Wow! A window through
into somebody's dream - or nightmare. Great creativity and atmosphere. I'm
glad she's got wings so she can perhaps rejoin her fellow creatures and fly
away from the harsh rocks.
 |
|
Mansour Akbari |
summer day |
| |
|
Comments: |
|
John Long |
 |
I love the softness of this image -
it's rather romantic. The lighting, the composition all work well. I
would have just liked a thin keyline around it.
|
 |
|
Brian Cooke |
|
| The bike in the foreground is a
good idea but I would have preferred the figures to be more in focus |
|
|
|
Gitta Lim |
|
| Attractive treatment - suits its
romantic mood - feel that tweaking midtones would improve it. BTW
Mansour -would be nice to receive your comments on our images as well. |
|
|
|
John Harrison |
|
| Good relationship with the bike and
the people, I also like the lighting but feel that overall it is to soft
with no real focal point. |
|
|
|
Guy Davies |
|
| I really like the idea, but would
prefer the bike to be in focus (I like the figures soft as they are).
However, the more I look at it the more I like it as it is! I'm a bit
puzzled by the cylindrical object behind the back wheel though. |
|
|
|
Paula Davies |
|
| The softness might have given it a
romantic look but the couple are too far apart if they have romance in
mind :-) I presume it's because you used a wide angle lens that the bike
looks huge. Overall it's not a picture which I find exciting - Sorry. |
|
|
|
Norman D Chappell |
|
| I feel that the bicycle protrudes
too much into the foreground, also would have preferred the couple to be
in focus. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Vincent Lowe |
|
| I like the softness and the overall
effect is pleasing. The question is - where is the other bike, or does
one of them sit on the handlebars? :o) |
|
|
|
John Chapman |
|
| The softness is obviously
deliberate, to create the romantic feel, but the bike, for me, is too
dominant and too 'square-on'. |
|
|
|
Christopher Haydon |
|
| Yes my initial thought was romantic
- then not sure. Only one bike, was one already there and the other came
on the bike (because there is only one bike) and they are sitting a good
distance apart! For me I think the image would be improved with either
the bike or the 2 figures being in focus. |
|
|
|
Gitta Lim |
|
| PS Just noticed in my email inbox
an earlier version you posted 17/9 - it was much darker and more moody -
do like it! |
|
|
|
Graham Whistler |
|
| I think the eye is blocked too much
by the bike, a higher view-point would have helped this pix a lot. |
|
|
|
Ian Ledgard |
|
| I think that like my note which was
too dominant so for your bike. Like the soft focus couple however. |
| |
|
|
|
Comments: |
|
Philip Barker |
|
| sorry dont like the sloping
diaganols of the picture and the light everything seems to want to slide
off the photo downhill to the right . I would also remove the green
shade and flex bottom right . the picture in the background distracts
the viewer and the road seems to lead the eye away from the modelinto
the distance. skin tones look pretty good . just my opinion and heh im
no expert far from it |
|
|
|
Philip Barker |
|
| also forgot to spell check in my
haste sorry all |
|
|
|
Michael Brown |
|
| Interesting juxtaposition!
Certainly the picture suggests the end of Summer, but I'm not sure about
the rest. I agree with Philip's remarks about the details |
|
|
|
Duncan Evans |
|
| While there's nothing wrong with
angling the picture in theory I don't think it really works here because
of the verticals on the lamp shade and the picture. However, I like the
idea of the frame actually holding all the sliding material, but
possibly it's the lampshade that overcooks the broth. It's just too big
and distracting. |
|
|
|
Nick Sparks |
|
| An enigmatic image. Like the others
I feel it would sit better if rotated to correct the verticals and a
change of hue to the left side of the desktop so it follows the rest of
the desk. Perhaps clone out the lamp cable too. |
|
|
|
Guy Davies |
|
| With this type of picture I don't
think verticals and horizontals matter. A bit on the tilt adds to the
slight melancholy feel and takes the viewer away from ordinary reality
into dreamy reminiscence and regret that summer is gone. Unfortunately,
for me at least, the only connection with the end of summer is the
picture on the wall, so the photo could have been taken at any time. If
this had been a real view through a window (montaged in Photoshop if
necessary) then I think it would really have been great. |
|
|
|
Sue Eley |
|
| Well, like your previous shots it
does seem to tell a story. The juxtaposition of the girl, the desk and
the picture does not speak to me in the way the other pictures did. May
be partly a gender thing; however, I am not sure I feel the element
really sit comfortably together, either. |
|
|
|
Jim Clark |
|
| I'm not so concerned about the
verticals - but much more with the image as a concept. The girl looks
very uncomfortable indeed all trussed up and made to lie on what appears
to be a chest of drawers.... and that lamp and flex do nothing to help
the image either |
|
|
|
Paula Davies |
|
| That statement of Jim's that the
girl looks all trussed up confirmed my first thoughts. The roundness of
the shoulder, together with the two breasts, make it seem as if there is
one too many. |
|
|
|
John Long |
|
The diagonal doesn't workl for me
when there are verticals in the picture like the lampstand. I also find
the picture on the wall to be a distraction.
Mansour - how about a few comments from you on some of our pictures
please!
This is a two-way exchange |
|
|
|
Christopher Haydon |
|
| The eye of the girl is most
engaging. However position on the desk looks really uncomfortable and
that seems to push her exposed shoulder into a position so it appears
like a third breast. The sloping diagonals also make me feel she's about
to slide of table. Like others I can see the 'End of Summer' in the
background picture but not the whole. Sorry it doesn't work for me. |
|
|
|
Pauline Earl |
|
| It's an unusual image, but I keep
thinking she has 3 breasts! |
 |
|
Mansour Akbari |
Until tomorrow.. |
| Thank you for all comments. I am
sorry I can't write comment because of my language but I appreciated
from your advise that help me to improve my knowledge about digital
imaging. thanks to all. |
|
Comments: |
|
John Long |
|
Not quite as successful as some of
your earlier images - whilst you have posed the lady very well against
the light wall, I feel you should have illuminated her face and near arm
a little more - perhaps by way of a reflector.
The view beyond is not very photogenic and rather too sharp. |
|
|
|
Chris Strevens |
|
| A dreamy look and a little sad. The
view looks a bit awful, but flats are like that. I expect we will all
live in them soon. |
|
|
|
Brian Cooke |
|
| Chris what a depressing thought! I
like the image it has a dreamy feel to it. |
|
|
|
Alan Dedman |
|
| Not as good as some I have seen
from you. The face is well isolated against the white wall and the
reflection is nice. Could be the verticals are not quite right, but that
could be my monitor. The border is OK, but the darker areas don't seem
to help. Maybe thats just me! |
|
|
|
Herbert Housley MBE |
|
| Not quite up to some of your
previous submissions, but well posed. |
|
|
|
Vincent Lowe |
|
| Nothing more to add to the above.
Having just spent six nights in an apartment in the old part of
Barcelona I can definitely say that apartment living is not for me! |
|
|
|
Paula Davies |
|
| I rather like this. As it's a bit
small it's difficult to assess it properly. |
|
|
|
Christopher Haydon |
|
| I agree with Paula regarding size
and assessment. I think the outside window/shutters compete with your
model so I'd perhaps blur them. |
|
|
|
Guy Davies |
|
I like the pose and love the
reflection on the right hand side. However, the image is too dark as
presented, and even when brightened up in Photoshop CS
Shadows/Highlights, there is no detail in the black dress. I think the
subject has too much contrast between the black dress and the wall
outside. Some additional lighting inside, or maybe a reflector perhaps
would have helped.
Mansour, I am sure we all appreciate your problems with the language, so
maybe you could comment simply by saying whether you like our pictures
or not. Even two or three words would be welcome. Do keep showing your
pictures. |
|
|
|
Sue Eley |
|
| I think the refelction in the
inside window is interesting but agree that the outside is a bit
dominant. |
|
|
|
Gitta Lim |
|
Too small and dark version to
appreciate all the details - had to open it up in PS - I also like her
pose and reflection on the window is a nice touch.
PS - Mansour - I agree with Guy - I'm a Finn but try my best to say
'something'. |
|
|
|
Tara Taylor |
|
| I like the pose but agree about the
dark areas. |
|
|
|
John Harrison |
|
| I agree with the above comments,
perhaps a low fill in flash would be another option to lighten the
interior. |
|
|
|
Sue Eley |
|
| Please do 'talk to us' Mansour.
Even a short comment would be nice! |
|
|
|
Ian Ledgard |
|
| Good idea but others have already
pointed out the downsides. |
|
Mansour Akbari |
The North |
| |
|
Comments: |
|
Chris Strevens |
|
| Nice painterly image |
|
|
|
Tara Taylor |
|
| Very interesting effect. I like it
a lot. |
|
|
|
Carole Hallett |
|
| I like the effect too |
|
|
|
John Long |
|
| I prefer this without the heavy
foliage at the top of the frame |
|
|
|
Mary Clark |
|
| The effect you have achieved ,
seems to have melted the subject matter unevenly. So it looks like there
is a lot of smoke hanging over the boat in the trees, which is catching
the eye. I feel that the boat should be the zing point of this picture.
Nevertheless , it is a good image, and worth persevering with. |
|
|
|
Christopher Haydon |
|
| A very interesting image. I'm with
John in cropping the heavy foliage at the top of the frame and I'd also
crop a similar amount at the bottom of the image. Worth further
experiments. |
|
|
|
Paula Davies |
|
| It's good to experiment. I like the
bottom half but not so keen on the top. |
|
|
|
Herbert Housley MBE |
|
| Quite an interesting image that is
enhanced by the treatment given. |
|
|
|
Guy Davies |
|
| An interesting effect and I wish I
could see the image at a higher resolution, because I think this is a
picture which needs to be quite large (A3 print?). I think I would take
a large part of the featureless black at the bottom, but I am not so
concerned about the top as this does have detail when opened in
Photoshop. |
|
|
|
Ian Ledgard |
|
| I think the image is in the bottom
half - out with the crop tool !! |
|
|
|
Ian Skelly |
|
| Have to agree, crop off its
head.... |
|
|
|
Stanley Newton |
|
| Nice to see somone experimenting.
It is interesting but must say that I don't think it quite comes off.
|
|
|
|
Jim Clark |
|
| This is a bit of a curate's egg for
me - whilst I like the idea of the shot, the execution does seem rather
haphazard (and I don't get the title). You could certainly crop te shot
and the sky seems to bleach out.....and is it me or is the whole thing a
bit soft? |
|
|
|
Keith Smith |
|
| Something very different but it
needs the crop which has already been mentioned. |
|
|
|
Sue Eley |
|
| Painterly - and interesting, but I
think the bright area of the sky are a bit too bright. |
|
|
|
Alan Dedman |
|
| It is interesting and different.
Nice to have a differing view. Whether or not I like it, well, I'm not
sure. I know I don't dislike it. |
|
Mansour Akbari |
Archway, London |
I am wonder why every one think the
image have to be in focus.
there are many people can't see things properly even by glasses.
the photographer job is to show realty of life not beauty of life.
|
|
Comments: |
|
Ron Sims |
|
In the light of Mansour's comment -
I'm stumped! The flowers do look in focus but it's hard to tell with
such a small image. (only 350 px wide)
I like the idea of the sky replacing the table-top but the title leaves
me bewildered. It looks cleverly done BUT..... |
|
|
|
Reinhard Klein |
|
Mansour,
I cant make the connection between title and image, sorry, neither your
comment on focus makes sense to me, the quality of your image (pixel
size should be 500, size 100kb so we can see anything useful on our
screens) does not let me judge focus even.
To the comment that people cannot properly see with glasses, that should
not apply to people who enjoy photography, like us, and not on this
forum, I would assume. |
|
|
|
Sue Eley |
|
| Umm. As someone who put up a
picture of sand called 'Tenby', I will assume your image says archway to
you. I like the sky/table idea a lot. We all hope to see things
reasonably well with glasses. If the image is sharp, we can at least
try. However, if you choose to express what the world looks like with
uncorrected vision, you could. But I think you would need to wear your
glasses to produce the image. Turner was reputed to have poor vision
which may have related to the technique he adopted - but not in a
straigtforward way, if at all, I suspect. Sometimes we need to
photograph horrible things - look at the press awards, they are truly
horrific. |
|
|
|
Guy Davies |
|
I can see this starting a bit of
discussion. The picture is not really large enough to see if it is in
focus or not. However, it can be quite artistic to use blur/out of focus
on some images. I once saw a successful FRPS lanel which was all out of
focus. On this image, I assume we are looking at a glass table-top which
is reflecting the sky. I think the grass background at the top of the
image brings reality into the picture and I would rather have the
surreal effect of the flower vase floating in space with the sky behind
it.
As for the job of the photographer, well some like to show beauty, some
like to portray moods, some like to tell a story and some like to show
reality. I think there is room for all of these plus more. Vive la
difference! |
|
|
|
Gitta Lim |
|
| I presume Akbari is referring to
his previous images where he has used gaussian blur. This - although
small - seems to be in sharp focus. Cannot quite see the attraction in
adding the chopper - sky would have been enough. I should say - I've
replaced a bee in one of my flower images with a yellow/black chopper.
:-) |
|
|
|
Chris Strevens |
|
| Weird |
|
|
|
Nick Sparks |
|
| Surreal.......I think ? |
|
|
|
John Long |
|
| As a creative image it works for me
- but I would certainly take the sky reflection right to the top of the
frame and remove the green grass. |
|
|
|
Ian Skelly |
|
| I can only repeat John's comment.
good creative image but please remove the grass. |
|
|
|
Herbert Housley MBE |
|
| It's very different. I agree with
John the grass needs to be removed. |
|
|
|
Paula Davies |
|
| Yes, surreal is the right word.
Nick, you often seem to express my feelings on this folio. Hope it's
great minds thinking alike :-). Agree with John about the grass and also
the others who don't understand Mansour's comments. |
|
|
|
Ian Ledgard |
|
| A clever shot but a pity you have
left that band of grass at the top. |
|
|
|
Alan Dedman |
|
| Sorry, but I would leave the grass
there. Not sure how it was achieved, but , for me, the grass gives it
some reality. Overall, I like it. |
|
|
|
Norman D Chappell |
|
| Remove the grass at the top then
you will jhave a nice picture to be discussed about. |
|
Mansour Akbari |
Archway, London |
I am wonder why every one think the
image have to be in focus.
there are many people can't see things properly even by glasses.
the photographer job is to show realty of life not beauty of life.
|
|
Comments: |
|
Ron Sims |
|
In the light of Mansour's comment -
I'm stumped! The flowers do look in focus but it's hard to tell with
such a small image. (only 350 px wide)
I like the idea of the sky replacing the table-top but the title leaves
me bewildered. It looks cleverly done BUT..... |
|
|
|
Reinhard Klein |
|
Mansour,
I cant make the connection between title and image, sorry, neither your
comment on focus makes sense to me, the quality of your image (pixel
size should be 500, size 100kb so we can see anything useful on our
screens) does not let me judge focus even.
To the comment that people cannot properly see with glasses, that should
not apply to people who enjoy photography, like us, and not on this
forum, I would assume. |
|
|
|
Sue Eley |
|
| Umm. As someone who put up a
picture of sand called 'Tenby', I will assume your image says archway to
you. I like the sky/table idea a lot. We all hope to see things
reasonably well with glasses. If the image is sharp, we can at least
try. However, if you choose to express what the world looks like with
uncorrected vision, you could. But I think you would need to wear your
glasses to produce the image. Turner was reputed to have poor vision
which may have related to the technique he adopted - but not in a
straigtforward way, if at all, I suspect. Sometimes we need to
photograph horrible things - look at the press awards, they are truly
horrific. |
|
|
|
Guy Davies |
|
I can see this starting a bit of
discussion. The picture is not really large enough to see if it is in
focus or not. However, it can be quite artistic to use blur/out of focus
on some images. I once saw a successful FRPS lanel which was all out of
focus. On this image, I assume we are looking at a glass table-top which
is reflecting the sky. I think the grass background at the top of the
image brings reality into the picture and I would rather have the
surreal effect of the flower vase floating in space with the sky behind
it.
As for the job of the photographer, well some like to show beauty, some
like to portray moods, some like to tell a story and some like to show
reality. I think there is room for all of these plus more. Vive la
difference! |
|
|
|
Gitta Lim |
|
| I presume Akbari is referring to
his previous images where he has used gaussian blur. This - although
small - seems to be in sharp focus. Cannot quite see the attraction in
adding the chopper - sky would have been enough. I should say - I've
replaced a bee in one of my flower images with a yellow/black chopper.
:-) |
|
|
|
Chris Strevens |
|
| Weird |
|
|
|
Nick Sparks |
|
| Surreal.......I think ? |
|
|
|
John Long |
|
| As a creative image it works for me
- but I would certainly take the sky reflection right to the top of the
frame and remove the green grass. |
|
|
|
Ian Skelly |
|
| I can only repeat John's comment.
good creative image but please remove the grass. |
|
|
|
Herbert Housley MBE |
|
| It's very different. I agree with
John the grass needs to be removed. |
|
|
|
Paula Davies |
|
| Yes, surreal is the right word.
Nick, you often seem to express my feelings on this folio. Hope it's
great minds thinking alike :-). Agree with John about the grass and also
the others who don't understand Mansour's comments. |
|
|
|
Ian Ledgard |
|
| A clever shot but a pity you have
left that band of grass at the top. |
|
|
|
Alan Dedman |
|
| Sorry, but I would leave the grass
there. Not sure how it was achieved, but , for me, the grass gives it
some reality. Overall, I like it. |
|
|
|
Norman D Chappell |
|
| Remove the grass at the top then
you will jhave a nice picture to be discussed about. |
|
