Hi all,
these are my comments on the pictures that were assigned to me of the September
gallery.
Again, I want you to bear in mind that English is not my language.
I also want to point out that the purpose of my comments is not to pass a judgement on
whether you've been a good or a bad photographer, but rather to simply report on
whatever I notice or comes to mind watching your picture. It is up to you do decide on
what, if any, value you want to attach to my comments, I do not pretend to present any
aesthetical "truths" at all. If I seem excessively critical in details, it is not
because of any personal interest of mine to look for flaws. I simply assume that those
who ask for comments appreciate comments both in details and from an overall
perspective.
"No title" by Bill D. Casselberry
>From many previous submissions I have come to recognize and appreciate your approach
>and style, often making good use of wide angle lenses.
These are two IR photos combined in a poster for a festival. The photos are nice, but
there are some points which can be discussed.
First there is, in this context (on my 800x600 screen), the obvious problem of size. I
am sure that the impact of the pictures are much greater in their original size.
The left picture of the bridge looks great, but I feel handicapped in commenting by
it's small size. However, the angle (shooting position) and framing is selected by an
experienced eye. There is some drama and depth to it, emphasized by the shadows on the
bridge and the dark clouds.
What I said about shooting position and drama above applies to the right picture of
the lighthouse too. However this picture seems too bright to me. Since it is a very
low contrast picture it could have been made quite a bit darker in order to bring out
the blacks, without loosing any of the highs. When I turned my monitor much darker I
liked it more. However, if you carefully have selected this level according to your
own taste, never mind my objection.
Now, looking at the poster on the whole as one picture, there are a couple of other
things too.
It happens that both pictures within themselves contains a diagonal (?) "motion" of a
similar angle. (Directed from the lower right to the upper left.) This is of course a
matter of taste, but I would personally been happier with a different geometry to it.
(I realize this is maybe impossible, if you want both of these two subjects included
and this is what you have to use. I guess you can't just (mirror) flip any of
them...:) )
I think I also would have pushed the whole line "Sea...Festival" slightly to the
right. Or maybe even tried placing some of the words differently altogether.
Anyway, the poster is quite nice as is.
"Train Station, Hammon, LA" by Kevin Thornsberry
I like the overall look of this picture. What I said about Bill's experienced choice
of angle and shooting position applies here too. (Funny enough though, I find myself
leaning my head to the right, as if it were a 3D representation, in order to get a
look at the building from a more straight on view of it...)
But I'd be a poor commentator if I didn't find anything to critisize, right?
Well, there are a couple of things (which may be regarded as unnecessarily critical,
if you feel that way):
1) there is this certain "digital" look to it. I am not sure if I can pin-point it
exactly. I think it's a question of resolution and how som diagonal lines get
(mis)represented. For instance the roof tiles(?), the horisontal metal bars in front
of the house etc. (This might not be a shooting problem but maybe a scanning/software
one.)
2) there is this slightly greenish tint to it. Not much, but a slight one.
3) there seems to be a general problem re resolution or sharpness. (This technical
comment doesn't necessarily have much bearing on the overall quality of the picture,
but if you indeed are going for the best technical quality it can be pointed out. I
also might mention that I have a tendency towards wanting more sharpening than many
other people.) For instance the trees in the background look somewhat hazy and not
quite well "defined". (It actually has a very slight resemblance of a hand tinted old
postcard. :) ) Is there a chance for some stray light having entered, this being so
wide a lens? (It's difficult to exactly determine the angle of the sun light.)
I am prejudiced against smaller apertures than about 11. I was just thinking whether,
for a 20mm wide, 11 or maybe 16 would have made enough DOF, and that at 22 the lens
may be less than perfect resolutionwise. Or maybe you already carefully checked that
before taking the shot?
Anyway, as I said, I still like it as it is though.
"Amy " by Paul Stenquist, USA
Boy, am I a sucker for pictures like this...
Congratulations Paul, for knowing this beautiful lady and getting the chance to shoot
her, and congratulations for a great picture! To me this is just about as good as a
picture like this can be made.
The light and airy touch, caught in a very natural glimpse that you always hope to be
able to catch, but which sometimes may prove to be very difficult to achieve with some
subjects once you put the camera to your eye.
The Pro Mist looks like a great filter. Just enough to smooth out the surface a bit,
allowing for the important traits of her eyes, the smiling wrinkles and her mouth, and
yet not adding this unnatural overly dreamy finish that some filters do. Great use of
the reflector.
Great darkroom work too. To me the contrast and light balance is just right.
This is also a good example of when a BW picture adds to the impression of a face. By
the absence of colors the silhouette and contours (?) of her face, as well as the
above mentioned traits, come to the fore to a higher degree than when colors, although
more "realistic", may take away some of your attention.
(Just one thing, more of a reflection from my own work with facial/head portraits. I
sometimes find it very delicate in trying to decide on which crop to decide on.
Sometimes I crop rather tightly, as you have done here, sometimes - opposite to my
expectations - I find that adding slightly more space around the face actually makes
the impact stronger. I am not questioning this picture in this regard, but would be
interested to hear if you ever happen to debate along similar lines.)
Well she surely must, and should, be a very happy owner of a print of this shot.
(You can tell Amy I got silly only by looking at her... :) )
Thanks all,
Lasse
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
