barry schmetter

I think it's a pleasing image, but the compositing of the kayaker isn't done all that well. There are some minor scale and perspective issues that make it look unnatural, but the lighting on the kayak totally blows the illusion. You can see a pretty strong shadow projected to the front and right of the kayaker, but alas, there's no source of light in the other direction. Sure enough, I checked out Adam's web site and it's called photoillustrate.com. Very promising work for a student and I see's he's (deservedly) getting work already.

Everything I like about art comes together in this piece. A mutation of dramatic allegorical painting and photography--it could be a lost Goya, if Goya and Daguerre had an absinthe-soaked collaboration. I'd seriously consider buying it if it's for sale.

This is an extraordinary work--I'm blown away at the quality of some of your images. The intensity, the colors, the horns--everything is coming together here. Is it for sale? I'd like to have it hanging on my wall.

I ike the dynamic feeling of this shot--very HCB-esque with the mid-jump over the puddle. The troika of umbellas almost makes me think of a high-wire act. You have some mighty nice street work in your folder.

The Observatory

I liked the forms and textures of the pears, but I'm not sure whether

this is a bit too stark.

This is a shot from my first roll of film using a Hassselblad

Flexbody. I was experimenting with trying to achieve the maximum and

minimum amounts of depth of field with my first images. In this case

I like the effect of the narrow depth of field on the image of the

pear with only the stem remaining sharp.

I'm experimenting with still lifes and I'd like to hear comments on

the lighting.

I'd love to hear any comments, particularly on the lighting and

toning. Thanks.

Daniel,

 

The whole series is great, thanks for posting.

There's some nice things going on here. The sky and the warm light on the windmill are quite nice. The one thing I don't like is the silhouette in front of the scene. The overall feeling, is that it is blocking the nice scene, rather than adding something.

This is a nice shot, and you've handled the extreme view at 17mm very well here. The camera was carefully leveled, and the strong foreground scene with it's triangular motif balances out the interesting view in the background. I also wonder why an NPH shot would look so contrasty and gritty, but maybe it's the scan.

 

I would crop off the top just above the tower at the right, since the somewhat washed out sky is not adding a lot. Alternatively you could burn in the sky by 1-2 stops. If you crop the sky and a small sliver at the bottom, I think you end up with a very strong square composition.

 

I get a good sense of place here and a feeling of tranquility.

Whether you like it or not, the girl is the subject. She is clearly in the foreground and much more dominant than the sign. The station name on a metro platform doesn't work as a primary or co-primary subject. The girl should have been in focus and not falling out of the edge of the frame. However, if you thought the sign *and* the girl were boring, why did you bother to press the shutter? Street photography, like any form of photography, must be well thought out and not just a random press of the shutter.