jordan2240

Interesting discussion. I'm personally an 'apatheist' - someone who feels a belief in God makes no difference in what happens to you in this life or after, so believe whatever makes you feel good as long as you aren't harming someone else. But on topic, I do wonder where the retailer's responsibility ends in this era of online shopping. If the product is packed and shipped as ordered, and such can be proven, what do they owe the consumer beyond that? Perhaps taking the loss for items that aren't received as ordered or received at all is the price of doing business online. I recently ordered an item off the auction site that wasn't received by the date expected. I waited two more weeks then filed a claim for a refund, which I eventually got. I'm in the U.S. and the item was a very small-ticket item from the U.K., so it didn't surprise me that it had been potentially lost since it was in an envelope. Two months later I got the item and contacted the seller to make payment, so all ended up square, but it made me wonder how often sellers get screwed by shipping issues or theft after shipping.

Totally subjective comments, but I might have tried some shots with the bird a bit closer to the left side of the frame (or perhaps this is just how you cropped it in post), though I don't think the subject being right in the middle is necessarily unappealing in this case. I also would have cropped some off the top to get rid of that stray twig on the left (or whatever that is). I think I would have also tried some shots with a slight overexposure of .5 or 1 to see if that brought out the eye a bit more, though it could just be my monitor. But an auto-adjust in photoshop or such might have done the same thing. From what I've seen and done with bird photos, you just have to shoot multiple frames and hope to catch a unique pose, but shooting in the right light (i.e. not in the middle of the afternoon) also adds a lot of appeal.

Wow, 2014. That was pre-retirement. I started the thread in the 'General Photography' forum because I was genuinely interested in how others might post-process a photo, but when it got moved to the 'Digital Darkroom' forum, much of the interest was lost, as not as many people visit that forum. Plus, those who do visit it are probably more likely to enjoy making the significant modifications that happen now (which can be fun but aren't really useful with regard to my original intent). I think it died off for a bit before someone else picked up the baton (it might have been Glenn McCreery or Michael Linder (don't know where he got to)). I'm amazed it has gone on for as long as it has, though participation has continued to wane, especially with the latest modifications to the site. I think another thing that contributed to the change of direction was that some of the photos being presented didn't really have many options for post-processing other than turning them into something completely different. But I digress. No matter what happens to the challenge, it has certainly shown that photography can be far more deceptive than simply punching up saturation.

On the other end of the spectrum, people might claim valid photos and videos are fake, and it might be difficult to prove otherwise with the direction technology in that area is going. I've kept an eye on these post-processing threads for as long as they've existed, and some of the modifications have been quite amazing, creating pictures that are pure fiction. That was never the intent when the thread was started not-sure-how-many-years ago, but I suppose it was a foreboding of the future. And now we have software that creates masterpiece works of art with nary a brush stroke and essays with nary a typed word. The future will be interesting, to say the least.

That extends not only to still photos but videos as well. It's quite scary how authentic such manipulations look. Lives can be, and probably will be, ruined by such. How difficult would it be to produce a video (or pay for one) of your competition in a compromising situation (rhetorical question), much less a photo? Perhaps the next big field of employment will be photography forensic specialist.

Sure, the colors might be off in some (there seems to be a pinkish hue in all but the first one), but I think you've done a great job of capturing your daughter's personality, which is far more important than technical perfection. But I'm not a pro photographer or even a skilled amateur, so my 'critiques' are based solely on my perception of the aesthetic of a photo (which doesn't mean it has to be 'pretty') and/or the emotion it conjures. I like these.

I actually like all but the first one. I can't really tell what the main subject of the first pic is, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with maternity. On the third one, perhaps the face could have been softened a bit using various tools in post-processing. You might want to look up how to use the high-pass filter (and invert it) to soften skin. Of course, there are ways to soften the light on skin when you take the shot as well, but they generally require using reflectors of varying sorts or techniques like bounce flash.

I actually prefer the frame on the original, both colors and thickness, but as Mike noted, it's a matter of taste.

I have no disagreement with anything you stated. I can understand that one might get a better idea of a photographer's style and perhaps intent by viewing a body of work. You can apply the same philosophy to other art forms as well. I did view "Ric's" other photos via the link above and am not convinced that having done so beforehand would have altered my original critique, but perhaps it would for some.

A beautiful series of shots. You've accomplished the goals of both documenting the trip and creating photographs that are aesthetically well beyond what typical vacation snaps would be. I'd be quite happy to accomplish the same, but you have a much better eye for framing than I do.

Years ago when I started the 'post-processing challenge' thread, this is exactly the sort of image I'd had in mind. Not necessarily an image with a washed-out sky, but one where there were lots of options in post-processing that would still maintain the integrity of the original photo (for example, one might keep the original crop but remove the telephone pole). In fact, the first image I posted for post-processing ideas had a sky that was washed out, and it was interesting to see how participants edited the photo. In this particular shot, an interesting sky wouldn't necessarily add anything, but I was merely siting the complete lack of definition as evidence that the pic might have been slightly overexposed. If the choice was to over-expose the sky in order to properly expose the main subject, you made the correct choice. But on my monitor, the whole shot looks a bit over-exposed, so that could just be the monitor. The second shot you provided of the couple works quite well with no background elements. As for Sam's comment regarding looking at a body of work in order to critique a photo, perhaps that would offer additional perspective, but I tend to see each photo individually, so unless someone wanted a series critiqued, I wouldn't find it useful to examine anything beyond the photo offered. Of course, if the photographer explained he/she was trying for a specific look, that would certainly impact the critique.

On my monitor it looks a bit over-exposed, as there is no definition in the sky at all. It's framed nicely and you held the camera straight (a skill I never mastered). Overall it's a nice, colorful vacation snapshot

I like it, and the little ice structures in the foreground look like the wedding attendees.

I was going to mention it but then thought it might be a tree, so I don't think it ruins the shot. It can be easily fixed in post anyway using something like the clone stamp tool. Those kinds of edits are generally excepted without controversy by the photographic community.

Can't help on the technical issues, but I don't really get a feeling of 'emptiness' when looking at the shot. I get more of a feeling of 'unknown' or something similar. I kind of like the shot itself though, especially with the 'do not enter' sign in the frame.

I would definitely need the title to make any kind of connection, but I think a better connection might be made if you had shown bullet casings in a more every-day environment like perhaps a sink with some dirty dishes in it. As this stands, I really have to struggle to connect the title to the picture. Perhaps if there was a plant in the pot I could connect them better.

It's cool the way you got the sun framed through the opening in the trees, but on the other hand, I find it just kind of hits you smack in the face and make you want to turn away. Also, I know rules are meant to be broken, but having it right in the middle of the frame doesn't appeal to me. There's also nothing particularly interesting about the colors, and the light is rather unpleasant. Perhaps waiting a little longer would have brough more pleasant light, thought that might have messed up the sun framing.

I like the motion blur. I don't know how many people might get the reference since, as Robin noted, 'drinking the sound' isn't a common phrase, at least in the U.S. as far as I know. I also don't like being able to make out the end of the table and seeing the cord to the record player. As others also noted, the glass doesn't look like a drinking glass.

Framing is nice, but it pretty much just looks like a vacation snapshot.

I joined PN in 2001 and while no longer a member because my interest in photography waned significantly, I do still lurk out here because of the variety of forums available. I think there is pretty much something for everyone, so I don't think I'd do anything to change the direction of content.

I have to wonder how she identified the man as her great-great-great grandfather, and why such would cause her distress. I could see a picture of my great-great-great grandfather being beheaded and wouldn't have any different reaction than seeing anyone else being beheaded. I would think any African American could claim distress with ANY slave photo, regardless of relationship with the subjects. Sounds like the proverbial Pandora's Box being opened, and someone looking for a pay day.

When I retired in 2015, I figured one of the ways I'd pass time is to submit photos to stock agencies. It wasn't long before I decided that between choosing the photos, editing them, uploading them, adding tags, modifying rejections, etc, it took way more effort than I was willing to put into it, and any money I made from it wasn't going to be enough to change my lifestyle. I think I did make about $100 over the course of a couple of years on what I did upload. Somehow, I still am making a few dollars at Shutterstock (my account balance is $22 and change) on what I have out there, so I suppose if you uploaded thousands of images (I uploaded 60), you can make some money that might mean something. They will also often suggest topics for photos, so if you like assignments, there's that aspect of it as well.

Was there information exchanged beforehand specifying how they were to be edited? I imagine no two editors would edit a photo in the same way.

Haven't commented out here in quite some time, but I do still browse occasionally and came across this image. Per the photographer's pondering above how this might be best processed, this is exactly the sort of image I had in mind when I initiated the post-processing challenge some years ago. While I enjoy looking at what the post-processing challenge has become (ie. often wild modifications that make the photo completely different), perhaps this photographer could be helped by submitting this as a post-processing challenge in the 'digital darkroom' forum and requesting that participants avoid adding elements that aren't there.

Have you considered something like the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000? Can definitely get 'professional' looking photos with it, and it offers extraordinary flexibility.