|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
12/24/2004 5:04:07 AM
Merry Christmas, Sue!
Maybe someday you and I will actually get to meet in person... you know, when Will is a little more "cooperative." ;-)
|
| Photo By: Sue O'S
(K:12878)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
3/10/2004 9:03:53 PM
Lovely photo. The fingers in the upper right are a little distracting, but on the other hand, I love the reflection of them on the wood of the piano. Nice and sharp and would be a great ad for the manufacturer!
|
| Photo By: A. A
(K:1987)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
2/23/2004 5:36:37 PM
It took my breath away! An absolutely gorgeous manipulation of a great subject/composition!
|
| Photo By: Shannhan Pat
(K:15)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
2/23/2004 5:34:06 PM
Great shot. Makes me want to dig out my Diana's again. :-)
|
| Photo By: Kym Skiles
(K:1520)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
2/23/2004 5:30:52 PM
What a cutie! I'm not sure if this actually "qualifies" as a toy camera shot, though, since toy cameras are usually cheap promotional-type film cameras, and usually have plastic lenses (like the Diana, or the Holga. The Lomo usually qualifies, too, even though they have glass lenses... so I guess the Woca would qualify, too!). Cute shot, though!
|
| Photo By: Eugenio Yagoryo
(K:159)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/10/2003 7:38:00 PM
Excellent perspective! Very creative... not your ordinary photo at all! I really like it!
|
| Photo By: Marcel Laurens
(K:3654)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/10/2003 8:56:01 AM
Very good photograph; I can see why you won the competition. Very moving and emotional!
|
| Photo By: Debprasad Datta
(K:1545)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/7/2003 7:16:47 PM
Hmmm... tough decision. I looked at 3, 2 and then 1. From the thumbnails, I thought I would like 3 and 1 equally, but I think I like #3 more. It's just a matter of personal preference, really, and what appeals to my eye (as opposed to someone else's)
I thought I'd like 1 as well as 3 because the colors looked sharper, but now when I look at it, the white is just a little bit too harsh for me in this one. So, if I were to rate them, I'd say first, #3, then #1, then #2. It's just a matter of personal preference, though, and what appeals to each eye.
I will say that your composition is phenomenal! What a great idea! I would love to see #3 hanging in my kitchen!
|
| Photo By: Verna Absolutestockphoto
(K:2836)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:34:58 PM
Great composition. The female model looks very natural!!
The lighting is a little "hot" and it makes the photo a little difficult to view. The lighting definitely creates a mood in the photo, though!
|
| Photo By: weng kai
(K:11)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:29:45 PM
I can't believe nobody's commented on this one yet!
I really like it! Great composition; I like the way the Salvation Army sign "frames" the Empire State Bldg. I'd like to see the clouds "pop" a little bit more. This is a great photo!
|
| Photo By: Andrea Parker
(K:187)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:26:53 PM
I really like your perspective in this photo. You could've shot it from above (standing), but it's much more effective by getting on their level!
|
Photo By: Dr. Rafael Springmann
(K:89517)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:22:17 PM
Great shot. Very creative! The bright light on the right is a little distracting, as is the little bit of dust/hair on the right. That light seems wash out the "wheel" on that side.
|
| Photo By: Adrian Stocker
(K:587)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:15:29 PM
Awesome!!!! These are so much fun to do, and you did an excellent job on this one!!
|
| Photo By: Karen Nichols
(K:613)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:13:36 PM
Great manipulation. I particularly like the orange sky, which almost doesn't look manipulated (unless you look closely).
|
| Photo By: Karen Nichols
(K:613)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 8:08:21 PM
Cute snapshot!
The lamp in the background is a little distracting. Maybe you could try a more interesting backdrop, too.... maybe something with a little more color.
|
| Photo By: Brittany Millar
(K:20)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 12:44:37 PM
This is a beautiful portrait, in that it's "unusual." I love the perspective, with the horizon not perfectly "horizontal." I also love all of the room around him. The lighting is great, too, the shadow makes it very dramatic.
I'll bet you got a lot of great ones like this one when you shot this!
|
| Photo By: Anders Schildt
(K:117)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/5/2003 12:41:50 PM
She's a cutie!!!!
Can I give a few tips on "posing"? She looks like she'd love to pretend to be a model! You could pose her standing slightly sideways, instead of "straight on" as she is here. Maybe, body facing slightly left (or right), head facing forward. This would give it more of a professional portrait look. Also, her hands don't look very "natural." What do you tell a little girl dressed up like a princess to do with her hands? I don't know for sure! Hanging gently at her sides would work. If she was seated (body still slightly facing left or right), and you had something in front of her, you could have her "lean" (not really leaning, though) into one hand, with the other hand cupping the elbow.
She is a cutie, and looks like she'd be a very willing model for you! I'll bet she could "ham it up" and you could get some really fun portraits!
|
| Photo By: Lena Jenkins
(K:98)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/3/2003 1:00:12 PM
Dave,
I like the "hot spots" on the fur; it gives a nice contrast to the dark, and it's not too hot, or too much, that it's distracting. I agree with Chris about sharpening it up a bit.
I thought you gave up on photography! Glad to see you posted a shot (FINALLY!)
|
| Photo By: David Miller
(K:105)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/2/2003 7:46:54 PM
As you said, a tripod would've helped get rid of the "shakes," but you got a really cool photo, nonetheless! You could've even said that you WANTED it to turn out like this! ;-)
It doesn't have to be perfect to be good! While a prefectly still camera might get you a fireworks photo that looks like a "flower" I kind of like the dischord that yours has!
|
| Photo By: CHAD CARPENTER
(K:6)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/2/2003 7:40:43 PM
You have quite an eye to "catch" this beautiful photo in an otherwise ordinary scene. Lighting is great; I love teh contrast between the dark and light.
|
| Photo By: Arash Izadyar
(K:20)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/2/2003 7:35:51 PM
Ok, I've read about this, but now I've GOT to try it!
Beautiful!!!!
|
| Photo By: John Barclay
(K:3650)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
8/2/2003 7:34:04 PM
I love the composition, but what I love most is the softness of the flowers "in back," especially the "halo" around the second flower.
Very dreamy!
|
| Photo By: John Barclay
(K:3650)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
7/30/2003 8:48:36 PM
Absolutely stunning!
Composition is perfect, and light and shadows are perfect, too!
You can almost feel the warmth coming from this photo!!!!
|
| Photo By: Shawn Kellogg
(K:454)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
7/29/2003 7:56:59 PM
Beautiful! I love your lighting!!!! Your model looks very natural, too.
Just a SLIGHT note on posing (though this looks more candid than posed, I realize)... It might work just a LITTLE bit better if his arms were on his knees, intead of trailing off the bottom of the photo. Or maybe elbows on his knees, face in his hands. Of course that might be to "cutesy" for him! :-)
|
| Photo By: Shawn Kellogg
(K:454)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
7/29/2003 7:52:45 PM
I like the soft focus of most of the shot; I think if the baby's face was in sharper focus, it would really pop.
|
| Photo By: ahmed lotfy
(K:1487)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
7/29/2003 7:50:07 PM
The sun looks a little "hot," and it's a little hard to look at it, but given the extreme contrasts, I'm not sure you could do anything about that... at least not if you want to keep the photo as impressive as it is. Toning down the contrast, IMO, would likely detract from the shot.
|
| Photo By: Ronnie Gaubert
(K:3700)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
7/27/2003 8:06:49 PM
Three cheers for creativity, and not following the "rules"! You create a gorgeous photo because of it!
|
| Photo By: Bob Tomerlin
(K:5460)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
5/20/2003 9:46:24 PM
Great photo! Very artistic!
|
| Photo By: Scott Wiet
(K:353)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
3/5/2003 9:09:05 PM
Julien,
It's not that difficult to "set fire" to the US, really... all you need is a little ingenuity, maybe some money for some tickets on a couple of commercial flights in the US, a little bit of training how to fly a plane (a couple of lessons will do), and the ***** to fly them into tall buildings, killing yourself and thousands of other people.
Of course, that's called terrorism.
I find it ironic that people protesting for "peace" would want to set fire to the US.... not very peaceful, huh?
As I sit and watch these "peace" protests (which often contain a lot of anger, and a lot of references to things that are definitely NOT peaceful!) I wonder... do any of these people have a CLUE about what peace is?
|
| Photo By: Megan Forbes
(K:4617)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Donna Lauritzen (K:542)
2/27/2003 6:14:44 PM
Andrew,
When you have your film processed at a place like Walgreens, or Walmart, or Ritz, or Wolf, they all use machines to process and print that are very similar to each other (might not be exactly the same, but close). The only time one of these machines is not used is when you pay (quite a lot!!!) to have them hand-printed.
The machines are calibrated to be "idiot-proof"... in other words, they are set to correct the "mistakes" that snap-shooters often make. While this is helpful for point-and-shooters who don't know much about photography, it can be very detrimental to the photographer. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten prints back which look like nothing, only to scan the film to find the most amazing colors and shadows.
I think what's happening with your photos is that you're assuming that the prints you get back are an accurate representation of your photography. I'm betting they're not, and that what you're getting in your prints is the idiot-proof-corrected photos from the machine that your processor uses.
I'm assuming that you don't have a film scanner, so I'd like to make a suggestion. Take any one of the negatives from the photos you've posted here, to a place where you can scan the negative and make a print. I believe you can do this at a place like Wolf Camera or Ritz Camera, or you can call around and find a place.
Scan the negative, print it, and compare it to the print you've gotten back when you had your film processed. I think you'll be surprised. It might be enough to make you want to spend $1,000 on your own film scanner for home use. Even if you don't want to invest in a film scanner, I think you'll get an idea of what your prints are SUPPOSED to look like (IOW, what's actually on your negatives), and might be a little less inclined to make your scanned photos look exactly like the prints you get back, which are idiot-proof-corrected by the machine.
I'm assuming that, since you said that you send your film out for processing, that you don't have access to a darkroom to make your own prints. A program like Photoshop can have the same effects as a darkroom.... and is much easier to use (in my opinion). The goal of any photographer is to make his or her photographs look the best they can. If someone has the luxury and the technical skills to do this in the darkroom, that's great! But many people dont have access to a darkroom, or, like me, have not perfected their darkroom skills. I see nothing wrong in using a computer to achieve the same effects I would get in a darkroom, if I had the technical skill.
|
| Photo By: Andrew Hawkins
(K:114)
|
|
