carl_williams

Love this picture!

Fabulous!

I've seen a few pictures attempting to use the reflective surface of this memorial, this is one of the more successful IMO.

Super shot (though slightly washed out top left).

Wast this taken at night or dusk/dawn, with a long exposure? Looks very motion-blurred to me. Could use less exposure I think.

Nicely graphic, well observed.

I too like the stepwise gradation of colours, though

I agree with the other comment that the washed-out final step detracts a bit. On the other hand, I don't know what you were shooting on - if slide, then the contrast control options are a bit limited, though perhaps a 1/2 stop less would have been enough without making the foreground too muddy. Other than that it comes down to shooting at a different time of day or using a grad filter unless you're prepared to meddle with development times etc.

 

More depth of field would have demanded a longer exposure, though focusing a bit closer might have brought the foreground in without the workers going out, depending on aperture etc. Modern zoom lenses don't seem to have useful things like depth of field scales on them, though maybe the camera is (supposed to be) smart enough to focus appropriately if it knows a particular aperture is being used...?

I prefer the other one, as a photo, at least in compositional and visual impact terms - this is perhaps potentially more evocative, though I'd still tone down or crop out the legs as overdistracting.

I agree with Porter Palmer - keep it up!

Spot of photoshop evidence around the flower, otherwise nicely composed and lit.

Gorgeous lighting!

Evokes an "autumn evening" feel for me, for some reason. I think the flash is a bit harsh towards the top, though, some blown highlights. Striking nonetheless. Nice presentation, too - I don't normally like frames but you seem to have a knack for them!

Looks a little grainy or overcompressed? Lovely tones and composition.

Striking image, excellent stock shot.

I'd agree with Pawel about darkening the dress, though the shadows look OK to me. Super expression, nice portrait.

Interesting effect, looks like he's floating so a bit disconcerting. Perhaps leaving the wall sharp (ish) near

the guy would work better? I suppose with PS you could, e.g., duplicate the image to a layer and soften the whole lot, then make another layer with everything sharp and

make a transparency mask with a fade around the areas you want to blend sharp/unsharp, e.g. the bench nearer the camera. Or is the chap cut out of a different scene and pasted on that wall? Looks too bright under his legs, somehow. Anyway, eye-catching image...

 

Shudder! Spot-on exposure, super composition.

I quite like the dark tones and the saturated out of focus background. Tones seem a bit cyan or something though, light falling through and reflecting off all that greenery I guess. Also it seems rather noisy, so I'm guessing a highish effective ISO for the low, shady light? Well framed and timed, very nice shot.

Very graphic. Makes me think of Tom Waites for some reason :-) I prefer the other photo of this piano, and the rest of your piano shots are simply superb.

Superb shot. Scary!

What they all said. Don't think I can contribute any meanigful criticism of this (well, OK, mebbe the scan could do without the interference patterns :-)) - it's a super shot in a powerful series, well composed for impact, clear and to the point.

Pleasingly aesthetic portrayal of a penis & cloth,

mebbe as the other poster suggested it could use either more DOF (which would probably mean keeping awfully still for a long exposure) or a general overaall softness.

I don't think one can always recognize even gross character traits in photos. There are countless examples of photos of known villains looking angelic and alarming-looking people of an angelic disposition. (Although I confess I've always thought the British prime minister Tony Blair looked a bit insincere in pictures, and thus it has proven.)

To Daniella: I do read my own prose. It's terrible, I agree. The bulk of it on this occasion, however, was about the photo rather than ad-hominem nonsense.

I don't recall suggesting that assumptions are or should be "forbidden" (by who?). I noted that folk make them, and that I made some myself. Clearly you're welcome to your assumptions, including the daft one about my age. (Not sure why you've mentioned where you live - Toronto Canada, presumably, rather than Toronto France? :-) )

Your "most humans defacate" comment seemed to me somewhat prejudiced, presumptious and judgemental. I've not chosen those words out of spite. This isn't the place to attempt to explain why, for example, I think it unpleasant essentially to describe the woman in this photo as a ten-dollar whore, someone implicitly unworthy of being any decent man's wife, sister or girlfriend (as if that were what dignified women). I would, however, defend your right to make whatever comments you like, and your right to be comically pompous, just as eagerly as I defend my own right to disagree with you and to write bad prose. "We" don't necessarily agree.

AIUI, biblical pedants tend to object to people calling masturbation (metaphorical or otherwise) "onanism" - something about Onan having been up to something altogether different (I'm sure you know the story).

 

No, this is called something like "spouting complete bollocks", and possibly "playing to the peanut gallery" (though no-one much will look in here, so I hope I'm not too guilty of the latter).

 

Have you considered that your pointless comment on my pointless picture might also have been what you term "onanism"?

 

Whatever, I give up, you're far funnier than I could hope to be, and in far fewer words.

Nicely observed, colourful, shame it's soft at the front but it's still pleasing...