[SI] There is no god after all...

... because Al is back with another dose of ripping images to shreds!

First off, the images in question can be found at
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/backlit. Anyone reading this may participate,
don't be shy, but please check out the Rulz link therein to help with your
submissions.

This round produced a nice set of good images (credit to Alan for the
inspirational mandate), with some interesting emphasis on blues and
yellows. Next time around we have to aim for greens and magentas, right?

For anyone that I've missed in the past several weeks who's new here,
welcome aboard!

Please note that, like many posters, I have more of a life on Usenet
than in the physical world, so taking any of these comments with any
seriousness whatsoever simply means *you* need to get out more, too ;-)

So without further hedging,


Skip Middleton - Starting off with an archive, oh, bad show! ;-) Skip tries
to give additional meaning to the idea of "backlight" with this one, but
it's a good placeholder for the gallery, and undoubtedly drove up the hits
this time ;-). He's got an excellent model for this kind of approach, and a
good pose against the lovely textures of the water - very nicely done. But
there's a few little things that detract, much as I hate to say it. I've
heard time and again about horizon lines and portrait subjects, and I'm not
sure how I feel about this one. It doesn't affect me as much as I'm told it
should, but keeping it from crossing the subject would still be better. I
don't mind the sparkles, and I can understand how Skip felt this one was
perfect for the mandate, but I wouldn't mind comparing against one without
them to see how much it improved it. The foreground stuff at the bottom
doesn't add anything and seems easy to avoid. But what's noticeable to me
(in my many years of studying the female form) is that the lens used and
the height of the camera caused some foreshortening of the model, taking
her legs out of proportion from the rest of her, though it probably helped
with the background effect. Small things: The smudge across her head is
noticeable - processing artifact or lens flare? And am I seeing just enough
light to define her eyes, or is it my imagination?

Tom Hudson - Tom took an approach I've tried a few times myself, but did a
much better job of it. The placement of the subject with the clouds is
exceptionally well done, and the backlight gave a great glow to the lamp
glass and defined the clouds starkly. Very simple and well-balanced. I like
the color register too. High marks for a second entry, you crummy little...
;-)

Guy Scharf - Welcome aboard, Guy! The idea of backlighting is much more
subtle in this one, providing a sharp increase in the color brightness of
the subject without the artifacts that one would normally associate with
backlight. It does a good job of enhancing the tree, but I find no really
strong subject to lock onto, and the complication causes me to search for a
center of attention. The mosses get some emphasis from the light as well,
but don't quite hold the interest. I love the mood and the environment, but
keep looking for the subject.

Martin Djernaes - Archive! Everybody hiss at Martin. But it fits the
mandate well, and even if clichéish, is still a compelling image. Martin
framed it well and found a good exposure level, catching the sunrays at a
nice angle for the framing. Very dramatic color, a good display print.
Another one for high marks.

Rich Pos - Hmmmm. Just a bit too direct and simple for me, though it was
handled well for all that. I like how the image drops into darkness above
the lamp, and even loses detail down under the shade - emphasizes the
decorative and not functional purpose. The background texture helps fill it
in, too. Nice one to show off the handiwork, but doesn't stand alone
strongly enough.

Brian Fane - Abstract, artsy, and mysterious, with some nice gradients in
there. I'm put in mind of a sundial type of thing and started looking for
something that fit this idea, which it doesn't quite have. A shot that is
easy to glance at to get the general idea/mood/whatever, but can draw the
eye looking for more detail too, which is why the recessed lighting unit
detracts a bit - it grounds it in modern times and reveals it as only faux-
ancient, unfortunately. Otherwise a nice accent piece.

Doug Payne - Cropped tighter to remove any evidence of the pedestal, this
shot would be very deceptive, since it's an excellent sculpture of a youth
and in these lighting conditions it becomes impossible to tell that it *is*
a sculpture. The lighting becomes very symbolic in this position, helped by
the upward shooting angle - good approach. I like the blues in the sky but
wish they'd carried higher into the frame, since the washout at the top is
too strong in my book. But balancing this is the detail that creeps in on
the sculpture itself, giving three-dimensionality and something more to
focus on, easy to lose in such conditions. A tad over-sharpened, maybe.

Ken Nadvornick - Ken, I keep wanting to spell your name "Navordnick";
change it for me, will you? ;-) I have to disagree with this one meeting
the mandate, since I get a much more distinct impression of the light being
from all directions, but I'll concede that there's still the idea of the
sun at upper left. I like how the details just barely remain, very
delicate, and imagine how badly "Autolevels" would have screwed up this
image ;-). While it has depth, which is good, it only seems to have two
levels with a distinct separation between them, interesting. The deeper fog
at the upper reaches of the trees gives the impression of the fog lifting
with the sun, nice! Another good accent and mood piece.

Al Denelsbeck - And just what's wrong with bugs?!?! I had several shots in
contention for this mandate, settled on this one for the sunbeams at the
top, and because the depth-of-field worked fairly well. I'm frustrated that
the wires in the background contact the subject, not quite subtle enough. I
was all over the place trying to get the mantis, lighting angle, and
background noise in complementary positions. But okay, I'll try to get out
of my rut... ;-)

Quercus - No questions on how well this one fits the mandate; even has the
distinct rimlighting in several areas. Nice color, and I like the three
different layers of leaves, providing that depth I like to see. The open
space to the right seems a little off-balanced, and I would have liked to
have seen a stronger focal point. The airborne dust attracts too much
attention too (but whatcha gonna do?) and can be mistaken for a bad print,
unfortunately.

Steely Dan - Okay, sometimes the oddest things strike me about an image,
but I'm slightly frustrated that the big splash seems to have no particular
cause (likely because it has passed over and obscured the rock). The
framing and timing is excellent, and while I find the image a tad too dark,
I know that changing the exposure would start reducing detail in the sky -
I'm primarily looking at the water, so I'm not sure how bad this would be.
Seems a tad soft, and I think I would have liked to have seen more sparkle
from the splashes - don't ask me how to accomplish this. But a neat moment,
especially with the curve of the splash, something you might never notice
while it's happening. The print/scan could use a little cleanup.

Alan Browne - Hmmmmm. Not being a beer drinker, I might lose some of the
interest in this image, but it's definitely too direct. Even as
advertising, the loss of detail from the front side works against it - you
can tell it's there, but it's hard to see. The two different colors through
the bottle is also very curious, and the printed code grabs too much
attention. The condensation works great, though, and is exactly how it
should be - trying to get the glass detail out might well have over-
emphasized the dew. Very tricky subject - whoever said commercial work was
easy? (Okay, *I* did for one, a long time ago when I was naïve...)

Vic Mason - Ah, now I know that Vic works for the Witness Protection
Program! ;-) The part of this image that keeps stopping me is the odd angle
of the model's head, which has produced a profile that seems
disproportionate. The stray hairs are accentuated in this kind of lighting
too, providing almost the only detail to lock onto. The interesting part is
that the blouse has some evidence of fill lighting, but the face does not,
giving almost total anonymity. Fits the mandate, but has no real message of
its own.

Steve McCartney - A nice little study in B&W, Steve gives us a peek out the
window on a dreary day, or at least conditions that seem to evoke that
mood. The knicknacks don't quite balance well, but come close, and give
several things to focus on. They also have enough front-lighting to reveal
their textures, nice. I keep catching the pattern of lights in the glass,
which I *think* is reflected but not entirely sure - the different bokeh
seems to indicate it, but in any event, it draws too much attention.
Another thing I find curious - most of the subjects are candleholders of
some sort, sans any of the candles, which are light-sources. Slight irony
there ;-)

Graham Fountain - Like Guy's, Graham's shot uses the backlighting to
enhance the colors of a translucent subject. The problem is, the subject is
very direct and centered, in conditions that seem to beg a more artistic
approach. Additionally, the background effect is harsh, with too much
detail creeping through and not complementary to the subject. I like how
the detail of the tiny flowers came out, but overall, I think it needs a
stronger composition.

Jim Kramer - Hmmmm. Centered subject, but in this case not necessarily bad,
and I'm not sure why. Part of it is the framing with the dark portions of
the background and the anchoring points of the visible web strands. Part of
it is the lighting being off-center too, I think. Excellent detail on the
spider silhouette and web and a pretty good position for the spider - not
sure how I feel about the condition of the web. The mixed bokeh is
interesting, and only mildly distracting given the nature of the photo. But
stay out of my subject territory!

Some of you should take note of the detail and the subsequent file size...

Bob Hickey - Hmmmm, I get the impression Bob was a little stumped for a
submission this time, this isn't his usual level of work. Better contrast
than before, nice mix of tones with only minimal blowout, but the subject
is rocky. I'm trying to determine what he's actually up to, though the
impression I get from the clothes and pose is a pizza delivery, which is
entirely wrong. The setting looks like a Hickey, but the model is awkward
and cut off, hard to determine why he's there. But it's not a bug... ;-)

Bowser - There's a lot of elements I like in this one, but for some unknown
reason I don't feel too strongly about this image either way. I like the
symmetry of the rails, bench, and poles; I like the placement of the
subject and the subtle color contrast; I like the ambiguous pose of the
model - drowsing? Concentrating? Reading? I like the depth from the water;
I even like the very subtle indication of the locale (look at the base of
the bench). But all together, it doesn't grab me. Maybe because it's too
tight for the scene, or because the water seems far too distant to match
the idea of fishing. Can't pin it down, which is frustrating.

Christian Gatien - You can't get too much stronger an idea for the mandate
than this one, but what I really like about it is the way the barn detail
comes up very vividly in a situation that should be difficult as hell to
meter within. The sunrays spread out into the picture perfectly, great
framing, and the foreground detail is balanced but undistracting. The
shadow builds to that prominent silo, a great anchor, but the rest of the
details give an excellent setting and very good depth. Nicely done!

Simon Lee - Everybody hiss for an archive! ;-). Again, a bit direct, and a
little complicated for a simple subject. Works good in the contrast
department. The clouds are well-placed and almost give a good impression of
faux-foliage, which might have been stronger had the tree been completely
missing its own. The uneven coloring and splotches in the sky take away a
little bit too. Needs a little bit more refinement to be strong.

Bruce Murphy - This seems to be the mandate for direct approaches. Bruce's
shot is almost entirely gradients, with a good range among them, and uses
the simple geometry of the glass in a strong way. Might even make me buy
Stolichnaya ;-). I'm bothered by the banding of the background, very
noticeable in this case, but like how the background lighting matches one
side of the subject, a subtle but worthwhile touch. If you have to do a
basic subject, this is a pretty good approach for it.

Joseph Kewfi - Joseph, we really gotta get you out taking new pics ;-).
This picture makes me a bit uncomfortable, largely in that it seems very
cold and forbidding to me, but I'll admit that this might be a personal
bias - too much time in northern climes, and the low sun angle hints at
winter. Not helped by the rocks. What's nice about it is the anchor point
of the separate sailboat on the left, distinct from the others clustered
together at the docks, and the way the lines all lead strongly to the right
- notice the way the masts reduce in height in that direction too. Shot
this way, I got the initial impression that the path to open sea was to the
right, and felt that an angle exploiting that would have been better. But
now I'm pretty sure it's entirely in the opposite direction. Too bad,
because using that method of leading the viewer off to sea should have
worked well.

Bret Douglas - This late and an archive? With the Excrutiatingly
Uncontestable 20D? I am affronted ;-). Fits the mandate very well, but
ultimately hurt a bit by the lack of sharpness, especially with the strange
rendering of the branch. What I like is that the bird is still recognizable
by body and bill shape, is posed well among the other details, and has that
telltale blur indicating a call. It might seem a bit strange that both
bills aren't showing movement, though this is normal of course. I would
have liked to have seen the light extend past the upper bill, framing that
better. Neat overall approach though.

R. Schenck - A curious, almost mystical shot. I like the effect and the
subject, but there's a few too many things hurting it. Most noticeable is
the lens ghost that overlaps the fire image onto the main subject, taking
away a lot of the strength. But additionally, there's the overall softness
of the image, the background clutter, and the distinct treetrunk lined up
perfectly with the fire and the subject. What's interesting is that it's
hard to tell if the subject is facing directly away or directly towards the
viewer, which affects the mood/idea signifcantly. Nice idea, but needs
refinement.

And that concludes our broadcast day. Buy Wonder Bread.


- Al.

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

2Th 2:8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall
consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that
perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved.
2Th 2:11And for this cause

God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2Th 2:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but
had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Repent!

Al Denelsbeck wrote:
Martin Djernaes - Archive! Everybody hiss at Martin. But it fits the
mandate well, and even if clichéish, is still a compelling image. Martin
framed it well and found a good exposure level, catching the sunrays at a
nice angle for the framing. Very dramatic color, a good display print.
Another one for high marks.

Al, thanks for your kind words. Yes it was archived, but I was reviewing
the shots when the mandate came out .. so at the time it was the newest
I had ;-)

Martin

wrote in message
...


2Th 2:8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall
consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that
perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved.
2Th 2:11And for this cause

God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2Th 2:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but
had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Repent!

So, who is being lied to? God acting like Satan? Now I'm really confused;
it's a good thing the Bible is so clear. It has certainly solved much of
the world's problems; or is that caused?

Thanks, Cody, I was feeling far too philosophical this evening and you fixed
that.

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...

snipped whilst chuckling

Steve McCartney - A nice little study in B&W, Steve gives us a peek out the
window on a dreary day, or at least conditions that seem to evoke that
mood. The knicknacks don't quite balance well, but come close, and give
several things to focus on.

Too much, though, IMO. And some elements detract from others. I
should have taken more time and set the shot up a little.

They also have enough front-lighting to reveal
their textures, nice. I keep catching the pattern of lights in the glass,
which I *think* is reflected but not entirely sure - the different bokeh
seems to indicate it, but in any event, it draws too much attention.

It's not reflected lights, but there's a fence in the background
basically made of bamboo - allowing a fair bit of light through and
the different bokeh from the dirt and damp on the glass. I was just
trying to blur the background out - I guess a smaller aperture would
have reduced this effect, though. I should have bracketed via
aperture, not shutter!

Another thing I find curious - most of the subjects are candleholders of
some sort, sans any of the candles, which are light-sources. Slight irony
there ;-)

And totally intended, as anyone who read my description of the shot
will know

Thanks for the comments, Al. You're always very helpful.

Cheers,
Steve

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...

Please note that, like many posters, I have more of a life on Usenet
than in the physical world, so taking any of these comments with any
seriousness whatsoever simply means *you* need to get out more, too ;-)

Says the guy who half a week getting around to commenting!

Cheers,
Steve

In article ,
"jimkramer" writes:

So, who is being lied to? God acting like Satan? Now I'm really confused;

No, Stan, there wasa typo...

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 3.44...

... because Al is back with another dose of ripping images to shreds!


Jim Kramer - Hmmmm. Centered subject, but in this case not necessarily
bad,
and I'm not sure why. Part of it is the framing with the dark portions of
the background and the anchoring points of the visible web strands. Part
of
it is the lighting being off-center too, I think. Excellent detail on the
spider silhouette and web and a pretty good position for the spider - not
sure how I feel about the condition of the web. The mixed bokeh is
interesting, and only mildly distracting given the nature of the photo.
But
stay out of my subject territory!


What no ripping comments on the hideous bokeh. As always, thanks for the
comments, but someone really needs to sit down with you and have a fatherly
chat, you're getting too soft in your old age.

This was a dificult mandate for me, took loads of images and nothing that
really thrilled me, maybe I should have used film?

Jim Kramer

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 3.44...

... because Al is back with another dose of ripping images to shreds!

First off, the images in question can be found at
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/backlit. Anyone reading this may participate,
don't be shy, but please check out the Rulz link therein to help with your
submissions.

This round produced a nice set of good images (credit to Alan for the
inspirational mandate), with some interesting emphasis on blues and
yellows. Next time around we have to aim for greens and magentas, right?

For anyone that I've missed in the past several weeks who's new here,
welcome aboard!

Please note that, like many posters, I have more of a life on Usenet
than in the physical world, so taking any of these comments with any
seriousness whatsoever simply means *you* need to get out more, too ;-)

So without further hedging,


Skip Middleton - Starting off with an archive, oh, bad show! ;-) Skip
tries
to give additional meaning to the idea of "backlight" with this one, but
it's a good placeholder for the gallery, and undoubtedly drove up the hits
this time ;-). He's got an excellent model for this kind of approach, and
a
good pose against the lovely textures of the water - very nicely done. But
there's a few little things that detract, much as I hate to say it. I've
heard time and again about horizon lines and portrait subjects, and I'm
not
sure how I feel about this one. It doesn't affect me as much as I'm told
it
should, but keeping it from crossing the subject would still be better. I
don't mind the sparkles, and I can understand how Skip felt this one was
perfect for the mandate, but I wouldn't mind comparing against one without
them to see how much it improved it. The foreground stuff at the bottom
doesn't add anything and seems easy to avoid. But what's noticeable to me
(in my many years of studying the female form) is that the lens used and
the height of the camera caused some foreshortening of the model, taking
her legs out of proportion from the rest of her, though it probably helped
with the background effect. Small things: The smudge across her head is
noticeable - processing artifact or lens flare? And am I seeing just
enough
light to define her eyes, or is it my imagination?


- Al.

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

Lens flare, and, yes, it is your imagination. And she has rather short legs
for her height... ;-)
I'm less thrilled about the "sparkles" than I was when I put it up, I
subsequently printed one without them for my portfolio...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Martin Djernæs" wrote in message
...

Al Denelsbeck wrote:
Martin Djernaes - Archive! Everybody hiss at Martin. But it fits the
mandate well, and even if clichéish, is still a compelling image. Martin
framed it well and found a good exposure level, catching the sunrays at a
nice angle for the framing. Very dramatic color, a good display print.
Another one for high marks.

Al, thanks for your kind words. Yes it was archived, but I was reviewing
the shots when the mandate came out .. so at the time it was the newest I
had ;-)

Martin

That's kinda where I was, I had just printed those images the night before
the mandate came out.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com