[SI] PC comments

I'm no expert and are purely my own opinion, so these comments are to be
taken accordingly.

Rich, I really like this, I can see it hung on corporate walls, the
photo doesn't say much but it has very pleasing form, all of the
elements are well-positioned.

Mine, hmm, if I could work out what I'd done wrong I probably wouldn't
have submitted it (I'm ignoring the line at the bottom, which I didn't
notice had occurred until after submission...). All I know is that
there's something(s) about it that could do with improvement. Anyone for
constructive criticism? :-) Anything anyone would have done differently?

Vic, I have to admit I'm not generally a fan of flower-photos. It's a
shame the bottom-left rose was in shade, it slightly unbalances the
image I feel, otherwise it seems technically very good to me. I think I
would have gone for a vertical crop around the flowers, though I do like
the dark area to the left and wouldn't want to lose that. Perhaps a
square crop losing everything to the right of the large rose.

Schenk, I like the composition, it really works for me, however the
quality of the image (its small size and a blurriness) obscure most of
the detail that I think would have made it. Also, it appears too dark
for the subject matter. For reference, what I like about the photo is
the way the verticals are positioned, combined with the perspective
given by the mats and even though the object (can't actually work out
what it is) is placed centrally the offset of the verticals,
particularly the doors, seems to shift it from central focus. I also
like the view through the window, it gives a picture in a picture effect.

Christian, I'm not finding anything to focus my attention on, my eye is
drawn to the area to the right of the 3/4 trees on the left, but there's
nothing there, so I'm then looking at the table, which isn't holding my
interest. I've tried several times to get foggy mornings like this but
I've never really got anything worthwhile. It's not that it wasn't
there, I love foggy mornings, I'm just going to blame my camera :-)

Bowser, Nicely colourful, plenty to look at, details, nicely framed part
of house, though appears to be a slight tilt to the entire picture, or
is that just my imagination? Could be something to do with the weight of
the rest of the house on the right. I can see this in a gardening magazine.

Bruce, Nice photo, very sharp, good colours. There's something about the
third flower (the one mostly hidden behind the other) that I find
slightly distracting, not actually sure why. Lovely capture of the bee
though.

Alan, I could see this on a gallery wall, it has an almost painting-like
quality to it. I can't actually work out if I like this or not. I'm
pretty sure I'd put this up on my own wall. Taking into account we only
have 3 pictures on display in the entire house I guess that means I must
like it. I think it's one of those where I like it but I can't put my
finger on why.

Jim, Ah yes, the first of the frogs :-) Technically/compositionally a
good shot but the subject doesn't do anything for me. Can't actually see
anything wrong with it. Cropped slightly at the left and right I could
see it used in a wildlife magazine or book.

Quercus, the fuzziness on the right of the image which appears to reduce
the contrast across the right-hand two-thirds spoils this one for me,
otherwise I like it (can you tell I've been going through the others and
am finding it more difficult to find things to say now? :-)

Al, I much prefer this shot of the frog, there's just much more to it. I
think the composition would (almost) work without the frog, but the frog
really is necessary to make it. What I'm trying to say is that with the
rock out of the way the scenery would probably have made a good photo by
itself, rather than "ditch the frog" :-)
Is it just me or does the frog look more grumpy in this photo?

Bob, I quite like simple shots like this, however I'm really drying up
on the things to say front. Only 2 to go, nearly there. Let's see now...
Vertical lines, very contrasty. Not sure what I can say about it,
constructive or otherwise. Technically/compositionally good but not
doing anything for me I'm afraid.

Bret, I like the colours, at least of the sand and the sea right up to
the horizon. The mountain seems a little _too_ hazy, a shame as it would
have looked really good if it was a little clearer. On the really small
niggles front the towel feels a bit too rucked up and the bag could have
been turned slightly to present a better angle to the camera. Yes I am
discussing 2/3rds or profile shots of bags, I said they were really
small niggles.

Well I made it through in the end, admittedly having too little to say
on some and having no idea what I could say. I hope that these comments
were of some use anyway.

Tom Hudson wrote:

Alan, I could see this on a gallery wall, it has an almost painting-like
quality to it. I can't actually work out if I like this or not. I'm
pretty sure I'd put this up on my own wall. Taking into account we only
have 3 pictures on display in the entire house I guess that means I must
like it. I think it's one of those where I like it but I can't put my
finger on why.

Thanks Tom.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Tom Hudson wrote:


Mine, hmm, if I could work out what I'd done wrong I probably wouldn't
have submitted it (I'm ignoring the line at the bottom, which I didn't
notice had occurred until after submission...). All I know is that
there's something(s) about it that could do with improvement. Anyone for
constructive criticism? :-) Anything anyone would have done differently?

When I first saw that image, the word that came to mind was "striking".

...colors: lady: blue sweater, blue blouse, white camisole / hair: white with
bluish accent; chair: burgandy... lose the throw blanket and it would have been
perfect in that regard. (OTOH, as is, is a more honest portrait).
...light source on right, casts light on left and shaddow in deep right, good
structure there, the lighting is very nice. A white reflector on the left would
have helped lower the contrast a bit without losing the feel of the image...
Would have put a glint into the left (her right) eye.
...the pose is wrong for the gaze, or rather with that pose, the lady should
perhaps have been looking staright into the camera. The lady's arm is resting
in a self assured way; but her gaze is aprehensive.
...the throw over the back of the armchair should have been removed and the
pillow perhaps positioned differently.
...the cropping, as strange as it is, works. (except for the very bottom).

The shot at is is very good and uncontrived which in the end is its strength.
The nibbles above would have made it a better "photograph" but as is is a strong
portrait of the lady in perhaps her favourite chair.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Tom Hudson wrote:


Mine, hmm, if I could work out what I'd done wrong I probably wouldn't
have submitted it (I'm ignoring the line at the bottom, which I didn't
notice had occurred until after submission...). All I know is that
there's something(s) about it that could do with improvement. Anyone for
constructive criticism? :-) Anything anyone would have done differently?

When I first saw that image, the word that came to mind was "striking".

...colors: lady: blue sweater, blue blouse, white camisole / hair: white with
bluish accent; chair: burgandy... lose the throw blanket and it would have been
perfect in that regard. (OTOH, as is, is a more honest portrait).
...light source on right, casts light on left and shaddow in deep right, good
structure there, the lighting is very nice. A white reflector on the left would
have helped lower the contrast a bit without losing the feel of the image...
Would have put a glint into the left (her right) eye.
...the pose is wrong for the gaze, or rather with that pose, the lady should
perhaps have been looking staright into the camera. The lady's arm is resting
in a self assured way; but her gaze is aprehensive.
...the throw over the back of the armchair should have been removed and the
pillow perhaps positioned differently.
...the cropping, as strange as it is, works. (except for the very bottom).

The shot at is is very good and uncontrived which in the end is its strength.
The nibbles above would have made it a better "photograph" but as is is a strong
portrait of the lady in perhaps her favourite chair.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:
Tom Hudson wrote:


Mine, hmm, if I could work out what I'd done wrong I probably wouldn't
have submitted it (I'm ignoring the line at the bottom, which I didn't
notice had occurred until after submission...). All I know is that
there's something(s) about it that could do with improvement. Anyone
for constructive criticism? :-) Anything anyone would have done
differently?


When I first saw that image, the word that came to mind was "striking".

..colors: lady: blue sweater, blue blouse, white camisole / hair:
white with bluish accent; chair: burgandy... lose the throw blanket and
it would have been perfect in that regard. (OTOH, as is, is a more
honest portrait).
..light source on right, casts light on left and shaddow in deep right,
good structure there, the lighting is very nice. A white reflector on
the left would have helped lower the contrast a bit without losing the
feel of the image... Would have put a glint into the left (her right) eye.
..the pose is wrong for the gaze, or rather with that pose, the lady
should perhaps have been looking staright into the camera. The lady's
arm is resting in a self assured way; but her gaze is aprehensive.
..the throw over the back of the armchair should have been removed and
the pillow perhaps positioned differently.
..the cropping, as strange as it is, works. (except for the very bottom).

The shot at is is very good and uncontrived which in the end is its
strength. The nibbles above would have made it a better "photograph" but
as is is a strong portrait of the lady in perhaps her favourite chair.

Cheers,
Alan

Thanks, that's useful to be going on with, I see what you mean about the
highlight (or lack of) in her right eye, makes it look a little flat and
slightly peculiar. I think a crop slightly below her fingers would work
better, looking at it now. I was actually experimenting with a newly
acquired reflector that day, but can't remember how I had it set up for
this particular photo - there may have been insufficient light to make
enough of a difference using it (30 inch circular reflector, indirect
light from single large window).

Tom

Alan Browne wrote:
Tom Hudson wrote:


Mine, hmm, if I could work out what I'd done wrong I probably wouldn't
have submitted it (I'm ignoring the line at the bottom, which I didn't
notice had occurred until after submission...). All I know is that
there's something(s) about it that could do with improvement. Anyone
for constructive criticism? :-) Anything anyone would have done
differently?


When I first saw that image, the word that came to mind was "striking".

..colors: lady: blue sweater, blue blouse, white camisole / hair:
white with bluish accent; chair: burgandy... lose the throw blanket and
it would have been perfect in that regard. (OTOH, as is, is a more
honest portrait).
..light source on right, casts light on left and shaddow in deep right,
good structure there, the lighting is very nice. A white reflector on
the left would have helped lower the contrast a bit without losing the
feel of the image... Would have put a glint into the left (her right) eye.
..the pose is wrong for the gaze, or rather with that pose, the lady
should perhaps have been looking staright into the camera. The lady's
arm is resting in a self assured way; but her gaze is aprehensive.
..the throw over the back of the armchair should have been removed and
the pillow perhaps positioned differently.
..the cropping, as strange as it is, works. (except for the very bottom).

The shot at is is very good and uncontrived which in the end is its
strength. The nibbles above would have made it a better "photograph" but
as is is a strong portrait of the lady in perhaps her favourite chair.

Cheers,
Alan

Thanks, that's useful to be going on with, I see what you mean about the
highlight (or lack of) in her right eye, makes it look a little flat and
slightly peculiar. I think a crop slightly below her fingers would work
better, looking at it now. I was actually experimenting with a newly
acquired reflector that day, but can't remember how I had it set up for
this particular photo - there may have been insufficient light to make
enough of a difference using it (30 inch circular reflector, indirect
light from single large window).

Tom

Tom Hudson writes:

Bruce, Nice photo, very sharp, good colours. There's something about
the third flower (the one mostly hidden behind the other) that I find
slightly distracting, not actually sure why. Lovely capture of the bee
though.

Thanks. I wanted to crop that dark background out, and had the flowers
from a couple of other angles, but the position of the bee and needing
a little space around the flowers restricted my choices to this one!

B

Bruce Murphy wrote:
Tom Hudson writes:


Bruce, Nice photo, very sharp, good colours. There's something about
the third flower (the one mostly hidden behind the other) that I find
slightly distracting, not actually sure why. Lovely capture of the bee
though.


Thanks. I wanted to crop that dark background out, and had the flowers
from a couple of other angles, but the position of the bee and needing
a little space around the flowers restricted my choices to this one!

B

Those darned uncooperative bees :-)

Tom

"Tom Hudson" wrote in message
.. .
I'm no expert and are purely my own opinion, so these comments are to be
taken accordingly.

I beg to differ; I believe that you are indeed an expert on your opinion.
And moreover you are entitled to own that opinion.

Jim, Ah yes, the first of the frogs :-) Technically/compositionally a
good shot but the subject doesn't do anything for me. Can't actually see
anything wrong with it. Cropped slightly at the left and right I could
see it used in a wildlife magazine or book.

I was thinking; stupid poster with an "inspirational saying"

That is until someone said, "his right front leg doesn't look right in that
position" at which point Mr. Froggy took his leap of faith and landed in the
water.

Thanks for commenting.

Jim Kramer

jimkramer wrote:
"Tom Hudson" wrote in message
.. .

I'm no expert and are purely my own opinion, so these comments are to be
taken accordingly.


I beg to differ; I believe that you are indeed an expert on your opinion.
And moreover you are entitled to own that opinion.

I've only just noticed my rather severe grammatical mistake... I have to
say I are not purely my own opinion. I'll leave it as an excercise for
the reader as to what I actually meant to say.

Jim, Ah yes, the first of the frogs :-) Technically/compositionally a
good shot but the subject doesn't do anything for me. Can't actually see
anything wrong with it. Cropped slightly at the left and right I could
see it used in a wildlife magazine or book.

I was thinking; stupid poster with an "inspirational saying"

That is until someone said, "his right front leg doesn't look right in that
position" at which point Mr. Froggy took his leap of faith and landed in the
water.

Maybe that was why it was looking grumpy. Yeah, I can see the poster thing.

Tom