|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/20/2007 7:37:59 AM
Very well done. Great morning mist!
|
| Photo By: Don Martel
(K:551)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/19/2007 4:22:31 PM
As CC, I like the silhouette idea. I'm not sure it needed a wider shutter or not. One could always just keep the camera going with continuous shooting, and see what you get. You can't plan action shots. A strobe or parabolic flash might help too, if you are close enough, to fill in. Trying to shoot action makes it difficult to watch the horizon. You hold with the left which sometimes becomes too dominant, and press down right and sometimes cause a tilt. I've done it a lot, myself. Interesting photo.
|
| Photo By: Dan TDFoto
(K:8618)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/19/2007 4:07:14 PM
As CC, if you wanted the whole thing sharp, a) one could use a curtain or board or something as a windbreak. Might be bulky to carry. If one could stablize the branch, b) one might try double exposure, focus near, then far, and blend in software. As is, it's very well done, as everyone has said.
|
| Photo By: Ann Van Breemen
(K:13399)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/19/2007 3:45:15 AM
It's brilliant work, all of it. I didn't see if you took paypal at your site, or if photos like this were in a book, a calendar, framed, etc?
|
| Photo By: Wojtek Kwiatkowski
(K:-27)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/19/2007 3:37:28 AM
Isolating from the background was a good thing. And the 'pose' is also interesting, almost like two 'arms' reaching out. The left 'arm' is a bit soft, but could be sharpened with software.
|
| Photo By: Greg Sava
(K:11999)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/17/2007 7:52:52 PM
I love tulips. And this is well shot, and well framed. Very good.
|
| Photo By: sascha jonack
(K:19715)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/17/2007 4:19:03 AM
As CC, it's an interesting abstract of the corner of a roof, putting one in mind of 'modern art' from the 1960s. I suggested a frame and crop, as below. But as you have it here is just fine, as well. As an abstract, it suggests the method or process, what 'fools the eyes', etc, that has been a major component of such modern art.
|
| Photo By: Alejandro Gómez
(K:4270)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/17/2007 2:55:44 AM
As CC, it's not really a macro. It's a closeup. But it's a good closeup. Natural colors can't be beat. Good low angle. It's a good job. Frame even helps with it, too.
|
| Photo By: Sheryl Phillips
(K:2728)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/17/2007 2:23:25 AM
"everybody have rights to have an opinion"
I think if you want to shoot 'naughty photos', then there is a simple way to do so. Hire a model, get her signed release, and snap away. You see many photos of beautiful women from photographers who have contracted with a model for that purpose - posted to this very site.
For example, it isn't clear in what you've said in various of these that you've ever had their written permission to shoot 'peeping tom' photos of these women and girls. And if the girl is underage, then it requires her parent's signature. On the other hand, it does put what you've done in a somewhat different light if it is clear that they were all aware, and posing, should you be able to present such model releases. I think people naturally assumes you simply don't have these, and so could not produce them.
|
| Photo By: Lucas L
(K:12145)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/14/2007 3:37:53 AM
As CC, it's difficult to photograph something that everyone else does. I don't know what these are, really. Are these fins, rotary blades, scales, sails? Are they the 'teeth' of a giant breaking wave? Whatever, it's a good angle on it. Your photo also suggests that another photo might pull back out slightly if there were more of these - whatever - structures to be seen.
|
| Photo By: Peter Carucci
(K:1672)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/14/2007 3:24:46 AM
Whether photography or not, I still like it. The effect first tends to play with ones sense of depth and perspective, for the distortion. And I think that appeals to many. It suggests an illusion, or a flat tapestry painting, etc. And it's a simple pastel effect that does seem to me to emphasize the light, the dusk in this case, where a photo might have only seemed muddy. If it were my graphic treatment of a photo, I'd be proud to show it myself. Good job.
|
| Photo By: Drago Iljkic
(K:255)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/10/2007 7:34:22 AM
Thank you, JJ.
|
| Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/10/2007 7:33:54 AM
Thanks, Joe.
|
| Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/9/2007 6:13:53 AM
Nice soft lighting. This didn't get but one comment back when. But this is a very nice stock shot, great for backgrounds and whatever else. This is good photo.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/8/2007 3:57:39 PM
Michele (one L?), it could probably be anywhere along the CA/OR coast. But this is south of Half Moon Bay. It's all very similar. But this is actually a small cove usually covered by some treacherous surf and riptides at least 10 feet deep. But on low tide mid-days, it opens up and you can walk in there.
|
| Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/4/2007 2:46:48 AM
That's very well done. You establish the track at the bottom, and then dispense with it. You capture the reflection, and what almost appears to be a pose. That is, the bird almost seems to be communicating. And the track then vaguely suggests a tail and exits right at the frame corner. It's a perfect construction. All that's in focus in the shot, should be. Everything that should not be there has been removed, as it were.
|
| Photo By: Marcus Armani
(K:36599)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/4/2007 2:40:02 AM
As CC, I agree with Eterno that maybe pulling back would have allowed more of the path in a vertical crop, which is really what the photo is. 'Magic hour', sunset, is when nature hits the leaves and branches with what look like colored spots. And there's no morning condensation to stop it.
|
| Photo By: Wouter van Noort
(K:4369)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/2/2007 1:03:37 PM
Interesting crop and angle. As CC photo, I thought say that it was possible to get some detail on the beak, as shown.
|
| Photo By: Di Ciuccio Maurizio
(K:57398)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/2/2007 12:40:24 PM
As CC, I'd only brighten a bit, and crop some from the sides to balance it out more:
|
| Photo By: Latif alobaida
(K:5005)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/2/2007 12:25:27 PM
Nick, I had suggested my own site, not this - scenic-route.com, under Photos, Reflections.
|
| Photo By: Nick Karagiaouroglou
(K:127263)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
5/2/2007 12:21:25 PM
1.5MP is still pretty good, if you go full frame, particularly when it's only an 800 pixels web photo. You can actually get detail from a cell phone, as well. And because it's blurred, like this, there's not much chance for stair-step alias effects.
|
| Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/30/2007 1:26:56 PM
"I try to get into your portfolios but I only get a message that there are no photos available. Any idea what that might mean?"
-----
Strange. I don't know. I just looked and the thumbnails are displayed.
Maybe there's some system problem and the joke is on me - maybe I'm the only one with access to my photos?
|
| Photo By: Nick Karagiaouroglou
(K:127263)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/30/2007 1:14:59 AM
As CC, I thought even on a bright low gamma monitor, the center might still be too dark. So I boosted that and removed a little of the blue cast, above. Interesting in that this came from a cell phone. It's not a bad photo, at all.
|
| Photo By: Quix Photography
(K:20204)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/30/2007 12:48:49 AM
As CC, I'd say it does suggest clip-art, just for being that sharp. And the Kodak Pro seemed to struggle a bit, however, with the rider's face. I would think that it's not necessary to show so much blurred background, and I might crop, instead:
|
| Photo By: Roger Skinner
(K:81846)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/30/2007 12:38:28 AM
As CC, I'd say you're getting some tinging in the branches would could be corrected in software. And the light seems to have been on the falls/rapids, and the rest to photo left more in shadow. Perhaps pulling back more might have added more light on the right (though you might have been trying to avoid what look like structures on the far right).
|
| Photo By: Angela DeLong
(K:3050)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/30/2007 12:33:19 AM
As CC, I think it looks fine. The kids were right. I think what it suggests at 500 is a dolphin fountain, even more than three airborne dolphins. Since you have film, and it's a sharp exposure, you should be able to crop in a bit, as well.
|
| Photo By: Campbell Cameron
(K:1682)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/26/2007 9:29:14 PM
I have examples of the stopped down fill flash isolation effect myself. I like the effect. Perfection is when you get to the point that nothing else can fairly be removed. As CC, I'd just say that the dragonfly is out of focus. And the incredible design of the closed flower, at this angle, would make for a great stock photo without the dragonfly. That flower looks like a wood sculpture.
|
| Photo By: Sheryl Phillips
(K:2728)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/26/2007 9:23:24 PM
Reflections can be interesting. As CC, I think this does have the look of a multiple-exposure though. If you wanted a simple reflected line, you might notice contrails if you're near an airport and also lake or beach. If you catch the tide out, the contrail alone might reflect in the runoff for a simple 'squiggly' line reflection. Other places are docks and marinas on a sunny day. The reflections look like paint on the water. (See my scenic-route.com Photos, Reflections for examples.)
|
| Photo By: Nick Karagiaouroglou
(K:127263)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/20/2007 7:44:59 PM
"bike on its stand"
Never even occured to me, Meg. Apparently the 1520 was a mainstay of the Honda line since the late 1990s, for 'touring' bikes. As you said, "horizonally opposed", flat 6. And those three bowls up top are carb covers; #3 carb as reference, and 5 other adjustable, one for each cylinder. One intake pipe for each cylinder. One exhaust pipe for each cylinder and a single cam. Water cooled like a car. And with a reverse gear, like a car. No, it never occured to me it was a bike's engine. Although to me the photo suggested it could fill a small car's engine compartment, it's really much more scaled down than that. It's small than it looks in the photo, that is.
|
| Photo By: Meg Metcalfe
(K:6114)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Joe Johnson (K:8529)
4/20/2007 7:17:29 PM
James, no I didn't. I was on my way elsewhere. It was around sunset. And you know that 'magic hour' is as if nature turned on a bunch of colored spotlights. I saw this on the ground, and thought it was interesting. Plus, back then I didn't have a macro setup as I put together with later cameras. But it didn't occur to me to get closeups, which is what I think you meant.
|
| Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
