frank uhlig

Excessive colorization. Badly manipulated nature.

Standard composition : 4/4.

 

Technically stunning, jumping-at-you colors ..., but we do not rate this here.

Or taken in better light ...

Am I going blind? I can make out nothing in this pic but a mass of unfocused green and possibly a figure hanging in some form, plus a fuzzy aqua/orange shape (arms) further off.

 

Forgive me if I am turning blind now, but a 1/1 sounds high to me.

Too bad the tree green intrudes above. Also the faces of the strollers would be better caught on the unwritten marble space.

 

Oh, composition is such a hard taskmaster.

 

If these had been headed, it would be a 10/10, maybe. Now just a 5/6.

I miss any sign of a composition here. Is there no end to these pinguins? no rock edge, not anything to hold the eye?

 

Now if the brown ones were all on one side of the diagonal, and the multicolored ones on the other side (it is almost so in part of the pic), then it would be a 10/10, no doubt!

Great color manipulation to make the scene quite un-aesthetic: a 3; lack of originality: a 2, since anyone can take out a bucket of paint and smear the walls. Sorry, but I like portaits of nature as it is. The odd one out, I am.

Now in my eyes, this one is composed and executed well. The excess floor space, when compared with the slight ceiling crop are the price we pay for the nice parallel upwards lines.

 

Wish we all had tilt lenses or cherry picker buckets to get up higher. Maybe the 24 x 36 format is nicer in that it lets us get up there, rather than the 4 x 5 format that you prefer.

I have great problems with the composition:

 

On the top, the vault is not finished, on the right we get a lopsided fraction of a column, the arch on the left is unclosed, and the chairs in the front are cut off their floor.

 

Another focal length, closer cropping into the light fan, or a wider crop with more inclusion, or a higher perch, maybe just a slight movement around would have possibly given a more satisfying composition in my eyes. But as is, the pic is a near failure for me, compared to what could have been.

The colors are just sooooooo unnatural.

 

Why do people find them stunning and why beautiful? I have never seen such in the world as it is.

 

Why not pink the grass, blue the clouds and green the clear sky? I bet you, your audience would be impressed and rate the pic even higher, a 12/12, maybe?

This is not in "soft focus". It is a 10 sec exposure and the grass is swaying in the wind. The tower and house are sharp. Let us not lose our words here. Great effect.

 

 

Could this be a sheep, rather than a goat?

Muttin bustin = mutton busting?

Other than the title, superb.

And why is SHE a Cretan woman? From Crete in the Mediterranean? In Nebraska?

 

And, Joshua, how about naming the correct lens, Tokina 300/2.8 in the data sheet. You have the Nikkor zoom listed, but tell us in your answer it was the Tokina ... ??? What can we believe ?

This picture is poorly framed on 3 sides (except for the bottom). It is very standard, once in any old town in Europe, to climb up onto a church steeple and shoot the view. I am amazed at the ratings. Better photographed postcards are sold for 15c just to the right of this street corner. ??????

Might look better in vertical mode.

I find the title intriguing: tree branches. And these trees show no branches ???

 

Otherwise: very nice image, satisfying. A bit tilted.

Daniel, the light outside is the sun. Who can turn that off? The lightbulb inside would add very little illumination. A flash would kill the shot. The paper and film picture both look just like the scan: white washed out completely.

 

Deliberately. To get the inner white frame and the top right black corner.

These are the wiggles of hot asphalt poured into and onto cracks in the road, a year ago, smoothed out by traffic. Taken at night.

Moving even higher up so that you can see the top of the near arch would be even stronger, compositionally.

 

Here I am getting a feeling that I am looking through a hole in a wall. But there is no wall ...

 

But there is, were no alternatives, other than trying to hover ala Harry Potter. ?

There is something unfinished on the right for my eyes. Shadow cut off ...

How about printing/scanning this one left to right reversed with the Broadway sign readble?

I have found over the years that a diagonal that goes into the edge of a picture, rather than through the corner (or nearly so), is not as satisfying as one that does.

 

I wish there was an alternate take with the left of the bridge disappearing somewhere near/touching the left top frame corner, and consequently with a bit less of the right "side of the road".

[Lift the camera up a bit ...]

 

Maybe that is what the previous comments were all about.

 

Just a hunch.

Now what?

Not everyone has got the counting numbers 1 2 3 right, it seems: Everyone says: what A nice shot etc.

 

However the correct term should be what a nice couple of (2) shots, pics, or whatever you like.

 

And I agree, a nice set of two pictures. better than their individual counterparts, no doubt. However, I find the amount of light on the horizon incongruent with what would be there naturally if the moon were so low down. A double picture of a different galaxy, maybe, with its sun much closer by and moon much bigger to give this perspective naturally.

 

Nice two photos!

 

Frank