Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 3, 2005, 8:53 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

aladyforty wrote:
Quote:
RodneyBlair wrote:
Quote:
What makes your opinion so unprofessional? You are a photographer and a consumer, so your opinion is very professional and quite valid.

Rodney

What I meant was that Im not a pro photographer so that makes my opinion as one by a non professional:-)
I'm a pro photographer and you are an amateur, but your wildlife pictures far exceed anything I could ever do. Sell a picture so we can say you are a pro too. :-)

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 8:56 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I sold a whole batch 200 to be exact at christmas, but that does not make me a pro. I class a pro as one who makes a living from their work or even a part living on a regular basis.:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 9:01 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

aladyforty wrote:
Quote:
I sold a whole batch 200 to be exact at christmas, but that does not make me a pro. I class a pro as one who makes a living from their work or even a part living on a regular basis.:-)
I'm glad you have sold some of your work. I'm sure that helps with all of your obsessions. I'll bet you already have your eye on the next greatest lens?? :-) Seriously though, professional doesn't equal great talent or skill. I wanted to make sure that is understood.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 9:16 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

RodneyBlair wrote:
Quote:
I'm glad you have sold some of your work. I'm sure that helps with all of your obsessions. I'll bet you already have your eye on the next greatest lens?? :-) Seriously though, professional doesn't equal great talent or skill. I wanted to make sure that is understood.

Rodney

Im always looking at lenses but i think right now what I want next is way out of my price range for some time to come, even second hand.:roll:

the photos i sold were kart racing photos to a club, the pros were going to charge the club way too much so after they saw a couple of my shots I took for myself they asked me to do a whole batch, took two weekends and lots of post processing. At least they were happy with the shots.

As for talent and skill, I would have thought a pro would have to have a fair bit of both.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 9:27 AM   #25
Member
 
StevenBVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
Default

I guess since I helped get the first Styer's Mill thread closed, I should at least make my presence known here!

I like this shot just as much as the first one, maybe a little more so with the rocks on the left gone. I'm not sure if it's me or not, but when I see pictures of waterfalls, I like to see as much as possible of the source of the falls... the top of them, which is not present in this photo. Of course the nature of some falls may not make that photographically possible, but I always feel something is lacking if the source of the falls (out of frame on the right in this case) is not present. Imagine a photo of the famous Angel Falls, but only like 10 feet of its drop. Not very dramatic compared to if the entire falls was captured.

Since your comments imply that you are not as strong in landscape photography as you may be in other areas (unless that was said tongue-in-cheek), maybe this will be of help and be taken into consideration.

Just my 2 cents.
StevenBVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 3:04 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

StevenBVT wrote:
Quote:
I guess since I helped get the first Styer's Mill thread closed, I should at least make my presence known here!

I like this shot just as much as the first one, maybe a little more so with the rocks on the left gone. I'm not sure if it's me or not, but when I see pictures of waterfalls, I like to see as much as possible of the source of the falls... the top of them, which is not present in this photo. Of course the nature of some falls may not make that photographically possible, but I always feel something is lacking if the source of the falls (out of frame on the right in this case) is not present. Imagine a photo of the famous Angel Falls, but only like 10 feet of its drop. Not very dramatic compared to if the entire falls was captured.

Since your comments imply that you are not as strong in landscape photography as you may be in other areas (unless that was said tongue-in-cheek), maybe this will be of help and be taken into consideration.
Just my 2 cents.
Hello Steven,

At the top, right corner, I provide a little visual clue why I do not capture more of the waterfall.

I favor the first attempt becuase the man made rock wall is a bit more visible

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 3:11 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Canna W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,038
Default



Hi Rodney,

Just a note to say I prefer this one too. It's great.

I'm sorry to have lost those so much of those gorgeous rockson the left- but looking at thisversion I can see they are better gone. (Hopefully to another pic another day...)

Canna
Canna W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 3:20 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Default

What I love so much about this one compared to the first is how intimately involved the viewer is with the waterfall.... the water really rushes toward us and right out of the picture. The previous one was much more objectively focused. I also love the shine on the rocks.

As to the matting/"framing" issue, I will remain neutral. I wonder if, in the previous posts, people thought the large mat drew their attention because of a contrast difference other than luminosity contrast but detail contrast. What I mean is "it's big and brown," to me, meant that it was monochromatic and textureless in contrast to a portrait that was full of texture and different colors. If, for example, one were to put a big brown circle, say 10% of the picture, in the lower left hand corner of the image itself (instead of around the image), wouldn't the eye be initially attracted to it? (1) because it's not "natural" in the image, and (2)because it would so dramatically contrast with the rich, textured environment? Maybe that's one way of describing what "big and brown" means.




perdendosi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2005, 4:59 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

perdendosi wrote:
Quote:
What I love so much about this one compared to the first is how intimately involved the viewer is with the waterfall.... the water really rushes toward us and right out of the picture. The previous one was much more objectively focused. I also love the shine on the rocks.

As to the matting/"framing" issue, I will remain neutral. I wonder if, in the previous posts, people thought the large mat drew their attention because of a contrast difference other than luminosity contrast but detail contrast. What I mean is "it's big and brown," to me, meant that it was monochromatic and textureless in contrast to a portrait that was full of texture and different colors. If, for example, one were to put a big brown circle, say 10% of the picture, in the lower left hand corner of the image itself (instead of around the image), wouldn't the eye be initially attracted to it? (1) because it's not "natural" in the image, and (2) because it would so dramatically contrast with the rich, textured environment? Maybe that's one way of describing what "big and brown" means.
I guess the previous shot and this one is a good demonstration of how important it is to know who your audience will be. If I recall, Vito liked how the supporting elements of the first shot played into the scene while others wanted more focus on the water. I'm leaning more toward the first one because of the supporting elements too.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:58 AM.