frank uhlig

Why clip the claws? Seems not ingenious to me ...

I find this still life to be antiseptic, there is no back to the construct. Things float on a black backdrop cloth.

 

Any museum has nicer painted still lives from Holland, I am sure.

 

We all ought to look at what painted still lives can be/have been over history if possible; check out Morandi (19...s painter) ...

 

And let us not all fall for antiseptic, ungrounded,... simplistic perfection in the kitchen with poor composition ... just because this is so technically perfect when it has no life. I would give it the 3/3 and be done.

Nice appealing pic.

 

But, can you tell us (do you remember) what created the reflections on the water? I am looking for a source of light somewhere in the background, but there is none.

 

What happened to it?

 

Or is this not a photograph, but a number of them, pasted digitally?

 

The image is confusing to me. So I would like to know, please.

Van Gogh, Dix, and Feininger were here, but unfortunately not Chagall. (no people)

 

Is this a watercolor, acrylic or oil picture? Nicely reproduced via photography.

Too symmetric to my taste. No drama is the result.

 

Also the top left corner closes the view in needlessly and the short 45 o angle line at the lower right edge would best not be caught. Try again and compose more consciously, please.

I would crop a little of the blank left, not as much as Kraig did above. And leave the background alone.

I do not like the top nor bottom crop. Why the white space on the left? Not bad as a try, though!

What is in the picture? It is at the same time too real = objects recognizable, and too abstract = just forms. Overall no blacks, no whites, all in a soup of brown.

I am wondering about the absolute symmetry of the picture. A truely reflected scene would have to show a slighty different geometry between the rwal image (on top) and its reflected image (below), due to the different angle of view.

 

So: is this an artificial "reflection", put below the horizon in slightly less saturation via photoshop to "fake us" into believing this is a true real world picture, OR is my analysis flawed, Francisca? Can you post the original shot, if there is one, please.

 

The question here is: stunning digital illustration to manufacture this image or amazing photography?

Beautiful right leaning kitsch as kitsch only can be. Oh what did those poisonous green colors cost you? And those hands.

 

Kitsch near its best in digital illustrations. Sorry and congratulations.

Sorry, but clearly you do not paint too well in ps. How about with an easel and canvas, or pencil and paper? The photo background might have been nice before you started to manipulate over it.

 

Creative: yes, but only for so called "photography" (which it clearly is NOT). Beautiful: no, just drab drag of a stylized roach. Sorry again.

 

Art : 2 out of 10; originality : 2 out of 10.

(Theatres use such backdrops in every performance; Sh's fairies, ... Oberon ...)

This is a nice digital illustration.

 

What did the original photograph look like? Was there one, or several?

 

Why - artistically - did you make the wall and floor edge so edgy? Why the (comic strip like) auras around the pics on the wall? Why did you make the man's outline so jaggy? This looks like a roughly drawn poster now. Not really a photograph, but a nice digital illustration it is!

 

Could you show us the photograph(s), please.

When otherwise common views are seen for the first time by someone, they are often misinterpreted/misunderstood.

 

I think that all the writers who find the shadow size too small or intruding or ..., do not understand the physical build and look of ICE trains etc and thus exhibit a desire to make a real world scene be changed in photoshop.

 

This photo shows exactly what it looks like on hundreds of european rail stations. The trains are curved up and down, like a sausage on rails ... etc. The seams between coaches are nearly unperceivable, ...

 

This is what the world looks like over there. Please do not photoshop or think of PSing this because you are unfamiliar with the looks! (And wish - maybe - that the european designs were different.)

 

And as far as the pic goes, it is a great artistic interpretation of the mundane in an otherwise very common place.

Wonderful - and - as photography ought to - a representation of our real world surroundings in Europe today through art.

 

Highest marks!

I am drawn in by the eyes, hair; I am repulsed by the poor posture, the hunchback of the model.

 

Strange to feel both attraction and repulsion at the same time. Uncomfortable sort of.

 

An average picture of a spine-challenged model, So what?

 

Deliberately posed with the hunchback posture? Why?

Ok, I assume the camera was one of the new 4:3 ratio Olympus digitals.

 

Or so the aspect ratio looks. And that is the problem. The objects (folds in the curtain, neck of the beast) are all vertical, but the giraffe is cut off at its knees, while the folds multiply on the left side manyfold.

 

This composition is very unbalanced; a panoramic, a thinner width and greater height picture from the floor (to anchor the pic) up to above the g's head would be stunning.

 

This one is a cute, but unbalanced, ill composed, limit-of-camera grabshot. But

too bad for the great shot that was waiting to be taken then and there. Sorry.

I do not know whether foto-collages (= the overlaying of two different pictures into one) cannot be done a bit better than what is here. But overall a pleasant result (3s all around, maybe). A bit obvious the collaging,, but so what.

Ok Martin,

 

the "Details" say this picture was taken with a Nikon D100 and the 17-35 f/2.8 AFS Nikkor. Digital, no doubt.

 

Later you say ABOVE: "I sent this out to be scanned because I have yet to purchase a scanner capable of scanning 4x5 transparencies."

 

HOW DO YOU GET 4 BY 5 TRANSpereNCIES FROM A D100?

 

It looks as if this picture were taken using Scheimflug lens tilt, though. So you may be right here, and wrong in the "Details" section.

 

All confused ... Sorry.

I have not seen a better illustration of the word "banal". A totally banal photo, a model for banality.

 

I cannot say whether this was actually intended. But if it was: well done. If it was not, so be it.

 

But -- unfortunately -- I never liked banalit. A throw away shot from my vantage point as I prefer to find meaning in photography, of telling a story (worth telling, mind you), not drab disillusionment, a sterile stare, or banality in excelsis!

 

But "Light my fire" in a dead face? How banal and morose.

 

There is nothing there there that could ever catch fire. Poor soul.

 

Sorry.

I think the picture is not much manipulated in PS. not much at all, except the typical digital sharpening, contrast, saturation, cropping etc.

 

I hinge my argment on the sky line/reflection line: what those unfamiliar with the geometry of such need to realize is that that the skyline of the trees against the sky is as seen from the point of the camera, while the reflected line on the water is as taken from the water level out there itself. Now southern creeks and creek bank trees are very variable in height, overhang, ... And what looks like a nice straight treeline from the camera may be so much different from the water surface 100 feet up the creek that the two will not match at all. I have such images on film (= no manipulation possible on the film itself).

 

Of course it has become a passtime around here to shoot down a picture for digital cloning, I have engeged in it when i saw an unreal picture. But here, i am afraid, we have a real picture.

 

Too real, maybe for us to accept, but still so.

 

Actually the picture looks kind of eery to me. The kayaker comes from a pristine, primal colors blue yonder, paddles up a creek and ends up on top of what looks like disgusting stuff. It has been under his boat the whole time, now we and he becomes aware of it.

 

Looks like an image of the passing of eons and time towards more consciousness. And scary that way, too.

Sorry, but I have difficulties with the composition. The lady's left arm (right pic edge) is contrasted by something white, maybe another sliced person's shirt arm?, the building in the upper left corner is random and compositionally useless by interfering with her hat.

 

I understand that and when street photographers just shoot and enjoy, but shot a second later, turned a bit so that the right edge is not so edgy might have been the ticket - in my view. Sorry; composition skills: only a 1.

You seem to cut stuff on top or bottom; and from both in this pic. Tack sharp, but not well composed. In my eye.

Having sky above the building on the left (just a smidgen) would make for a better composition.

Miles, why would, one crop what is there. Bad idea. (We are part of the world and leave our detrious everywhere, so record it where it happens to be, for god's sake.

 

There is reality in all our pictures, or there is propaganda in each of our utterings. there is no middle way. Truth or lies.

 

And the original picture is much stronger, not "embellished" into bulemic women images of sand. Sorry. Less bush, more trees!

 

Great composition and execution!

Motherboard without any RAM; odd for this period in Aries ... Just joking.

Nice composition, too, except for the cut car and pedestrian ... (For a one month experience photog)