[SI] Last 90 is posted and ready for viewing!

Sorry for my late reply. I had to delete each of my last three attempts
due to my usual failure with diction, so I hope you will forgive this
terse response.

Tony Cooper:
All three are very amusing. Rustoleum is superb, the artistic effect
you added emphasizes the irony (appropriate word) of the product. Guy
with cigar is better than any Hamlet advert I've seen (and they were
good). The security protected watermelons makes me laugh every time I
think of it, which is often.

Alan Brown:
Great stuff. The lighting and colour rendition in 0029 are exemplary.
0079 and 0062 demonstrate, to me, that the "norm" of using all of the
256 levels available is not always appropriate. Initially, 0062 looked
underexposed (I measured -0.4 EV below clipping), but it is your
rendition of this scene that gives it much better mood than the "norm".

Bob Coe:
Perfect timing.

Martha Coe:
I like them, but I gave you all the praise last time so it's Bob's turn ;-)

Paul Furman:
Most enjoyable with bags of atmosphere!

Troy Piggins:
Obviously, I've never seen the baby so I can't tell if the skin tone is
correct, it looks wrong to me. Highlights and strong colours are
rendered exceptionally well, which is not easy to get right, and
suggest that the skin tone is possibly correct.

Bowser:
Loved them. "Cars Only" is a hoot. Your rendition of whites and colours
in 02 make a refreshing change. You've captured the car extraordinarily
well.

Bob Flint:
Many may say the main subject should be "sharp", whatever that really
means. Tell that to oil painter and come away without needing white
spirit as a face wash! Thanks for submitting them.

Tim Conway:
Great eye for composition and the exposure of the house is superb.

Savageduck:
Capturing shiny paint and metal is notoriously difficult: excellent.
The hammer marks on the locomotive drive arm tell something of it's
difficulty to fit: if all else fails, use a larger hammer.

Otter:
Three completely different subjects that each tell a storey. Inspiring.

Peter Newman:
The slow shutter worked very well. Although the dogfight is "not my
thing" I feel that this image shows your mastery of many aspects of
photography. I loved "Infra red pond" and would like to see more of
your IR work.

Walter Banks:
The first two are most interesting because I would not have a chance to
see them myself. Your sunrise has very similar exposure and colours to
one I took last year: I don't know why I didn't like my shot so it
would be unfair to comment on yours.



To those I have not mentioned:
Thank you very much indeed for posting your images. I have not only
enjoyed them, they have helped me along my pathway through life.

--
Pete

On 10-10-29 11:35 , Pete wrote:
Sorry for my late reply. I had to delete each of my last three attempts
due to my usual failure with diction, so I hope you will forgive this
terse response.

Tony Cooper:
All three are very amusing. Rustoleum is superb, the artistic effect you
added emphasizes the irony (appropriate word) of the product. Guy with
cigar is better than any Hamlet advert I've seen (and they were good).
The security protected watermelons makes me laugh every time I think of
it, which is often.

Alan Brown:
Great stuff. The lighting and colour rendition in 0029 are exemplary.
0079 and 0062 demonstrate, to me, that the "norm" of using all of the
256 levels available is not always appropriate. Initially, 0062 looked
underexposed (I measured -0.4 EV below clipping), but it is your
rendition of this scene that gives it much better mood than the "norm".

Thanks. However I don't think you should be measuring exposure as a
tool to evaluating an image. There is no rule that says an image has to
be printed (or displayed) to use the entire dynamic range technically
available (though recording close to peak is often desirable to allow
for more editing range after the fact).

The day was dull, as presented. Perhaps a polarizer could have been
used to enhance the green grass...

If you look at the histo for 29, it is clear there was some clipping at
recording time (right edge of each RBG channel falls abruptly) and that
there was little information at the low end of the dynamic range. This
is common in high key shots or shots like I took of a very pale scene -
you can't record what is not there. I really wanted to catch the pale
soft shadow of the sculpture - most critiques of this photo are negative
(here and elsewhere) as the shadow is so soft that many people don't
"get it".

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:44:31 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


If you look at the histo for 29, it is clear there was some clipping at
recording time (right edge of each RBG channel falls abruptly) and that
there was little information at the low end of the dynamic range. This
is common in high key shots or shots like I took of a very pale scene -
you can't record what is not there. I really wanted to catch the pale
soft shadow of the sculpture - most critiques of this photo are negative
(here and elsewhere) as the shadow is so soft that many people don't
"get it".

I forget what my exact comments about 29 were, but I thought it was
one of the more interesting shots of the whole group. I didn't come
away with the impression that the shadow was too faint or just right
or anything else. I just took in the whole image and how the main
subject seemed to float in a supporting field.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10-10-29 16:14 , tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:44:31 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


If you look at the histo for 29, it is clear there was some clipping at
recording time (right edge of each RBG channel falls abruptly) and that
there was little information at the low end of the dynamic range. This
is common in high key shots or shots like I took of a very pale scene -
you can't record what is not there. I really wanted to catch the pale
soft shadow of the sculpture - most critiques of this photo are negative
(here and elsewhere) as the shadow is so soft that many people don't
"get it".

I forget what my exact comments about 29 were, but I thought it was
one of the more interesting shots of the whole group. I didn't come
away with the impression that the shadow was too faint or just right
or anything else. I just took in the whole image and how the main
subject seemed to float in a supporting field.

Thanks.

On another forum it got disparaging remarks, and here I think Paul was
mildly enthused but didn't like the abundant white space.

The shot needs some editing in any case (remove the labels on the
pedestal and other 'noise'. I'm just too lazy.)

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10/29/2010 02:35 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-29 16:14 , tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:44:31 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


If you look at the histo for 29, it is clear there was some clipping at
recording time (right edge of each RBG channel falls abruptly) and that
there was little information at the low end of the dynamic range. This
is common in high key shots or shots like I took of a very pale scene -
you can't record what is not there. I really wanted to catch the pale
soft shadow of the sculpture - most critiques of this photo are negative
(here and elsewhere) as the shadow is so soft that many people don't
"get it".

I forget what my exact comments about 29 were, but I thought it was
one of the more interesting shots of the whole group. I didn't come
away with the impression that the shadow was too faint or just right
or anything else. I just took in the whole image and how the main
subject seemed to float in a supporting field.

Thanks.

On another forum it got disparaging remarks, and here I think Paul was
mildly enthused but didn't like the abundant white space.

The shot needs some editing in any case (remove the labels on the
pedestal and other 'noise'. I'm just too lazy.)


I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Russell

On 10/29/2010 11:35 AM, Pete wrote:
Sorry for my late reply. I had to delete each of my last three attempts
due to my usual failure with diction, so I hope you will forgive this
terse response.



Peter Newman:
The slow shutter worked very well. Although the dogfight is "not my
thing" I feel that this image shows your mastery of many aspects of
photography. I loved "Infra red pond" and would like to see more of your
IR work.

thank you.
Dogfight. I discarded about 20 images. I saved about 15 that have no use
except for possible future montaging. The only post processing on the
posted image was some levels adjustment and a bit of sharpening, using USM.

What you saw was the only shot that worked, out of about 60. NO, they
were of different subjects.

--
Peter

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10/29/2010 03:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg


Thanks. I like it. I like that kind of art.

On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:06:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."

There's nothing sadder than someone wanting to be a photographer so they
take photos of others' artistic works that have already been properly lit
and displayed to show its best merits. Every passer-by is already getting
the exact same visual as gets recorded in every photograph of it no matter
who might be holding a camera nearby. Then they sit around convincing
themselves and being convinced by others, that they are now great artistic
photographers. When in reality they've still not moved one bit past their
perpetual beginner crapshooter phase. I'm not sure who is the bigger fool
in this scenario. The crapshooter trying to feel successful by
photographing the artistic successes of others? Or the ones that falsely
praise the crapshooter because they themselves are just that ****ingly
stupid and ignorant too.


Perhaps you should all take your cameras into all the museums of the world
and photograph all the great works hanging on the walls and in display
cases. Then you too can believe you now have all the skill and artistic
ability of the great masters throughout history.

Complete fools and idiots, one and all.