|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Sorry for the confusion - what you say is what I meant. |
Oct 16th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thank you, Bob,
You say "… more information about how you did it and what you might like from us." I take your point. What I hope for from Group members is what I hope to give - an honest reaction to the emotional and storytelling aspects of the image. One way to achieve this is to present the picture without comment and the people can just react. On the other hand, I do realise the aim of this group is to share ideas, thoughts, methods and so on - and explanations can help understand (e.g. I understand your blue hills more because you explained the Custer connection). So, I will offer a full comment on future photographs. As for different elements that go into a picture, I'll do my best, but I am a bit careless with file organisation and often can't find originals
|
Oct 16th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thank you, Gunter. I'm sorry, I may have misled you. What I say above (re. using other's work) is not incorporated into Barbara's definition but is my interpretation of why using other people's artwork still fits into it provided the original or its context is sufficiently altered. Again, I refer to my picture this month. The mannequin was made by someone else. I have given it a new, imaginative world to inhabit in which it is only a part of my creative effort. In a sense, it becomes a quotation that enhances my creative attempts, rather as one might do in a piece of written work. I don't feel that Ian's picture this month fits my interpretation. It may be different if he had the character looking out of the top window of a house or peeping out from behind a tree in a forest. Of course, this is only my opinion and recognise that there are others. I apologise to Ian that his picture this month has become a pivot point for this discussion. |
Oct 11th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thanks Gunter. I did look for the original but failed to find it. Too many hard drives! |
Oct 9th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is definitely an alternative cityscape. I quite like Ian's stretched version. I'm not sure about the circular object, top left. |
Oct 9th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is an interesting image and the lighting is excellent. Like Ian I find it a bit technical more than creative. But is is an excellent photograph. |
Oct 9th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is an interesting picture. I think I would like the warmer parts to be even warmer to give more contrast. The thing that makes it is the peeping planet. |
Oct 9th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
I think there can be some creative uses of camera techniques - panning, lens blur and slow shutter. But, regarding the definition of this group, this picture has indeed been taken with a camera or other light gathering device. I think this point is well made by the alterations people have offered, Bob's being a good start, perhaps. |
Oct 9th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
I've obviously dropped into a lively debate. Just what the Dialogue part of DD means, I would think. My view is (taking into account Barbara's definition) that using someone else's work is ok provided it is incorporated/changed into something that becomes a completely different creative picture (EG see my offering this month). Now - does Ian's picture fit this? It could be argued that it is still too derivative. |
Oct 9th |
| 18 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thank you Ian. Glad to be part of the Group.
This was a few years ago. When I was there this July the shop had changed. |
Oct 9th |
5 comments - 5 replies for Group 18
|
| 99 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
You do love your crisscrossing lines. The subject is very interesting, and the busyness is reflected in your picture, too much perhaps. My main problem is that I'm not able to find that my eye settles on any single element other than constantly coming back to the sign with the big #3 on it which I'm sure was not your point of focus. Perhaps if you had zoomed in to one or two of the elements and lines and made something of that. |
Oct 12th |
| 99 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
The trouble is I don't very much like these programs that give an effect in a single stroke. I prefer to do all the work myself, but I don't know Corel Painter so it may not be that easy. That is not to take away from the fact that this is an excellent photograph, and the painterly effect does appeal to non-photographers a lot, I think. I'm glad it's got pride of place on your wall. |
Oct 12th |
| 99 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is a most interesting shot. I go straight to the scooter then to the no entry signs then back along the shop fronts to the scooter. I quite like the single bollard between the two entry signs. The wet ground is important. It could be argued that part of the scooter and helmet are a little overexposed but since they are the main element, I don't think it matters too much. The only suggestion I could offer is a slight vignette to pull things even further. |
Oct 12th |
| 99 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
You have created a picture of this iconic castle that is sharp clear, well defined, well-toned - in fact quite beautiful. It would be impossible not to love that sky. The only thing I can suggest is that you darken the base of the image a little bit to help the eye lead into the castle I don't think you need to crop any of the tufts of Marron grass. Really great shot. |
Oct 12th |
| 99 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
I like flowers in black and white, and roses work well. You have made an interesting composition using a triangle. I wonder if the background would be better more even, perhaps completely black. Also, I think the tone of some of the leaves needs to be taken down or evened out. Very sharp and clear. I'm not sure it needs more than a single white key line around the edge. |
Oct 12th |
| 99 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
The bits I like best about this are the rocks and how you have given them a 3D quality with the use of tone and shading. Astrophotography looks like something I would not have the patience for, but you clearly do it well. |
Oct 12th |
6 comments - 0 replies for Group 99
|
11 comments - 5 replies Total
|
