|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
12/26/2005 7:02:19 PM
Sadly the building is no longer with us. It was the last wall standing of this particular structure so what hit it was a wrecking ball that took out a bit more than initially intended. elsewhere i have images of the other side of this wall.
|
| Photo By: Charles Morris
(K:5969)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
5/18/2004 2:49:30 AM
i like this one, the three amigos. we finally see identifying features of all the participants and it looks like they are all together and engaged with something. a little more depth of field would be welcome here as the guys look a bit unsharp.
2cents@large.
|
| Photo By: Isaac Shaw
(K:2563)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
5/18/2004 2:34:40 AM
This could alomst as easily be called "the third wheel." I like the image, exposure is good and i like the tonal range. the lack of any identifying aspects of the person on the left makes me want to know more, we see parts of the faces of the others, but this poor soul seems to be left out.
2cents@large.
|
| Photo By: Isaac Shaw
(K:2563)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
5/18/2004 2:32:07 AM
wow!, this is an interesting character for sure. the wine country is not generally noted for it's citizens with such splendid plumage.
with any "street" photography you rarely have the option of choosing time of day or how much contrast the image has. the color saturation and contrast are so high in this image i don't know if its a feature or a bug. i use kodak gc400 a lot and rarely get prints like that. it makes me think you should take a look at some of the online monitor calibration tools becaseu if i dial the contrast way down on my display it starts looking pretty good.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Rusty Key
(K:77)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
5/18/2004 2:25:03 AM
Pretty cat, this shot makes me wish for a more open crop to get all of the cat's ears. but it does look like the cat is on someone's lap and the crop is to keep the human element minimized.
|
| Photo By: Hildalyd Rivera
(K:162)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
10/20/2003 11:01:52 PM
I like this picture mostly because i used to fly cessna airplanes. a little more for or aft and i think the picture would have been more dramatic. the shoreline seems like an intrusion here since the image is cropped so tightly. i guess you got the technical data from the camera at the time you downloaded the image, and i don't doubt it, but for propeller driven aircraft, you generally don't want the shutter speed over 1/250th otherwise the props look like they are not spinning and the image looks unnatural.
2cents@large.
|
Photo By: Phillip Cohen
(K:10561)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
7/31/2003 12:31:51 AM
This is a pretty picture. I wonder what the message was though. the crop is pointing me to a waterfall but it is not cropped tight enough to eliminate distracting background elements. the shutter speed is high enough that the motion of the water is frozen, but not high enough to get a really big aperture that would impart shallow depth of field that could actually serve to frame a particular point of interest. Since digital cameras have small image sensors and short focal length lenses, trying to limit depth of filed is often a challenge. given this tendancy it directs your compositonal habits a bit to assure that the framing directs the viewer's attention or their path through the image. since almost all of the image will be sharp anyway, either concentrate on that sharpness and try to get extreme depth of field, or use other visual queues to control the mood. this image would have been very different with a tight aperture, lowered iso sensitivity of the sensor, and a 1/4th second exposure. the water would have blured enough to impart motion and that longer exposure would have depended on a tripod and a very tight aperture, adding to both the DOF and overall sharpness.
2cents@large.
|
| Photo By: Anna Dill
(K:3872)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
7/31/2003 12:15:35 AM
nice portrait. i like the pose and the lines of the subject, but the straight arm looks too rigid. I would have rather seen her leaned back a bit to add some dynamic sweep to the image and get her face away from the absolute center line of the image. maybe a crop could take care of some of that. also there seems to be a soft quality that is a bit overdone. ( hollywood FX filter? )the eyes are not as sharp as other elements of the image. to me, a very traditional portraitist, if anything in the image is sharp it needs to be the eyes. the control of the depth of field is great and the dappled light streaming through the trees adds interest and reinforces the separation from the background. the model's facial expression is friendly and engaging looking directly at the lens. this is a quality that is almost always a good sell.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Bob Stapleton
(K:575)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
7/30/2003 11:58:46 PM
I like this one. the composition is slightly dynamic because the subject is looking across and out of the frame, she has an air of dreaming of going somelace. the off-center subject lso adds interest. the sharpness is a little on the weak side. the shoulder fo the dress and the pattern in the fabric seems to be sharper than the model's eyes. one general practice that has almost universal appeal in people photography is to make sure one or both eyes are the sharpest objects in the image. i would prefer it if the background were either just as sharp as your model, or if the model was cropped a bit tighter and use a large aperture to blur the background more for a stronger separation of the photo elements.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Howard Kennedy
(K:420)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
7/30/2003 11:46:45 PM
I like this image. the only things about it that would add to the appeal is some depth of field, or no depth at all, the fuzzy leaves on the tree either need to be sharper or need to be completely out of focus. the other thing that looks a bit weak here is a true challenge to all wedding photographers, how to get any detail at all in the rest of the image and still get textural details in the white gown. this could easily be a mater of the printing or scanning that got the image on here, because the details in the bodice of the gowns makes me think the exposure is mighty close.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Zoltan Kakuszi
(K:27)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
5/31/2003 10:13:32 PM
This is an interesting image. It looks like something i would expect to see in a human interest story in National Geographic. It is not look as sharp as it would need to be for most publicaitons but from a journalistic or cultural anthropology point of view, it's a good shot of the subject.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: kevin roberson
(K:104)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
5/31/2003 10:02:52 PM
It's a good image, the pose looks a bit uncomfortable and almost forced. I don't know if it is the lighting or if a white balance setting was off just a bit but the image has an overall bluish cast that brings out the ruddy skin tones in an unflattering way. A different white balance setting may have solved this or maybe a warming filter since it was apparently shot in open shade.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Andy Simmons
(K:7704)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/14/2003 9:59:35 PM
as silly as it sounds many of the higer end gaming cards tend to have the most flexible controls over the output. thye are very expensive but we have been using cards based on the Nvidia quadro 900xgl design lately. another card that has proven to be a good value for graphics and presentations if you dontl have much motion involved are the matrox G450 series. those can be had very inexpensively now.
before i change out a video card that was working well for you, i would take a look at the monitor. CRT displays have phosphors that can decay over time and use, and the power supplies and some of the regulatory circuitry can "drift" over time. sometimes its a simple matter of adjustment, sometimes the changes can effect the display's ability to eve be returned back to a consistent standard. when this happens, it gets donated ot someoen that just does net surfing, or give it to the kids to play games on and invest in another monitor.
LCD displays sound good on the surface but the nature of their subtractive filtration makes calibration somewhat difficult. since they are not strong light emitters in the first place, the ambient room light has a significant effecnt on the colors you percieve as well. the upside is that they stay adjusted fairly well if you have one that uses a dvi interface rather than a VGA interface. there are not as many video cards with dvi output plugs though.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Wallace Rollins
(K:149)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/10/2003 11:40:47 PM
hand held... he means did you hold the camera or was it on a tripod.
|
| Photo By: Sophie Cheng
(K:188)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/8/2003 9:20:16 PM
daylight film with incandescent lighting? i am guessing this was a pretty long exposure because it looks like the sharpness is because she was talking or moving her head when you took the picture since much of the rest is sharper. keep trying new things. take notes and learn from the things that work, and from the things that don't work as well.
if this was a film camera i would have selected second curtain sync, pointed a flash at the ceiling and dialed the power way down. this would have gotten the blur and color of the existing light, plus harder edges from the little bit of flash at the end of the exposure.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Emily Enderes
(K:192)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/8/2003 9:13:32 PM
nice legs indeed. the stockings have a seam or are bunched up over the toes which makes the texture and color uneven. i am guessing this was one of many images taken at the same time, but if this was the one specific goal of this shoot, "evening sheer sandalfoot" stockings would have reduced this a bit. her pose and the way she is contorted to look back at the camera looks very uncomfortable, this view also gives a compressed perspective of her body. this could have been reduced by moving the camera bit to the left of its current viewpoint and lowered. at the same time enhancing her profile and elongating the view of her body.
|
| Photo By: Allan Gordon
(K:4)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/8/2003 9:02:55 PM
great shot as usual. sometimes it is nice to use harder light if have a subject that can take it. perfect skin is a must for that.
as a portrait photographer it's just too easy to get in a rut with big softboxes to smooth the textures and shine, and low contrast filmstock to de-emphasize skin variations.
|
| Photo By: Phillip Filtz
(K:1792)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/8/2003 8:57:33 PM
ok, i ragged on the image you posted after this because it was somewhat unoriginal and had flat light. this image i really like for the following reasons:
the subject is clearly defined and no distractions.
the subject's pose is dynamic and gives this 2 dimensional image a sense of life that the other lacked. pases should be natural, but any easy thing to remeber, if there is a joint, bent it. elsbows, knees, wrist even the neck and torso are flexible. stiff poses look stiff. this does not look stiff.
the background seems sharper than in the other shot. this was taken a few minutes earlier i suppose and near dusk or near dawn light changes fast. so i am guessing you had a change to use a small enough aperture to get some depth of field. this is a place where a reflector in front of her could have bounced some of that wonderful warm light back onto her face. barring that, an off-camera flash with a diffuser would have done nicely. i might have added an amber gel to the flash to warm it up a bit.
keep up the good work.
|
| Photo By: David Lake
(K:3310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/8/2003 8:47:07 PM
Well Harvey, often people rate based on how they like it rather than just the technical merits. originality is also part of it. think how many pictures of a pretty girl in front of a setting sun over water you have seen.
in this particular case i agree it is well executed for the given conditions. one of those conditions is on-camera flash. it provides flat unineresting light that clashed with the sunset. just a little offset on PC cord would have made a lot of difference in the textural quality of the model and the nearby objects. put the camera on a tripod and use slow sync with the flash about 45 degrees to camera left and a small diffuser on the flash and you would have a portrait monte zucker would be proud of.
|
| Photo By: David Lake
(K:3310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:54:12 PM
i am not a big fan of photjournalistic wedding shoots, but this is a pretty good shot. it's one the couple will enjoy for a long time. i am impressed with this image because its diffcult enough to keep tabs on the contrast with the black tux, the white dress and caucasian skintones, darker-skinned people make this an even bigger challenge. taking a shot from color negative films and desaturating it often leads to los of details, but you did a good job of taming the contrast and gamma on this one.
|
| Photo By: Suzanne Strenk
(K:98)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:49:17 PM
this is a great character portrait. i am still wondering why every other shot this week has the top of the subject's head cut off.
|
| Photo By: Jay Dixon
(K:563)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:45:01 PM
A tighter crop might be good. i can't help but think "heat 'em up, move 'em out" this is also pretty high contrast. i am guessing this was processed at a one-hour lab. most faster films offer higher contrast naturally, and some shots beg to be re-printed and flattened out a bit so more details can be revealed in the shadows.
further proof kids will find a way to amuse themselves. nice shot, if you had lingered a bit longer i bet he would have started clowning for the camera or act like you interrupted something terribly private and important.
|
| Photo By: Rusty Key
(K:77)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:39:41 PM
|
| Photo By: Rusty Key
(K:77)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:31:52 PM
shiny objects always present a challenge. it seems like this was a soft scan or maybe it was intentional. sharper is better for technical details of course. if you are having difficulties with the hot spots from shiny objects, they a spray powder ant-perspirant like right guard and dust the surface of the item then polish off parts you want selectively more shiny. for a less pronounced effect along the same lines, a can of hair spray works too. both of these clean up easily with a little alcohol on a cloth. for a more dynamic image try laying the instrument down and get close so your depth of field starts to soften the details as you get further from the focal point. or just have a prop that allows you to angle the instrument in the image like it is reclining and trying to relax. 8o)
|
| Photo By: Scott Sarver
(K:178)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:26:14 PM
nice image. the subject is very interesting too, some decorative wall hanging i guess?
I have tried light painting on very large objects (a shopping mall after hours) and had marginal success with it. even with top of the line equipment like a "hosemaster" it is a lot of trial and error. if you are just using a flashlight you might try making a colimator or a snoot for your light source with some stiff paper like a file folder and roll it around the head of the flashlight. how long this tude extends in front of the flashlight will determine how narrow or wide your beam will be.
keep trying.
|
| Photo By: Nate Barnes
(K:216)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:18:13 PM
on my system it looks like color depth has been flattened to the point that tones have gone to color bands. it gives it almost a paint by numbers look. in editorial or graphic arts circles this could be desirable though. cute model, i like the pose, but i have to agree with Marty on the crop, either get all of her in the image or zero in on a specific section. in full length portraits a lot of people make a similar call: the dreaded "ankle chop"
keep up the good work. focus on the eyes and watch the framing.
|
| Photo By: Richie Scott
(K:35)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
1/7/2003 9:10:17 PM
Pretty lady and the outdoor shot seems to go with the attitude she is projecting. Things i see that are out of place is the hair in her eyes. this image is either a bad scan, or was out of focus. the eyes are not sharp and having her hair catching light right in front of her left eye adds to the distraction. The tight crop is also a little discomforting. since her hair is so much brighter than the rest of the image, it seems ot make the image sort of top-heavy. it would have been nice to see that offset by just a little more of the background at the top.
|
| Photo By: Richie Scott
(K:35)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
12/18/2002 7:41:28 PM
Thanks for your comments. I work within a block of the memorial and I have to see it every day. It's difficult to not watch the moods of the place change especially since I was pretty familiar with the place before the bombing.
It may be tilted a bit. it was a handheld shot late in the day from the roof of this parking structure. I think more likely it is a bit of perspective distortion since this is shot downward with a wide angle lens, i think the zoom was dialed down to about 21mm at this point. I was trying to line up the edge of the viewfinder with the western face of the Journal Record building. the print shows this line to be almost perfect, but getting one straight line to line up with the edge of a frame usually means it won't line up on the other side because there is not a good way to assure parallelism without perspective controls or swings on the lens. it does look a little soft because of the low res scan. if i add sharpening it seems to pixelate rather badly at the resolution we can post here.
|
| Photo By: Charles Morris
(K:5969)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
7/24/2002 3:35:31 PM
Yes it would be better. I don't own photoshop and i don't own a PC lens.
Thanks.
|
| Photo By: Charles Morris
(K:5969)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Charles Morris (K:5969)
7/22/2002 9:12:36 PM
Something seems a bit odd here. it looks to me like the light is imparting an unnatural color cast. It also looks like the image is speckled a bit like it was underexposed then lightened and sharpened after scanning. sometimes scanned images of textured prints can do this as well. one solid vote for glossy prints, they scan with fewer surprises. I like the composition, but it looks like the transition from film to print to display added some artifacts that detract from a pleasing image.
The notes indicate you were using auto exposure. The FE has a meter with a serious center weighting to it. Manual exposure would have allowed you to consider the ambient light and then you could have opened up a bit to brighten the darker accessories around the edges of your composition.
2cents@large
|
| Photo By: Jason Williams
(K:5)
|
|
