MrAndMrsIzzy

1 and 5 I think are the most interesting especially 5. I like the parallel lines of the road and the cottages leading the eye into the image. I agree about the line of cars being a detraction, but don't think there's much you can do about that. What is most interesting to me though (and I don't know if anyone else has noticed it and it shows up in all the pics) is the subtlety of contrast between darker and lighter sections of the sky. I'm looking at these images on a 15 inch screen. What I noticed is that when I look at the images at normal distance (when I'm doing something), there's not whole lot of variation. But! When I sit back and look at the images from a distance (somewhere between 30 and 40 inches) it's a different story. The differences are very subtle but they're there, and they really add to the overall appearance of each image.

Thank you. Regarding my crop and rescanning some of the old stuff (now that I found where they were). That is something I'm considering, but like I said in my reply to Sam, I'm going to concentrate on getting stuff keyworded first. I do however agree that my crop on this one is a bit much.

Thank you! That information's going in the notebook.

Thank you. Film's marked "Kodak CM 400 5079" (whatever that means) and most likely gray market. As for the time of day, I don't remember exactly, but it was probably around mid-morning (or close to it)

Thank you. BTW, I am thinking of maybe doing a -2 version (this is a -1) with a little less cropping, but for the time being I'm going to concentrate on the keywording project (almost up to the 21st century with that one). Oh! Nother BTW (in case anybody's interested). The 4 queens (from left to right) are, Victoria of England, Catherine The Great of Russia, Elizabeth The First of England, and Hatshepsut of Egypt.

First image is the unedited (except for resizing to post) rescan. Image was captured in 1988 in Kenya (Maasai Mara) and unlike the first time, this scan is full frame (as opposed to cropped), scanned at a much higher resolution, and on a better scanner. Second one is the edited version. Didn't really have to do much. Cropping obviously. Minor tweaking of brightness\contrast\noise etc. Incorporated some of the suggestions from the previous post. Scanner makes a difference.

He was a pretty smart guy.

Well! I certainly didn't expect so many replies, many of which where quite helpful (Leslie, Dave, Ray, Sam, Inoneeye) to name a few. I found the negative (knew I had it someplace just didn't know where someplace was) and have decided to rescan it and see what happens.....Izzy

LIGHTROOM!!!!!!! That's right. Didn't think of that. Recently started using it (that's why I'm adding keywords). Put the psd on hold for the time being, go back to the original in lightroom, start there and see what happens. Thank you!!!!.

Ok. Right up front (looking at both together after posting)), it looks like cutting back on the saturation a little wouldn't hurt. Anything else?

As part of my ongoing project of adding keywords I come across stuff either hasn't been edited and I think should be edited, or has been edited and I think should be reedited (starting from the original scan). This one falls into that latter group. First image is the original scan (I know it's old but so am I so it's ok) from the neg. Full version is 1602 x 658 pixels and measures 1.335" x 0.548" @ 1200PPI. I've resized to 100PPI and 800 pixels on the long side for posting. This (in process version) exists as a layered psd measuring 1572 x 656 pixels @ 158PPI (edited to print at 9.949" x 4.152"). The layers stack from top to bottom is bushes and tree in the background, lionesses and grass in the foreground, and what is basically a partially edited copy of the original, two copies of the original, the original. (Yes, I know. It's a lot of layers. Shrug!) Here of course it's been flattened and resized (like the other one) for posting. The only editing that's been done on it (other than resizing) has been done on the partially edited layer and consists of the basic brightness and contrast. No correction for noise, no sharpening, no fine tuning of any kind, etc. What I'm looking for are suggestions, comments, critiques, etc. regarding where do I go from here.

OK! I'm not a professional photographer, artist or art critic (a photograph is a piece of artwork), and there're people here who are much more qualified than I to give a critique. But! for whatever it's worth, here goes. The use of leading lines is good, but in this case all they lead to are not particularly special looking trees. Moreover, those trees are covering what looks like might be an interesting facade on what looks like might be an interesting looking building. Granted, there's not a whole helluva lot you can do about it, but it is something to keep in mind for future reference. I don't know if that graduated ND effect in the sky is the way it came out or deliberately edited in, but in either case, it works. Contrast looks good. Cropping up a little from the bottom might make for a better composition, but that's more or less an iffy call. Don't know if the original capture was in color and you converted to grayscale, or if the capture was grayscale all the way, but the image looks like it might work better as color. Aside from all that, remember. A critique is basically someone's opinion, and at the end of the day, the most important critique of your work, is your own.

Don't know if your planning to go back and straighten it or not, but if you are considering it. I don't know what editing program you use, but if you're able to apply a grid overlay, maybe applying in such a way (if you can) so that you get a straight line at the very top where water, beach, and sky meet (a little to the right of center) going across to the right edge of the frame, that'd give you a thin sliver of water above that line. You might be able to use the sky as a clone source to clone out that sliver....Izzy

OK I'm back. Now! There's the wave pattern. Mentioned before. Working out from there. There're those bits and pieces of what I'm guessing are shells, gravels, small pebbles maybe, etc. at the base of the ridges, helping to outline them, going into a smoother middle pattern filled with the same stuff, fading into what appears to be a smoother and lighter sandy area that sort of looks like it might be a sandbar, going into the water. I'm guessing (and I could be way off base here) that what we're looking at is low tide, with that smoother area between the wave patterns and the sandbar, being the bottom at high tide. Going back along that wave pattern and coming in from the upper left is that channel. I'm guessing that it's filled with water. A little way down from where that channel enters the image, is what appears to be a secondary channel or spillway (don't know if that's the right word but it works) going into that wave pattern. To the left of that spillway (as I'm looking at the image) a smooth sandy area (that's what it looks like anyway), which may be another sandbar, or part of the actual beach itself (I've been to Cape Cod and as I recall it was sand beach backed by at least partially vegetated sand dunes, not bits and pieces of shells and gravels). On the other side (upper left corner) of that main channel is that sand beach backed by dunes. All in all, the combination of different patterns and the low angle from which this image appears to have been captured, makes for a very compelling piece of artwork. Congratulations!!!!!.....Izzy

Wow!!! Well! Right up front. There's that wave pattern. Grabs the eye and leads it in. There's also a lot more but I don't have time to go into it right now, so I'll pick up later.

Good info!

Your welcome

Yes!!!

OK! Posted one in the portfolio (not sure I did it right though). It's digital and captured it on the 5th (yesterday). Take a look.

Hmmm! Gotta think about it. The full version of this image is edited to print out around 10 x 6. something on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of photo paper. At that size it actually looks ok. The scan is from a 35mm neg, probably at around 1200 or so dpi (it was while ago). I could rescan it at a higher rez (I have that capability now). I can do that because I do still have the neg someplace. I'd just have to find where someplace is. In any case the feedback I've gotten here has been helpful. In fact I've been thinking about looking for that someplace to locate some of those negatives and rescan them at higher rez's. I actually setup a separate folder specifically for that purpose. Right now though my priority is getting everything keyworded so it's easier to find. So far I've gotten from 1960 something to somewhere in 1999. Hopefully I'll get it all done before I'm planted (shrug), it keeps me busy.

OK. Right up front. I'm not a professional photographer or artist. I am therefore eminently qualified to comment on such works. Having said that I must also add that others on this site are far more qualified than I. Be that as it may, keep in mind that a critique is basically someone's opinion, and at the end of the day the most important opinion regarding the work of any particular artist (a photograph is a piece of art work) is the opinion of that artist as regards their own work. So much for the soapbox. Image #1. I like it. The sort of off center framing of the bridge. The diagonal line of the river sort of leading the eye into the picture. the framing of the sun behind the bridge and using the bridge itself to split the light from the sun. The some what muted pastel like colors in the sky and the reflection of light in the river itself. So on and so on etc. Image #2 Good color. Road leading the eye into the image provides a feeling of depth, but I do think cropping up from the bottom a little wouldn't hurt. Image #3 Again, Use of the sun as an element of the image. Good color, Good composition. Etc. Image #4 Too much foreground, Bush on the right too fuzzy. Use of the sun as an element of the image is ok as is the color. Image has potential, but needs work.

Yes! Both yours and Steve's. As for the "Portfolio", I was under the misunderstanding that "portfolio" and "gallery" were two terms for the same thing. For whatever it's worth I took a look, tried a test upload and remove, and it seemed to work, so I'll be looking into that a little further. I also tried to upload to the "Mr and Mrs Izzy" gallery. That didn't quite work. Don't know what the problem was (me, the gallery, some combination of the two), but I'll be taking a look at that too

As I indicated in my earlier response, the value to me is simply did I capture that feeling or sense of place, time, whatever, etcetera, I was going for? Aside from that. There're two galleries associated with my account. "Mr and Mrs Izzy" which I created when I joined, and "Single Images", which I don't recall creating, but there it is, so either I created it or it was created by default when I joined. Are either of those the portfolio you mention?

That's not a coastline Mike, it's a desert, and a pretty dry other worldly one too. Also, the original is in color. Pretty monotonal I admit but still color. That said, the reason I posted the B\W version was simply because I felt it showed the starkness and other worldly quality (or what I thought was the starkness and other worldly quality) better.

Thankyou! As for my reasons for posting these older images is basically to find out if I got what I wanted. This image for example. The impression that I got walking around that hammock of stepping back in time. That was the impression I got from actually being there, seeing it, and walking around in it. I took the picture hoping to capture that impression. I think I did, but that's me. So I post the image along with the background information to find out if it's just me, or can others see it too. In other words, Did I succeed in capturing that impression and transmitting it successfully to the viewer. In this case it was the feeling of stepping back in time. In the case of "Other World" it was that other worldly feeling of the location. In the case of "Morning Ferry" it was that feeling of calm. Etc.