Thanks much for the comment; it's appreciated. And, for what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly. It's nothing spectacular, but I think it's a competent shot, for the most part. I had a hard time, again, choosing a shot. The one I wanted had never been scanned, and had been packed away, so this one was the runner up. The other one may yet show up on a future PUG, so I won't say much more).
I've lately been liking my people shots, too, but I thought I'd mix things up a bit. We'll see about next month. I think maybe a family shot...
Funny you should mention the exposure of some shots, because I've got problems with that, too. To me, my shot looks way overexposed on the monitor. But so do many others on PUG, so I assume it must be my monitor. Makes it hard to manually adjust brightness and contrast of scans, though. I just have to trust the "auto" function, which I don't like doing.
My old monitor (my new residence has a shiny "newer" computer) was almost shot, and everything looked black and yellow (not even black and white! <g>) on it. At least I can see colours now. But, like I said, everything looks blown out on it. Oh well...
thanks again, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Professional Hogs by Frank Theriault
Nice composition of some bikes, nothing wildly exciting subject matter-wise,
but visually pleasing with strong colors and a diagonal leading the eye
upward. Though, naturally, I like frank's people shots better.
Overall reactions:
I, too, felt that many of the photographs were dark. Either when they were
taken originally underexposed or not scanned well or something. There was no
photograph that I couldn't really *see*, but it was just a bit surprising that so
many were dark.
My other reactions were a bit more complex, so I will see if I can put them
into words. Hmmm, in many cases people chose photographs they had sold to fit
the professional theme.
Now, I want to stop here and say some things in defense of my past
photography teacher -- mainly that he WAS QUITE GOOD -- technically and compositionally,
etc. And as for the emphasis on not centering, well, that is something not
done very often in art work (drawing/painting) either. A novice artist is
encouraged out of it. But, yes, I did have trouble with some of his standard, almost
knee-jerk, criticisms, like the centering thing and that an animal must show
one eye, etc. I am trying to deprogram myself somewhat from his standards,
without throwing them out completely. But I do want to emphasize that his
pictures were quite good.
So, why did I bring him up? Because many of his pictures were also, *I felt*,
somewhat static. Immediately identifiable as to subject matter, simple
composition, inoffensive, technically good, but sort of static -- sort of safe. He
was a stock photographer of many years -- about 25, I think.
This is the same reaction I had to many of the SOLD shots in this month's
gallery. That they were often less dynamic -- more safe, more static -- than some
of the other shots I have seen from these very same people (or other people)
in other galleries -- either open or themed.
Food for thought.
Marnie aka Doe ;-)
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
