shupienis

Yes, it's an abstraction, and it does convey a sense of serenity. Somehow, it makes my eyes continuously scan the entire image to find just one sharp pixel to hang onto in a sea of motion blur...

 

Maybe if there was even one small spot of sharpness for the eyes to land on?

Excellent focus and lighting. I wonder if cropping off part of the large dark area at the left would improve the composition?

 

In western Pennsylvania, that is as colorful as the sky gets, most days. There is a lot of haze from all the power plants in nearby Ohio, and a thin layer of cirrostratus at 30+ thousand feet almost every day.

 

I will look into some gradient gels and a holder -- I'm fussy about tinkering with the image unless it's "just right" :)

 

In fact, as I now recall, I polarized this to get the sky as dark as it is! It's tough to get color out of that high, thin layer of ice crystals...

 

And thanks for the helpful comments!

I like the interplay of the light and the closed venetian blind. The warm coloration of the wood is especially pleasing.

 

And I have never had as much luck as you in photographing a cat.

 

Good work!

 

***WARNING***

If you are HUMOR-CHALLENGED, please skip the following post! It contains satire, sarcasm and ascerbic commentary.

 

This is GREAT! This is WONDERFUL! This is the BEST photo.net picture anybody has ever seen! Truly the work of a grand master!

 

The light is too dark, the face is in the wrong place. The colors are too bright. It would have been better in black and white. The focus is too sharp. The focus is too soft. The colors are too dim. You should have used a rim light (a term I heard once, so now I use it in every post) at 37.68359 degrees above the subject to properly illuminate the glasses, and how could you be so careless? This is the WORST picture on photo.net and the rest of your stuff is the same (but MINE IS BETTER/BIGGER/[iNSERT YOUR FAVORITE SUPERLATIVE HERE].)

 

---REALITY CHECK-----------

 

As I warp out of Universe #1 and #2, and leave the tiny-but-vocal few who make up the extremist fringes of each behind, I have to point out that all the above is tongue-in-cheek (for those too humor-challenged to "get it"). Ain't photo.net great? On a gray, cloudy day like today, its a lot of fun to read the posts.

 

Seriously, artists are always like the above -- all right brain and no left. Probably why "starving" and "artist" go together so well.

 

It's part of what makes us each take good photographs, even if we're the only ones who think so.

 

And in the end, (unless a making a living depends on the opinions of others) isn't that all that really matters? That WE ENJOY taking pictures and sometimes choose to take the risk of sharing them with others?

 

The Internet sure beats boring just our neighbors with our vacation slides! It takes the concept of captive audience to a whole new level!

 

And nothing I have said is aimed at anyone in particular or in aggregate, so please don't take offense.

This is GREAT! This is WONDERFUL! This is the BEST photo.net picture anybody has ever seen! Truly the work of a grand master!

 

The light is too dark, the face is in the wrong place. The colors are too bright. It would have been better in black and white. The focus is too sharp. The focus is too soft. The colors are too dim. You should have used a rim light (a term I heard once, so now I use it in every post) at 37.68359 degrees above the subject to properly illuminate the glasses, and how could you be so careless? This is the WORST picture on photo.net and the rest of your stuff is the same (but MINE IS BETTER/BIGGER/[iNSERT YOUR FAVORITE SUPERLATIVE HERE].)

 

---REALITY CHECK-----------

 

As I warp out of Universe #1 and #2, and leave the extremist lunatic fringes of each behind, I have to point out that all the above is tongue-in-cheek (for those too humor-challenged to "get it". Ain't photo.net great? On a gray, cloudy day like today, its a lot of fun to read the posts.

 

Seriously, artists are always like the above -- all right brain and no left. Probably why "starving" and "artist" go together so well.

 

It's part of what makes us each take good photographs, even if we're the only ones who think they are.

I'm starting to get it. I think. I'm still clueless about this art thing, but I think I recall hearing somewhere that a picture is worth 10,000 words. And that it is a sometimes-good thing for a picture to reach its viewers on an emotional level.

 

That certainly has been the case for some recent PoWs for some of us.

 

Honestly, I wish I could take photographs like this. More than technical skills are needed to make it happen -- the ability to "know" the subject, and visualize the way to best put the subject on film are necessary.

 

This picture does just that. It's a right-brain thing. The technical "imperfections" have nothing to do with it -- the image speaks strongly of the trusting relationship the photographer and the subject have developed.

 

Good choice.

Would cropping help this image? Should I have chopped off parts of

the tree by using a longer lens?

Does the little fence in the lower left need to be "removed"? I find

it distracting, but I am not a big believer in retouching. Or is

sensible retouching the secret of a winning photograph?

 

I am trying to grow beyond my natural inclination to take hyper-

sharp, scenic landscape, "postcard" shots, and this is as much

creativity as I can muster at the moment. I mean, I don't use drugs,

so does that limit my ability to be "creative"?

 

Am I a stick-in-the-mud? Should I just stick to what I know? Or

should I keep stretching my limits in this direction. Constructive

suggestions are welcome.

No polarizer. The vignetting is not apparant on the negative. ??? Sometimes it shows up on the proofs, but not on the contact sheet. Could be a problem with the lab. I've been meaning to whine about it but haven't gotten around to it yet .

 

And a big thank-you to everyone for their comments!

Should I photoshop out the power wires? Would it have been more

dramatic if I had gotten closer to the post (while still keeping it

in sharp focus)? I know the post is dead center -- I tried a shot a

couple steps to the left, but liked this better, rule of thirds

notwithstanding.

 

I think it's a pretty good example of a wide angle shot -- what do

you think?

 

And another note? How come sometimes 100 people see a picture and 10

or 12 rate it, and other times 100 people see a picture and NOBODY

bothers rating. Is that a polite way of saying it stinks? Or is there

a magic time to submit so people will rate?

 

Not that I'm a ratings freak -- I just appreciate the feedback as it

helps me make better pictures.

NICE framing. St. Mark's in Venice?

 

Nice composition. I would have stopped down a bit more to blur the cup less, because I prefer a little more sharpness, (or a lens with "nicer" bokeh) but that's just "my cup of tea."

Thanks for the nice comment and rating. That's not a tree, it's a whole bunch of 'em. Somebody would get mad if I took a chainsaw to them, and setting up shop any further to the right on the bridge I was on would have put me on the wildly gyrating suspended deck, as opposed to being right on a stable pier.

 

I like to think of it as that spot is where the calendar overlay should go .

Thank you Very much for your Very kind comments. If I would not have waited for the sky to be such dark, the tree would have been such dark instead. This was the night they lit up the tree and all the buildings. It was the only moment the picture could have been taken.

 

But perhaps, maybe news photographers should wait for the morning after a fire or traffic accident so the sky is not such dark for them, either.

 

Two people have taken the time to rate the picture. I don't know either of them, and I assume they rated it the way they saw it. I also noticed that you didn't take the time to rate it. Given your taste in "master pieces" I'm very happy you did not!

IMHO, at least ONE thing could have been in focus. That would have empahasized the movement all the more! Thanks for your kind ratings of my work!

Sorry to disappoint, but I didn't use a polarizer. This was shot in a dimly lit "orchid room" at the local botanical gardens.

 

I agree that a little catch-light reflecting from the plants would be nice.

I'm still learning 6x6 composition. Am I on the right track???

True, this is a cultivated public garden, but am I doing the best I

can with choosing a field of view? I'm new to 6x6 format, but I am

really beginning to like my Kiev 88CM.

This is the most dangerous water in Pennsylvania. Would this same

shot be better in three weeks when the leaves are out, or in 6 months

when the leaves are all colored? In either case, there will be a lot

less water then than there is now.

Still working out the details of 6x6 composition.

Didn't "Originality" used to be called "Cleverness"?

 

I would choose to rename the category "Creativity" or even better: "Craftsmanship" to sum up the invisible, behind-the-scenes efforts by the photographer to capture a vision we wouldn't normally see.

 

Thus, the recent PoW of the glass dropping into water, even though done in 1957, and perhaps even earlier, would still gain merit on the "Craftsmanship" scale, because the photographer put forth a large amount of effort into having the camera record something that he or she alone saw before. Ansel Adams took ehough "bleak-n-white" pictures of mountains to fill several books. But each one was the result of enormous personal effort and planning. That is why they are considered "art". Recognition of the exertions of the artist.

 

Just as an artist painting a canvas finally reveals to the world the personal visions known only to his own mind, the photographer paints with the "broad, smooth brush" and shows us a heretofore unseen vision.

 

"Aesthetics" is self explanatory: visual appeal. On the other hand, "Cleverness/Originality/Creativity/Craftsmanship" -- whatever you call it -- reflects on the "Artisanship" of photographers, as they practice their craft.

 

Yes, I bracketed. All I got for my efforts was lots more grain and no stars.

 

The other angle was 90 degrees to the right, which was toward where the sun had just set 15 minutes earlier. The sky was lighter, and could be seen through the windows. I thought it was a nice shot, except for a telephone wire that cut across the whole frame. I'm not a firm believer in PhotoShop retouching, but that image (the one that was correctly "over" exposed) would need about 20 minutes with the rubber stamp tool to be presentable.

 

I suppose I could fix the flagpole shadow, and dodge the front of the church a bit to reveal more detail, but that isn't the subject (to me). I see wide, and the subject is the steeple (unusual lighting from below) contrasting against the starry sky, rising above the rest of the building, with the candles in the windows.

 

So the flagpole shadow isn't even there in that picture.

 

Unless I look for it, then it's huge.

 

//Joe

There are two ways to improve this shot. They both involve time. To make it even colder and more isolated, wait for a heavy snow, and shoot so that the flakes are sharply visible between you and the barn.

 

The other way is wait for fall, then on a bright-blue sky morning or evening within 1 hour of sunrise or sunset (whichever puts the sun behind you) use a polarizing filter and really jack up the colors!

 

Ansel Adams took more than enough bleak and white pictures, so now we should all use color all the time (in my opinion)!

 

By the way... all your shots seem to be lacking in color. Are you scanning from glossy prints (like you should be)? Or are you using a film scanner to scan the negatives (in which case either your exposures are wrong or your lab is not developing your film correctly)?

 

If you're seeing subdued colors in your prints, try a different lab (the ones at Wal*Mart do reasonable work at a low price, surprisingly enough!) And remember - Glossy prints duplicate much better!

 

Finally, a UV filter might remove some of the low contrast in your scans.

 

Keep shootin', you're on the right track!

I'd appreciate a look at my recent folders, please.

---

Pittsburgh Sights

US Air Force Museum

 

Thanks for looking!