1. A little less exposure would have brought more detail to the snow
and the fisherman's face. Later during processing you could have
brought up detail in the shadows a bit, but it appears the highlights
are gone. The eye is immediately drawn to the fisherman's face and is
disappointed to find it almost featureless.
2. Lovely tonality. These kinds of pictures are difficult. Ideally you
would have had a tripod so you could shoot with more depth of field.
The out of focus trees on the far bank bother me since the main point
of interest is not large and does not dominate the photo. My eye keeps
looking for the subject and bounces from the tree foliage on the left
side frame which appears to be the sharpest object in the picture, the
photogenic curved log in the lower center and the blurred trees which
are the largest area of the picture.
3. Ah, perfect. The big out of focus far bank is much reduced. there is
nothing to pull your eye away the from the center of interest. The log
and crisp reflections are near an interesting area of the frame and the
gradual sharpening of the foreground leads your eye right to it.
4. Very lovely. I am going to use it as a chance to do a little rant
about pictures of moving water and does not exactly apply to your
beautiful photo. Some people love water to look like a little flowing
avalanche of snow or fog. I don't know why. I think maybe it was
encountered in large format pictures taken at small apertures and one
second exposures for great depth of field and suddenly 35mm shooters
decided that must be the way water is supposed look in a photograph,
ignoring their own eyes and the superior capability of their small
cameras. Flowing water in the sun has sparkle and reflection. Too slow
a shutter and that characteristic disappears. You eye sees some blur,
but not much. You really don't want to freeze the water, but with a
little blur you really want a little glassiness too. I think it is
pretty good in this photo, but is just at the edge(but not over it) of
being too blurred. But this is my taste and probably most would not
agree.
Thank you for inviting comment. It was fun. I admire your pictures and
I admit I was just trying for fine tuning. You are way braver than I
am.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Feb 6, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Johan Malmstrom wrote:
>
> OM-Photogs!
>
> I have four photos that I would like hear your opinion on. I can take
> strong critics... I would also like some hints on the technical side,
> what to think about when making the fine print and so on.
>
> Please look and respond! I like them, but then you should kill your
> darlings.
>
> 1
> <http://foto.johanmalmstrom.se/index.php?
> dnode=220&cat=vinter_skog&pict=PX040222-12.jpg>
>
> 2
> <http://foto.johanmalmstrom.se/index.php?
> dnode=220&cat=vinter_skog&pict=PX040222-1.jpg>
>
> 3
> <http://foto.johanmalmstrom.se/index.php?
> dnode=220&cat=vinter_skog&pict=PX040222-2.jpg>
>
> 4
> <http://foto.johanmalmstrom.se/index.php?
> dnode=220&cat=vinter_skog&pict=PX040222-27.jpg>
>
> TIA / Johan
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|