honest, what more can one ask for? Take care. Oh! and thanks for the recent comment.

True Story; In 1956, Richard Scales half beaten to death by police

was sentenced to the electric chair for whistling at a White

woman . . . and the band played on.

Comments Welcomed

Comments welcomed

Comments welcomed

Comments Welcomed . . .

Comments Welcomed

Comments welcomed

Exceptional Photoshop manipulation although the direction of the light on the little girl conflicts with the light through the window opening and there are no shadows from the pelican. The lamp light in the girls hand doesn't appear to be strong enough. Nonetheless, this was well done. The stairs and interior make a great prop; I'm sure you will get much mileage out of it. Surrealism at its best!

Nice geometry; interesting juxtaposition with the cat and the facade of the building.

 

If a "picture was ever worth a thoudsand words," this one is worth 2000. Thanks for sharing this precious moment with us; Thanks for the comment on the Rose and framing.

I did a similar composition and a problem similar to your have but not quite as obvious: The gulls are in too much light for the evening moon; although one could make the reflected or ambient light argument for the incredible light on the breasts and wings. I still respect the composition but suggest trying either moving the moon back or lightening the sky. In fact, one would expect the gulls to be more in silhouette crossing the in front of the moon. What do you think?