Well I finally did it!
Richard Knight
I uploaded at www.photo.net and let me know what you think. The URL is:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=69307
Richard
Alan Browne
as compositions. The rest seem a bit bland.
Solitude on Oregon Coast (2) seems to have great potential, but their is
lots of low light induced "digital noise grain" and there is this
god-awful-migrain inducing flare in the left third of the photo...
Go back to film ... !
Alan
Richard Knight
camera. The photos "Solitude on Oregon Coast" and "Haystack Rock" are both
prints I made from NPS. I just used the digital camera to photograph the
prints. These were mostly posted for compositional debates (except for the
ones of my family which my daughter insisted that I include). I got a taste
of the digital camera (which was all I wanted) and I agree, film is the way
to go (for me at least at this time). Thanks for taking a look and voicing
your opinion.
Richard
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3A182C63...@videotron.ca...
Wonko The Sane
right..right?)
I would remove the bottom 2 pic's, they are a bit "weak". The site looks
better without them.
WONKO THE SANE
Richard Knight
grew a beard without my noticing (now that you mention it, I'll have to look
when she gets home :~) ), I think I'm on the left.
Thanks for the comments. I guess I'm going to have to invest in a scanner if
I can sneak it past the other half (Hell, honey I've had that for years,
didn't you ever notice it?). The digital camera really sucks when used in
bright light as I couldn't see the LCD most of the time (glad I only
borrowed it). It really doesn't do justice to the prints, either.
Richard
"Wonko The Sane" <nz...@ZAPHODxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:LDWR5.4124$gVqd.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Wonko The Sane
>I guess I'm going to have to invest in a scanner if I can sneak it past the
other half.
>(Hell, honey I've had that for years, didn't you ever notice it?).
I got mine by an even more cunning plan.... ( It's part of the "Home
Security System" )
Worked a treat. I still open & close the lid before we leave the house.
WONKO THE SANE
annqlee
The following is to be meant constructive. This first image has a good
scale, but a counter-scale with the bird.
Which might be your point. The picture is monochromatic and easier
manipulation in the darkroom can be had
with b&w films. My monitor is really crappy, so please excuse me if the
analysis is in error. The second picture
seems too dark on the bottom left. I could not tell if its land or sea.
Maybe you should wait for a couple of minutes
for the sun to go down and expose for the land/sea scape since the sunset
was not too dramatic.
Richard, I know you are a very knowledgeable person. Is there some narrative
to these pictures?
Good Luck,
Ann
---
http://carcassi.eng.uci.edu/intropictures.htm
Richard Knight wrote in message ...
Richard Knight
news:8ve6g1$s2c$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
> Hi Richard,
>
> The following is to be meant constructive. This first image has a good
> scale, but a counter-scale with the bird.
> Which might be your point. The picture is monochromatic and easier
> manipulation in the darkroom can be had
> with b&w films. My monitor is really crappy, so please excuse me if the
> analysis is in error.
Ann, the problem may be both in your monitor and the manner in which I
reproduced these images for the web (digital photo of print). There are many
subtle variations of color in the sky in the original print. The bird has
much more definition in the print, making the image come across in a manner
much more like 3D than 2D.
>The second picture
> seems too dark on the bottom left. I could not tell if its land or sea.
> Maybe you should wait for a couple of minutes
> for the sun to go down and expose for the land/sea scape since the sunset
> was not too dramatic.
>
In the print you speak of, it was a concious decision to bring the values
down at the bottom left as there were small rocks sparsely spaced that I
felt made the foreground too busy. The info is on the negative. Again, in
the actual print, the wet sand from a receding tide is apparent all the way
to the waters' edge but on the monitor it could be mistaken for water and
slight ripples. I should have waited until I purchased a decent flatbed
scanner to post these, as the images on the screen don't really do justice
to the prints.
> Richard, I know you are a very knowledgeable person. Is there some
narrative
> to these pictures?
These prints represent more of a study in the subtleties of color in sunsets
rather than the sometimes "overpowering" and awe inspiring displays of the
last rays of the day. I love to look for things that are apparent only after
a close study of the print/chrome. I try to "invite" the viewer into the
image (from a distance) with the main subject and then allow them to spend
some time looking for the various visual elements. That is why the majority
of my prints are in a small (8x10), intimate format. There is actually a dog
running along the waterline on the far right of the second image (which I
inadvertantly cropped out on the JPEG) as well as two people walking at the
waterline (backlit by the fog) on the far left. That was one of the reasons
I chose to deepen the values on the bottom left (so as not to mask the
people and dog by mistaking them for more rocks). There isn't enough
definition on the web images to pick these things out. My choice of
reproduction along with the high compression (I wanted them to load fast),
and my inexperience in uploading web images, really do no justice to the
prints. Thanks very much for your comments. As far as your reference towards
constructive criticism, I have developed a very thick skin over the years.
Until a person knows where the problems are, there is no direction to work
towards. This is exactly the type of critique I was looking for. Thanks
again Ann.
Richard