Home Products Download Order Contacts

rec.photo.misc

Subject: Re: Opinions of my photo please




"John H" wrote in message
news:elnnt15kedqlibagm8qv8i9mpurla0frbh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:53:40 GMT, John H wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:47:25 -0800, "Randy Stewart"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
>>>news:ok3nt11o2kk820g8qp0jq87e7po0jidjcv@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:51:38 GMT, "aussie bongo"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"John H" wrote in message
>>>> >news:3lsmt1to8u69hvnq8nb9r74dp36k6oarfr@4ax.com...
>>>> >> On 27 Jan 2006 18:03:51 -0800, b.ingraham@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>My apologies. Even I don't have permission! The correct URL:
>>>> >>>http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Bob the Foggy
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You can't be serious. That picture is horrible.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> John H
>>>> >
>>>> >john ,,
>>>> >beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)
>>>>
>>>> If that picture is judged good, then it's more likely that there's a
>>>> cinder in the eye of the beholder.
>>>>
>>>> Tony Cooper
>>>> Orlando, FL
>>>
>>>While I agree that the photo is not a good picture by any conventional
>>>standard I would apply, I also think that a reply of "horrible" without
>>>further explanation or constructive comment is totally pointless, not
>>>warranting any reply at all. Unhappily, many photos, individually or
>>>whole
>>>galleries, posted in the web evidence a great lack of skill by the
>>>poster,
>>>who fails to recognize their considerable shortcomings, and most replies
>>>are
>>>the slap in the face evidenced here.
>>>
>>>So "John H", let's hear why you think this photo is "horrible" and what
>>>you
>>>would have done to correct or avoid its problems. OR, let's not hear from
>>>you at all in the future.
>>>
>>>Randall Stewart
>>>
>>
>> Randall, horrible means to me that it is so disagreeable to
>>the senses that it should be binned. What I would do to improve it is
>>to go out in a suitable morning with a tripod and take some more
>>pictures exposing for the sky and water, with each of those bracketed
>>and then blend to achieve the effect desired.
>>
>> That is just my opinion as seen through the eye of the common
>>man. No slaps in the face or unkindness is intended.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>John H
>
> There have various samples posted up. To be clear this is the
> one I am looking at
> http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg
>
> I must be missing the redeeming features others are seeing.
> From about 10' viewing distance it looks better but up close I find it
> is actually disturbing to my vision.
>
> John H

For what it's worth John I agree with you. I have limited knowledge on
'photography' but I know what I like, and I don't 'like' this photograph.
The colours in the sky appear saturated, you can't make out anything on the
river bank and it has an overall very grainy appearance.

I'd be out taking multiple exposures while experimenting with aperture and
shutter settings.

BernieM



Reply


View All Messages in rec.photo.misc

path:
Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>

Replies:

Copyright 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.