(thread has been renamed)

I'm guessing the deal is purmusic will write the first 'review' and then we'll all know what to do ... and we'll then jump in and write our own review of an image coming from the first link.

Flickr's art of landscape group has these photo of the month things, and I usually like their photos...

http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157604313185067/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157603975803473/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157603803814755/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157603578938898/

and the list grows...

http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157603266521502/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157602734274151/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157602194851922/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157602194851922/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157601644122216/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157601057097948/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157600447862802/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157600266530076/
http://flickr.com/groups/art_of_landscape/discuss/72157600160958294/

"SirSpamalot"?

:oP

Thanks for the links Noah. Ease up on the caffeine intake though, 'k?

I was just trying to spark some action in the photography forum. It's pretty much ...

... dead.

But I have purpose to my madness; we'll see if it works (which it won't). I bet if I post 1 thread every 2 days; and you do the same, and each of us talk in each of our threads. Then finally 3 threads will appear every 2 days. And then 4 .. and so on and so forth as more people join in. And then caedes will be a photography place to be? Right now, it's not so much; it's more or less...

...dead. And of course I'm trying to post useful/inspirational/informative threads. This thread was more 'inspirational'.

Yeah, yeah!? What'd you think?

I have to say those photos show us what we should be aiming for.

(Sighs, packs up her camera bag and slinks home).

Uh uh ... come back here missy. >:o|

Kidding, kidding ... however, reading Noah's post above you ... I have a proposition. And since 'our' combined (referring to Noah and myself) audience reach is now ... 1 ... time to strike while the iron is hot.

Noah? You listeni.. er, reading? Good good.

First, this link from the top of Noah's first post to this thread ... this one here:

Photo of the Month Contest Review - #1

Now then, here's the deal ... 'we' will review and pick our fav from each link above for a given month ... in succession, based on doing one, maybe ... maybe, two a week.

'We' will then point out/summarize our attractions of our choice of photos, insofar as what caught our collective eyes ... could be composition coming to the forefront, could be content ... whichever and whatever ... based along the lines of what would also make for a good critique as well. Doesn't have to be a book like I usually write ... but, do try to include those aspects that are usually under consideration in determining a quality shot and what would constitute a good commentary.

Noah's knowledge of photography, techniques et al ... far surpasses mine, but I think 'we' can hold our own against him. And then learn from him in the process. Counter arguments allowed ... but keep those brief, and then of course rebuttals.

However, the deal ... or deal breaker is ... that Noah has to post an image on the site here within two weeks that we declare a start to any given and particular review.

I'm in ... how about yous?

Oh, and no negotiating Noah ... take it or leave it.

Tootles, you are cordially invited to participate in our group's review as we wade through them. Can't make it one week, no worries some allowances will be made of course.

I'll be back to see what your feelings are on doing this.

To sweeten the deal ... I will try to find a post worthy thread a la Noah's initial suggestion in an effort to help kick start this particular forum.

Interesting idea, Les. Some have already caught my eye in the first link -- and when I leave the page, some of the ones I admired are not the ones I remember later. I wonder if that's accidental, or if there's something more going on that causes one picture to stay in the memory and another to disappear.

The project might give inspiration -- I'm up for it.

Why can't there be an easy way? I have to write a comment on a photo every week!? But but ...

*edit* What lied (lay? layed?) here was a bad idea

Tootles: have you seen timecatcher.com yet? If not, I think you'd be interested. And if you have, they update their site every so often.

Thanks Noah, I haven't seen Timecatcher before - went over there and promptly fell flat upon beholding a photo called Coast of Wonders. Who knew I lived in such a beautiful country. :-)

I'd say they're all good.

(here's the coast of wonders.

I followed Noah's link to timecatcher.com ... nice site. Decided to check out the gallery first & clicked on the Midwest ~ no images. Then glanced at a red dot on the map that I was positive to be Nepal ... the one place in the world I want to visit the most & found Holy Man.

The man looks so alone ... so small compared to the detailed, but subtle architecture. He appears to be praying / talking to someone or something giving the impression he is not really alone. Not seeing the holy man's face & his loose toga - like clothing (a non - importance of concern) leads me to believe that the someone / something may be of higher power. Is he a Holy man? ... or maybe in reality he is an ordinary person. So many thoughts going through my mind atm.

It's also in B / W, which got me more excited & I like the composition. Most important this image speaks to me & that I like. The photographer did a nice job bringing across that aspect of the image.

My favorite photographer who has taken photos in nepal (and tibet) is Phil Borges. He has a book called ... hold on, let me find it ...

Tibetan Portrait, the power of compassion.

Its my favorite photography book. He uses a medium format camera, a portable softbox, etc for it. He also tones each photo with a sepia toner on just the skin. link; the book I have has different versions of the same photos (with more 'tone').

Noah, thank you for the link to Phil Borges. Beautiful, beautiful portraits! I can see why he is your favorite photographer. I love the soft touch he has given them as well the sepia toned skin.

The portraits remind me of Pierre's (=ppigeon) photography work ........ like this one

I'm in :)

Wow...5 different people! Yeah! And we haven't even done anything yet.

What was the plan again? Do I have to do anything? I think purmusic should be in charge since it was his idea. But, I think at the end we should try to post an image using all of the things we pointed out that made the photo(s) good. And instead of using the flickr landscape group photos, we should use ... the pros, like timecatcher, or something.

Oh, and we should have one of those post processing threads like purmusic suggested a week or so ago ... 1 thread will take care of them all; post an image, and we all PP it (and link to the image so it doesnt clutter up caedes). Or we each post a photo and PP each others photos (that sounds wrong). If possible, link to the photoshop action, etc etc if you want. I'll post one image...

My head is spinning. :-)

I didn't realize there were other 'Coast of Wonder' pictures there; that wasn't the one I saw, though it's lovely too. (Scratches head).

This is the one I saw: Coast of Wonders.

That version is much better!

Ok, then. :o)

Good good.

Reading through the above posts ... leads me to think that we can make a go of this idea. However, let's stick to using the Flikr pages to choose from.

Why?

I want a common base of imagery to choose from and if 'we' were allowed to go googling and searching to our heart's content ... all that would result is people posting ALL fantastic stuff.

Not to say that the Flikr stuff isn't ... but, there is enough variation in quality and content for good discussion I feel, on the individual merits of our personal photographic choices.

We can start next week ... keep the thread's discussion open for a week or a bit more, depending on the feedback and posts ... and then, move onto the next in line. Using Noah's links already provided.

The first set of images to choose and then provide a short commentary on ... will be the one I linked to above.

That leaves this ... if everyone is 'in' ... go ahead and feel free to come back to this thread with your thoughts and choice from the first set.

And finally, Noah? You have two weeks from this date ... give or take ... to post to your gallery on the site here. That's the deal.

Looking forward to seeing your work once again. :o)

Thanks everyone ... add your thoughts if you wish. Nothing is carved in stone ... yet. :oD

Alright, sounds good.

I figured posting reworks at a separate location because 1) people usually don't want to use up their 1-2 image a day upload on reworks 2) space is money 3) like you said, seeing the same image over and over in the rework gallery is strange. But we'll soon see.

And about my images; I can't guarantee I'll have an image in 2 weeks. I should, because there is a contest I <strike>need</strike> should enter, and because a 3 month break in photos is really lame.

Think Pierre just gave 'us' the thumbs up for posting the reworks to the site here. :o)

As to whether some would balk at using one of their allotted uploads? Not sure.

And you are still on the hook for posting to your galleries. That's ... the deal. Deal with it. >:oD

p.s. Good luck with the contest. :o)

Oh, if you could Noah?

Think changing the title of this thread to "Photo of the Month - Review" ... might serve to, one; draw some interest and two; be a reminder that this will be an 'ongoing' thing and for people to check back periodically, if not ... participate directly.

We could even change the format and choose from submissions to the site here. We'll see how it goes.

Ah, now we're on the same page! We'll use a single thread for all of them!? OK.

(You can do the first 'review' just to double check that we are on the same page). haha.

I'm in for this...I think! Ha...not sure I am fully understanding what we're doing. Are we giving a critique on one image at a time? Each person giving a critique on the same image? And we are using the links initially provided by Noah? Hmm..this is a post full of questions!

Rebecca, the way I interpret this discussion is each participant chooses one image from the first link Noah provided or Les' link "Photo of the Month Review - #1" (one in the same). Providing a link to the image of choice, we then give a commentary on our selected image (why was I drawn to it, etc). Then of course, provide any constructive criticism to improve the overall quality of the image.

In other words, try not to choose exceptionally high quality images, but something that sparked your interest & go from there.

Am I on the same page as you Les? ... or way, way off.

I'm curious to the answer to these questions too! :)

And I took some photos today; not sure if their good though. I'm trying something different than my usual...

Oh dear! The originator of the thread doesn't know what we are doing here?? We are doomed! dooooooooomed! ;)

Thank goodness there is only one Noah, though I do have to thank him for starting this thread. Should be interesting. ;-)

Questions first ...

@Sherree ... First, thanks for stepping in and for the assist. You are correct in your words, save one aspect. Strike the part of not choosing high quality images. Everyone is free to choose from any given month's linked set of photos. After spending some time reviewing this set, our first groupings ... although all are very good ... one does start to see areas for improvement with each.

@Noah ... good point about one page for all. Depending on the amount of interest ... even with that factor in mind, I think you are correct in your thoughts. A new thread for each month's review will probably work. For now, this thread is fine. Next one ... new thread.


How the "Review" is to be approached ...

Now then, here's the deal ... 'we' will review and pick our fav from each link above for a given month ... in succession, based on doing one, maybe ... maybe, two a month.

'We' will then point out/summarize our attractions of our choice of photos, insofar as what caught our collective eyes ... could be composition coming to the forefront, could be content ... whichever and whatever ... based along the lines of what would also make for a good critique as well. Doesn't have to be a book like I usually write ... but, do try to include those aspects that are usually under consideration in determining a quality shot and what would constitute a good commentary.

There is enough variation in quality and content found in the links Noah started off the thread for good discussion I feel, on the individual merits of our personal photographic choices. That will be the pool that the reviews will use in succession.

Counter arguments allowed ... but keep those brief, and then of course rebuttals.

First choice of mine to follow. :o)

Photo of the Month "Review" - #1


My personal choice from the grouping of images found at the above link is "middle fall-garpol glen".

Given that the image is a scan and in somewhat of a compromised presentation/state to us, stemming from a couple of things I believe ... I'll only comment briefly on clarity and resolution.

What did attract me immediately is the use of DOF and quite a unique composition to my eyes. It would appear that the photographer made good use of the angles and lines of the overhanging branch to compliment those of the water descending over the small falls and then spill.

Tonalities are good, I am curious though as to what impact a little fill flash would have ... add or detract to the dimensionality present to my eyes ... and perhaps, foremost ... delineate the branch a tad more.

Caveats? Clone out the two bits of adjacent or adjoining branch in the very upper left (bright part there) and bottom right (dark here) to clean up the compositon a bit and give it a more pristeen finish.

Razor sharp clarity and this image would rock.

Annnnnd ... done.


Optional:

DOF & Fill Flash being discussed here. If you have the time give them a read through to grasp a bit more of what I was referring to in my above 'review'. Feel free to add your thoughts as to whether the particular DOF for my choice worked well or not ... or, changes that could have improved the image's worth in your eyes. Same goes for the suggestion to employ some fill flash.

Les, thanks for the clarification on image selections. I did take a look at your choice & I would say your assessment of the image was right on.

I have picked mine & should have something written later today.

Thanks for the above links too ... will have to check them out.

We were more on the same page than not, methinks, Sherree. Just wanted to reiterate the intentions of this discussion and save some from having to trawl the previous posts.

And I do think that once you have and it sounds like you did this much thus far, examine all of the images in the link provided ... some are, at the bare minimum ... more of a standout image than their companions in the grouping.

Look forward to seeing your choice and reading your thoughts.

Don't burn out over this though. This thread will be in place for a few. :o)

My choice for the "Photo of the Month Review - #1" is this image .rrrrrrrrrrrrr

Image is taken with 120 film.

A simple title for a simple image. What caught my eye was the horizontal & diagonal lines of the pier & how they came to a perfect point. I liked the added dimension of the dreamy background with the soft pearly tones. To be honest I normally would not be attracted to a black & white where the monotones are significantly unbalanced (more whites & midtones / grays) ... but I could see myself sitting at the point where the piers come together & gazing out into infinity.

Improvements ~ the horizon is straight ~ so scrap that one. I would personally increase the contrast slightly to bring out the midtone (gray) areas above the horizon. Crop 1/3 or so off the top of the image. Clone out what appears to be a "stick" in the water as it adds nothing to the composition. Remove noise in a noise reduction program as it is evident in the sky as well as the lower left corner (water).

Overall, I loved the simplicity of the composition & the relaxed dreamy mood of the image.

Looks like a sea of ... milk. Très très cool to my eyes and a nice choice too Sherree.

I found myself particularly drawn to the B & W (mononchrome to them Flikrites :oP) images in this grouping, save one or two of the colour shots. Won't say which ones. ;o)

And as much as I agree with you, in that if the range of tonalities throughout are not present ... and are a usual caveat of mine if not in the image under evaluation ... find myself rethinking things with examples as your choice above. Certainly, or I think ... images such as this are all about feel and mood, not so much being accurate representations ... rather, interpretations.

The stick? Hmm, bit undecided on that element. I do believe it adds a little 'something something' ... but, the author missed the mark a tad in it's placement in the composition.

Crop? Yes.

Very nice choice of images and a well thought out and considered review and critique.

An aside: Uhm, given the image's title ... I had to look ... I mean look, at your posting to find the link. :oD

Thank you Les for your feedback. At first I was undecided about the stick or whatever it is ... I believe (and like you stated also), it was because of the placement in the image that just appeared a little off to me.

This is fun & it's also nice to get everyone else thoughts too about the image review. Reminds me of when I judged 1000's of photo's & artwork last summer at a local fair. Imagine a college art instructor who new little about photography; a photographer who was still using film & a "darkroom" for all of her photo processing; & then myself, an amateur in the digital world of photography ... we butted heads on more than one occasion, but were agreeable on most images. To top things off I'm doing the judging again this year. I'll be better prepared this time around. :-)

Edit ... I took Les' hint & made the image link longer ... should be able to see it now. :-)

OK, I am going to speak up here and state my pick as well as my critique :=)
Here is my IMAGE
I picked this one for several reasons.The first being this is how I tend to shoot landscapes often...and I don't think it is quite right:)
Also, I was very drawn to the colors and the urge to do something with them!
Critique:
Photographer needed to use the rule of thirds here. There is way too much foreground. When shooting this type, one can only control how much foreground and how much sky, the water in the middle is not adjustable!
When fiddling with this in PSP, cropping made it much better although there still needed to be a bit more sky in the image to balance the thirds rule.
The colors are pale and by boosting the blues a bit and balancing the cyan,red, yellow, magenta and greens a tad, there was a dramatic difference as well as a more 3-D effect to the sky.
The positive was the horizon seemed so far away and I liked that depth in this picture.
This image has much potential in my humble opinion.
OK...critique done..fire away!
Good job to those who went before me!!! Thanks for paving the way :=)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24649184@N06/2331011934/

Goods:

1) Good green moss color
2) Darker sky relative to the ground (personal taste, really)
3) Everything else

Bad:

1) Obvious use of a neutral density filter of some type; possibly photoshopped, I don't know --> water at the horizon is noticeably darker.
2) Not 'balanced'.

If I were to take the shot, I would have probably butchered it. The photographer here is definitely more credible than me. But here's what I would have tried:

1) Vertical (portrait?) orientation
2) (magically) Move closer to the two rocks that form lines so the 'curve' they form is more obvious
3) Aim camera more to the left

1) Return later with a large format camera with a 175mmish lens. Make a "huge" print to show the texture of the moss and the milky water flowing up onto it.

...I tried.

Mimi's choice ~ I totally agree with you about the rule of thirds & there is way too much foreground, though I did find the lines in the sand a bit interesting. I definitely would have liked to have seen more sky to balance out the scene more.

The image does need more color & by your editing description, it sounds like the boost in color made all of difference, especially to bring out the colors in the sky / clouds. Cropping out some of the sandy area would give the image a great improvement. The depth is there with the textures of the sand & smooth dreamy water, but there needs to be more contrast between sky & water. To me there is some missing element in the image.


Potential? ... definitely yes, but a wider shot including more sky & less foreground would be a better fit for this image scene. Hopefully the photographer did just that, 'cause it is a beautiful view & one wouldn't want to waste over half of an image on sand. Probably my personal preference.

Very well done Mimi ... great choice regarding the importance of the rule of thirds. :-)

Mimi's choice:

To get some visual reference for what the photographer was trying to achieve in his approach, I visited this one page in particular from the links in the accompanying narrative ... Gaylen Morgan's online gallery.

Unless the images are shuffled, you should be able to view a very good example of where this approach works. And notably, the composition is in line with the simple rule of thirds to a much greater degree.

The author got a tad ambitious ... by trying to include everything deemed noteworthy as mentioned in his accompanying narrative. The lines in the sand are a nice touch and personally, I might have been tempted to ditch the sky entirely as that element takes away from a rather surreal image for the most part.

The vignetting? Hmm, perhaps it just needs to be fine tuned. Looks contrived to my eyes as it is carried throughout the image's sides with varying degrees of success in my humble opinion.

Noah's choice:

Wellll ... I finally figured out how to view the larger sizes ... yes, Les it's the magnifying glass icon at the upper left ... and it does make a big difference in gauging the compositional strengths or weaknesses of the images.

Having said that, I was initially in agreement with Noah on some change in camera position to bring the curved lines element out more. Now, hmm ... not sure that the photographer missed the mark on that note. Looks ok and readily identifiable ... and ... makes for some great leading lines to guide the viewer's eyes.

Some colour bleed is visible? Possibly due to boosting saturation levels. Noticeable more so at the tops of the dominant curve of rocks (green colour bleeding into adjoining pixels). Or perhaps, Chromatic Aberration, or colour fringing as it is also referred to by some ... upper right hand shoreline, as another reference point within the photo ... top of the darker rock formations.

But, in that area could be a wave crashing over the rocks, hard to tell.

Shift camera right, look left? I would respectfully disagree. With the current camera position, and I think I know why you are suggesting it, just feel that the image would become a tad too busy ... as is, the right hand side balances out part of that aspect.

Vertical/portrait presentation and change in camera orientation would be really interesting to see.

Insofar as the water being darker at the horizon? There is a swell that would account for that difference I believe.

But ... hey ... it's a gorgeous shot and is, in fact, one of the photos that I vacillated on and returning here with my own thoughts. Nice choice and a good review Noah. :o) (<--- Ha! Fooled ya, eh? :oP)

On Sherree's observations of Mimi's choice:

"To me there is some missing element in the image."

Or ... perhaps, too much of everything?

Just some thoughts.

Nicely done everyone, as there is no right or wrong way to do this review thingy. Dialogue is the name of the game here, simply stated, and that's all you need bring to the table with you. :o)

I do believe CA is a lens thing, where the light of different wavelengths refract differently. The green bleeding over is simply a photoshop thing.

And it's not a swell, if you look at the rocks near the horizon, they are nearly black. Also, the sky is darker than the foreground which pretty much proves he/she used a GND filter or PP'd it in.

Who knows, little insignificant things. I love the photo.

Regarding Mimi's choice ...

"To me there is some missing element in the image."

Or ... perhaps, too much of everything?

Les, what I meant by "missing element" was a landmark of such ... perhaps there was a mountainous landscape to the right or left that the photographer could have included in the composition. Maybe I'm just thinking way too much.

I do agree on Noah's view of his chosen image ... different angle "yes", but not sure a vertical orientation would work well here ... maybe / maybe not. By the way, nice job Noah.

I also discovered how to view the image at a larger size ... duh!

/\ They're wrong. I am right.

:oP

(/\ JOKe)

Huh? LOL .... :-P

Ok, you got to be quick here ... as this is coming down pronto.

However, using this "Geometrical Composition Guide(s)" found here ... I did a crop of Noah's choice. I managed to find a better relation of all of the elements with one another using one of the grid templates.

At least I think so, as the curved lines are more pronounced for one and a couple of other things I will leave for 'you' to discover ... or not ... with your own eyes.

Compare ... original ... and then ... cropped version.

Hint: Where and how are your eyes lead in the image?

Very nice Les ... the cropped version is much, much better.

In the original my eyes just floated over the mossy rocks. I was immediately drawn to the rock formation dead center near the horizon. It's a great image, but it held my interest for a short time.

Les, in your cropped version, my eyes are drawn to the lower left & proceed up the "S curve" made by the rocks & water. Where I end up is to the left of the rock I mentioned above. It's like I'm following the movement of the water while taking in the textures of the mossy rocks.

Regarding the other things ... I would say either you increased the contrast somewhat or adjusted the highlights / shadows. Another thing I noticed is the detail of the mossy rocks look sharper.

What a big difference a little cropping does to the overall composition of an image. I like!