bill sullivan

One thing I hate about trying to evaluate photographs on a computer screen is that it is usually impossible to see photos in the proper scale. When I first looked at your photo, my reaction was that it was a not-so-attractive flower photo and the flower had an insect in it. Only when I clicked the Large button was I able to see that this is quite a nicely detailed photo of an insect (look at those hairy legs!) and the underexposed and soft focused flower is just a background. Those are my thoughts. I don't know what you do with them.

Changing this to black and white was a good move on your part.

Well done! So simple.

Its strengths are the sharpness and the colors. As for composition, you could center the horizon by cropping some of the top. The word "could" is key here. It's not a mandate. Try it and see if you like it any better.

The good things here are the simple colors. The bad things are that it's a very busy picture with a lot of stuff in it and the left bank of the creek intrudes (at least it intrudes on my eye. You might try turning it around, putting the bank on the right side. See if that makes you feel better about it.

What more can I say? With all due respect to the takers of spontaneous pictures that are winners, it's wonderful to meet up with somebody who studies, stalks, analyzes, thinks, and patiently waits. Well done.

Slobodan: I love the blues on the rocks, although they are subtle on my monitor. I am less impressed with the sky, but others may disagree. I think the problem is that when you combine the rocks and the sky you lose simplicity. You end up with a two elements (never a good number) with problems. If we could rate photos for the selected subject, I would give you high marks (at least a tick or two better than average) but for the things on which we do rate photos, this probably has to come out at less than average. And that's too bad, because you chose a nice scene.

I like to photograph sunrises and sunsets. Every time I come across one that is exceptionally beautiful, I turn my eyes toward where I imagine Heaven to be and I say "Thank you, God." In the situation here, you contribute your eyes and your sense of composition (something machines don't have) as well as you knowledge of things like exposure, dof, and film. So I don't even think that should be the question, and you shouldn't be wasting your time by trying to answer it. Assuming the architect was a man, I think your question ought to be who was the architect? What were his beliefs and goals? How can I bring the viewers of my photograph closer to him and his time and culture and whatever else? How can I reach out and touch this man and bring him and his thoughts to my audience in the 21st Century?