[SI] And not just the return of Wildcard...

... but Al's back too! Hold onto your bladders!

The images in question are all at
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/wildcard2, and anyone is welcome to join in.
I'm happy to lambaste everyone.

The usual rules apply: If you listen to me, you get what you deserve,
and so on. Opinions in this critique are smaller than they appear...

Anyway, onwod!


1. Nice placement within the frame, with an interesting bit of
symmetry/dissymmetry (one S?). This image seems not to be hurt from the
lack of "space to move", possibly because ducks aren't particularly fast
movers. Good exposure, contrast, and lighting angle, with a slight lack of
DOF. A simple composition though.

2. A strong symmetrical submission, with some otherworldly blue in there,
perhaps because it's offset by the pale wood. Despite the overlapping, it's
easy to see what the structural shape is. I think the little pattern-
breakers prevent it from becoming truly abstract - I would like to see the
trees disappear at least. Slight confusion with the leading lines, since
the joists are nicely centered but the vivid shadows shift to the left. Or
is it the right?

3. And you thought the comments about black tools were old wives tales. The
extremely short DOF brings attention right where it's intended, not that
this was necessary, but the focus seems just a fraction behind it. The
light angle, shooting angle, and smooth bokeh all work well together, but I
have to feel the light could have been brighter - too much blends into the
shadows. I also have to wonder if this shot was 'found' or 'staged' - seems
like a painstaking thing to set up.

4. Ow, my visual cortex! Nothing soothing about this icepack, but at least
we've ruled out the XL and XXXVI mandates. Interesting to note how the
texture comes out in the blue cubes, but is almost gone in the yellow.
Pretty good lighting control overall, and the colors are so deep they
almost look like paint. Fun to play with the individual color channels
though. And no purple fringes!

5. A neat approach, the viewer's position close to the shadow side of the
post makes it seem almost as if we're spying on the ghostly figure. The
light conditions and background worked pretty well to bring out the dude on
the bench, but the streaks above him detract a bit. I keep wanting to find
some flyer that seems to correspond to the figure, but everything is just a
bit too vague (unless he's a philatelist - they tend to lurk at bus stops,
don't they?). Contrast seems a little flat for the conditions, which to me
should be stark. But nicely composed.

6. The textures and the depth is nice, and the muted light probably
provided a lot of control for the delicate subject. But alas, it's pretty
much just a flower shot. I find more of interest in the surrounding
textures, especially the red leaves. I stared at this one for a couple of
minutes looking for mandate XXXIII, but if it's there I failed to locate it
(so good one!). Overall, I'd like something more compelling.

7. A simple treatment of textures, nicely rendered in a good hue for
duotone, but I'm finding it hard to focus on something. The footprint is
subtle and doesn't quite hold my attention. The pic gives a good feel for
the air temperature, and I like the wider angle going from level to steeply
downwards, but it isn't quite enough to hold it together, for me.

8. Between the deeper color and the focus, the sign stands out very firmly,
but there's enough detail in the background to tell that the house is
abandoned - I guess the neighbors aren't good watchers. The feel of neglect
is very strong, and heightened by the bare trees - good time of year for
this approach. Outside of the sign, however, the contrast is very muted,
and not at all emphasizing the textures that old houses abound with.

9. Interesting approach! Not the most flattering for the, uh, background
subject (??), since the skin tones are harsh and this kind of extreme
closeup never shows anyone off well. Additionally, the focus falls sharply
on the background subject and leaves the photographer a little soft, which
is where the viewer's eye really wants to go. The image has the *look* of
digital manipulation, but if it is, pains were taken to get appropriate
field curvature and match lighting angles (I don't think it is). Slightly
odd feeling from the isolation of the scene - "Hold still, let me take my
picture!"

10. I imagine Dodge was very annoyed a discontinued car was chosen for the
TV show, and I have to wonder... In how many countries is this recognized?
But I'm too scared to find out. This one lacks oomph, though - it's pretty
straightforward, cluttered background, and offers nothing to relate to the
vehicle. Even the roof graphics are obscured. The muted lighting keeps the
reflections under control, but beyond that, there isn't anything grabbing
me with this pic. Now, if Daisy were around...

11. Parts of this are so stark they're almost an illustration, and other
parts have great textures. At first glance this is pretty simple, but a
closer look causes me to stare at those wires and wonder if that's all jpeg
artifacts or if they're really twisted or braided. Nice mixed messages with
the homey lantern fixture and the barriers of the wire and barbs. Care was
taken to get this shooting angle, and it works well. The exposure is
excellent!

12. I'm going to have to find a way to make money from old mills, because
there seems to be hundreds just sitting around for the taking. How come
there's still so many standing? This is a good angle for this one (I think
it's a mill, anyway), emphasizing the canal and well framed with a puffy
cloud sky. All lines lead away and, downstream, there lies the "new
community" - nice metaphor. The exposure's bang-on, but the grain's a
little harsh on this one, detracting from a nice image. Cropping out the
windmill might help a bit.


That's it for tonight, but I'll be signing my book in the lobby. And
now you have to ask yourself: Did I critique my own photo somewhere in
there?


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
.7...
... but Al's back too! Hold onto your bladders!

The images in question are all at
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/wildcard2, and anyone is welcome to join in.
I'm happy to lambaste everyone.

The usual rules apply: If you listen to me, you get what you deserve,
and so on. Opinions in this critique are smaller than they appear...

Anyway, onwod!


Who the hell are you? The name seems familiar?

1. Nice placement within the frame, with an interesting bit of
symmetry/dissymmetry (one S?). This image seems not to be hurt from the
lack of "space to move", possibly because ducks aren't particularly fast
movers. Good exposure, contrast, and lighting angle, with a slight lack of
DOF. A simple composition though.

I'm glad to see that you "got your ducks in a row" and finally commented :-)

Jim

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
jimkramer wrote:

I'm glad to see that you "got your ducks in a row" and finally commented
:-)

That's a clue, right?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Might be, but then that would be obvious. There are some poor reflections
too or would that be six?

Jim

(Al=A0Denelsbeck) wrote:
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0. .. but Al's back too!
Hold onto
your bladders!

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0T he images in question
are all
at
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/wildcard2,

10. I imagine Dodge was very annoyed a
discontinued car was chosen for the TV
show, and I have to wonder... In how
many countries is this recognized? But
I'm too scared to find out. This one lacks
oomph, though - it's pretty
straightforward, cluttered background,
and offers nothing to relate to the
vehicle. Even the roof graphics are
obscured. The muted lighting keeps the
reflections under control, but beyond
that, there isn't anything grabbing me
with this pic. Now, if Daisy were
around...

Sorry Al, Daisy was unavailable.
This car was at the city park. The owner had just pulled up with his
wife and daughter. I pulled up by him on my bike and asked him if I
could take a picture of his car and he agreed. I had to take some quick
shots since I was in a parking lot and had cars coming my way. This is
an exact replica of the General Lee, down to the bumpers and rims.




Cody Lee Houston,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

In article ,
says...
Sorry Al, Daisy was unavailable.
This car was at the city park. The owner had just pulled up with his
wife and daughter. I pulled up by him on my bike and asked him if I
could take a picture of his car and he agreed. I had to take some quick
shots since I was in a parking lot and had cars coming my way. This is
an exact replica of the General Lee, down to the bumpers and rims.

Did he weld the doors shut?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

(Brian=A0C.=A0Baird) wrote:

Did he weld the doors shut?

No, I don't think his wife would have been fond of that idea.



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Brian=A0C.=A0Baird) wrote:
Then it wasn't *authentic* man!

Close enough. You could still craw through the window and nobody would
know. Myself, I prefer to use the door knob.
I bet you would be trying to jump over stuff too, wouldn't you?



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Brian=A0C.=A0Baird) wrote:
Then it wasn't *authentic* man!

Close enough. You could still craw through the window and nobody would
know. Myself, I prefer to use the door knob.
I bet you would be trying to jump over stuff too, wouldn't you?



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

Al Denelsbeck wrote:

11. Parts of this are so stark they're almost an illustration, and other
parts have great textures. At first glance this is pretty simple, but a
closer look causes me to stare at those wires and wonder if that's all jpeg
artifacts or if they're really twisted or braided. Nice mixed messages with
the homey lantern fixture and the barriers of the wire and barbs. Care was
taken to get this shooting angle, and it works well. The exposure is
excellent!

I appreciate your taking the time to comment, too. Going back to my
original RAW, I see the wires probably seem to look that way because
of a bad (interesting?) choice of pixel resize. They do have twisting,
but not as much as they seem. I desaturated as practice adjusting
the various colour lightnesses, and even left some red in it. I
considered oversaturating some of the cyans for an 'electric' effect
but didn't think it added much. Boosting their lightness gave nice
definition to the lamp, I think.

It was a hard choice as I wasn't overly drawn to this one and I had
a reflection shot I liked, but thought this a more simple statement
of the theme..

--
Ken Tough

Al Denelsbeck wrote:

11. Parts of this are so stark they're almost an illustration, and other
parts have great textures. At first glance this is pretty simple, but a
closer look causes me to stare at those wires and wonder if that's all jpeg
artifacts or if they're really twisted or braided. Nice mixed messages with
the homey lantern fixture and the barriers of the wire and barbs. Care was
taken to get this shooting angle, and it works well. The exposure is
excellent!

I appreciate your taking the time to comment, too. Going back to my
original RAW, I see the wires probably seem to look that way because
of a bad (interesting?) choice of pixel resize. They do have twisting,
but not as much as they seem. I desaturated as practice adjusting
the various colour lightnesses, and even left some red in it. I
considered oversaturating some of the cyans for an 'electric' effect
but didn't think it added much. Boosting their lightness gave nice
definition to the lamp, I think.

It was a hard choice as I wasn't overly drawn to this one and I had
a reflection shot I liked, but thought this a more simple statement
of the theme..

--
Ken Tough