|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Reply |
Awesome! Please share one with us! This is what creativity is all about: not what you see but how you interpret what you see.
"Photography, for me, is not about copying the world. I'm not really interested in making an accurate copy of what I see out there." -Michael Kenna |
Jun 24th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Comment |
Very well-balanced now, Frans. What do YOU think? |
Jun 24th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Comment |
Thank you for replying. Everyone's definitions and interpretations are exclusive and I shouldn't expect them to be like mine.
I'm serious about the soapsuds abstracts. Wish I'd have thought of that, but I usually wash by hand! |
Jun 17th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Reply |
Actually I had a hard time deciding whether to include the ears AND nose! Trying to stay minimal is not that easy!
Thnx Peter! Hey hope I wasn't too harsh with you in my critique. I don't mean to be but sometimes I come across as being mean-spirited when texting. It's difficult trying to convey tone of voice. I strive to be honest, but I shouldn't have entered the group with "guns blazing". |
Jun 17th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Reply |
That makes sense! Thanks for responding. |
Jun 13th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Comment |
Very good as expected, but several aspects are bothersome:
1. My eye wants the female image to be either frontal or profile. It's not balanced to me as it stands.
2. The difference between outer halves of the left and right butterfly wings is too obvious in it's inconsistency (as Jan stated). |
Jun 12th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Comment |
As usual, your composites are very good, but I have the following issues:
1. If the clock is the entry to another dimension, shouldn't the fertile, pastoral pathway start inside?
2. My eye wants the horizons between dimensions to match.
3. My issue with the tree is same as #1 |
Jun 12th |
| 34 |
Jun 25 |
Comment |
I will be candid with everyone here, as that is what I expect from you all. If the point is to be imaginative and alter reality that easily suspends disbelief, then I have the following comments:
1. I have 25 years of past experience in Forensics, and have sadly attended 100s of autopsies at several morgues. I have read Poe and Lovecraft, seen "The Birds" and "Alien". This image is not "creepy". At all.
2. Scary creepiness is dark. Lower the overall brightness (gamma) and diminish or remove the color.
3. Soapsuds are not "creepy". However, I think the soapsuds image alone as an abstract is brilliant, and encourage you to pursue that as a series. |
Jun 12th |
5 comments - 3 replies for Group 34
|
5 comments - 3 replies Total
|
