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

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:

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.

Heh, heh. So does everyone else. It's what I call an "Ellis Island" name.
You know. New immigrant approaches clerk. Clerk says, "Name?" Immigrant
responds with native language pronunciation. Clerk listens carefully and
then writes the English version of what he thought he heard, but didn't
really. Voila! A new family is born...

Regarding the observation of maybe missing the mandate, I must publicly
confess. I don't really read the mandates as if they were engineering
specs. I realize some do, but I don't. (For the record, I don't see you as
being in that 'engineering' group either, Al.) I look at them as sort of
gentle suggestions on direction. Something to get me over the starting
threshold and picking up the camera and actually moving.

As I described briefly elsewhere, in this photo the sense as I stood out in
that field of shallow morning fog was one of enveloping light. Like being
inside a soft box, I would imagine. I chose this particular negative trying
to preserve that sense. So I think you are correct in observing the lack of
a strong backlight element. But I liked the effect at the time. And the
trees *did* seem to be visible somewhat in silhouette. So I went with it.

And as far as "Autolevels" are concerned, thank gawd I've never had to deal
with any of *that* sort of stuff! grin All I really need and want are a
few simple manual shutter speeds, a collection of manual apertures and a
manual-focusing mechanism. I can take it from there. Everything else is
just unnecessary decoration...

Thanks for your insights, Al.

Ken

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...
;-)

Thanks, as with so many photos it was largely luck, a windy day so the
clouds changed every few seconds, and noone had apparently _ever_
cleaned the lamp, which really helps with the glow :-)
Color-register's not a phrase I'm familiar with (I can make some
guesses, but can't find a good definition, is it the limited palette?).

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm finding this fortnight's mandate hard,
in the end I've decided to just take the photos I normally would for 2
weeks and pick the best one - I just hope it's a good policy :-)

Tom

Tom

Al Denelsbeck wrote:

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.

Thanks for the comments, Al. If I could control the sky, I'd be a
wealthy man :-)

Al Denelsbeck on 05 Oct 2004 posted


... 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,

I had for some reason thought that he was smoking when I looked this, and
didn't think anything of it. THen I realized that it must've been
condensation on the lens or something like that. It had dropped in temp
that night, so I'll have to watch out for that sort of thing later. Once
I realized what it was, it really did stand out. Too bad too. Guess
we'll have to get more lighter fluid for another try!

taking away a lot of the strength. But additionally,
there's the overall softness of the image,

What can some of y'all suggest I do to correct this? Would I focus more
on the background, leaving the foreground to be fuzzier, which wouldn't
make as much of a difference because its silhouetted?

the background clutter,

I told them to clean up, those *******s. What do they expect, me to do
it?!

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.

He's facing the fire, steadily spraying lighter fluid into it. Shoot-Inz
can be dangerous!

Al Denelsbeck on 05 Oct 2004 posted


... 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,

I had for some reason thought that he was smoking when I looked this, and
didn't think anything of it. THen I realized that it must've been
condensation on the lens or something like that. It had dropped in temp
that night, so I'll have to watch out for that sort of thing later. Once
I realized what it was, it really did stand out. Too bad too. Guess
we'll have to get more lighter fluid for another try!

taking away a lot of the strength. But additionally,
there's the overall softness of the image,

What can some of y'all suggest I do to correct this? Would I focus more
on the background, leaving the foreground to be fuzzier, which wouldn't
make as much of a difference because its silhouetted?

the background clutter,

I told them to clean up, those *******s. What do they expect, me to do
it?!

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.

He's facing the fire, steadily spraying lighter fluid into it. Shoot-Inz
can be dangerous!