The Pratice Issue
by graphicfunk

Comment:
I very much like the play this makes on the concept; not only have we the metronome, which is a purely mechanical device, but we have the idea of the musician practicing the mechanics of his craft. I'd quibble with the cropping left (needs a tad more space) and fore (I don't want to lose the tiny bit of the metronome cover that's missing).

Mechanical lock gates
by geewhy

Comment:
This is really, really sweet, the tonalities are so pure, the composition is so locked-in, the flow of the water is so palpable. I appreciate also that this one is outside the box, not just one more of the same thing. There's a LOT of gears, sprokets, and clocks in this challenge...

Mechanic mobile... in perpetuum
by alithenake

Comment:
Extraordianry image, if a trifle loud for my tastes.

The Perfect Machine
by Terramar

Comment:
Very sweet, in the main. I am not 100% sure of using the foot as an example of "mechanical", which I take to be non-organic, but of course the foot is a system of levers. Anyway maybe the shoe's your machine? Whatever... My problem here is I really like the softness of the lighting on foot and step, but can't stand the very unnatural-looiing cutout on the claf, and I think overlaying the border is gimmicky...

Just an old puncher...
by LevT

Comment:
sharp as a tack, appealing image. It's a little pat, it's hard to get excited about, but it's well-shot. The hot spot ont he tabletop may be a hair too aggressive.

Mechanical Meter
by Alipio

Comment:
Virtually flawless image. Wonderful lighting, fine use of negative sapce. I'm not sure I'd opt for such cool tonalities on the flesh but I'm sure the decisionw as a conscious one and it IS eerie. I love how the concept "mechanical" is placed in opposition to the electrical component that, while the most brightly colored element in the pic, is NOT the subject of the pic.

kite surfing
by whiteroom

Comment:
Goodman,

This is an exceptionally nice image, perfect for the challenge. I didn't view or rate all the images in "wind" or I'd surely have ranked this right near the top.

I'm going to come right out and disagree witht hose who advocate cropping top and bottom. IMO this would be a serious mistake; the square framing is optimal for this image. It's all about this absolutely palpable tension between man and kite/wind, and this is taking place on an almost pure diagonal that could only be weakened by the cropping. A square format is very good at highlighting such internal, push me-pull you tension.

Likewise, is trongly believe the monochrome is right for this image. I'd have to see the original to be sure, but as I visualize it in the original you have two large gields of color top and bottom competing with each other and the kite popping out and up from that conflict. I see the color fields introducing an unnecessary element to the competition between man and wind. In this monochrome version, the values of sky and sand are so similar, so down-key, that they provide a more neutral field on which the conflict may evolve. Your choice of sepia-like tonality is optimal to my eye, as it introduces a vaguely "dated" look to the image, making it somehow emblematic of an eternal battle man has always fought.

So this is all good.

What's not so good? For one thing, the collapsed kites on the beach under the figure's feet are distracting. Absent the basic editing rules, I'd brush them out or at least burn them down (how we would have done it in film days) so they are less distracting. Almost as problematical is the scimitar-like edge of the seconf kite rising from behind the subject kite. I'd also brush that out, absent the rules.

Finally, in an ideal world this kite might be a tad more airborne, so the bottom curve was actually clearing the skyline behind. That's about it for nits. This is an exceptionally fine entry and I'm a little surprised it didn't place higher.

Nevertheless, a very good showing for a terrific challenge solution.

(robt)

Carry me!, and show me the world.
by Valdo

Comment:
***CRITIQUE CLUB RESPONSE***

Ivaldovi,

There's a lot to like in this image, but just as much keeping me from liking it a LOT, if you get my drift. I'm going to discuss the picture outside the context of the challenge, if that's ok? The reason is, as a "wind" challenge entry I don't think it works especially well, speaking more to me of serentity than of the turmoil of wind. You'll understand what I mean if you think of "Forrest Gump"; when the feather was floating around it was soft and swoopy, not being carried agressively by a wind. In fact, what was noticeable in "Gump" was the absence[/i) of wind, the condition of a feather falling in calm conditions.

The more I look at this picture, the more I deduce it was either shot vertically (in an actual breeze) and rotated 90 degrees, or perhaps shot with the arch up and the downy feathers hanging through fravity, then rotated 180 degrees. Speaking of the orientation of the image now, it is lit from directly below.

As has been mentioned by several critiquers, the framing of the shot is unfortunate; the image is too far up and the feather is truncated on the left. From this I deduce that you were probably [i]holding the feather, perhaps in your fingers, and thus had no choice but to cut the shaft off where you did. Regard;less of how this came about, it seems a bad decision to me. I'd really like to see the entire feather here, it's the only way you can really give me that sense of floating free that the image needs so badly. Condisering the extreme darkness of the background, you probably could have done this with a very thin wire inserted into the shaft and spray-painted matte black.

Another issue is the lighting. While it's not bad, I feel it could be improved if the light source were not only beaneath the feather but also a little behind it, so there's a trace of translucent backlighting. Did you try this?

Finally, given that the challenge is "wind" it might have been better not to have the feather so squared up within the frame, but rather at some sort of an angle. This could be just a matter of the same edge-on view but a less-horizontal alignment, but arguably the feather itself should be twsited somewhat in 3 dimensions. In other words, while keeping the same edge-on view, perhaps rotate the feather about its shaft so the far side is a little higher than the near side. Then rotate the feathet like a clock face, so it's maybe 30 degrees off vertical. This ought to bring a little more dynamics to the image, suggest a sense of movement.

These suggestions are not that radically different from what you've done, just a matter of tweaking things for a less-static image.

Let me know if you do any more experimenting with this...

Robt.



Message edited by author 2004-12-27 21:45:57.

windy flame
by greslizzz

Comment:
***CRITIQUE CLUB RESPONSE***

Greslizz,

You've noticed this iamge has drawn very few responses. Why? because nothing about it stands out, really, as compelling a return visit to the image or a comment. It's basically a plain-vanilla shot of a candle flame. Appealing enough, but nothing to get our juices flowing.

On the plus side, your framing of the shot is pretty good; there's a basic dynamic to the composition that works decently. However, the background is, to me eyes, a disaster; it adds nothing to the candle/flame subject, and in fact detracts from it. If the background were toned down a couple stops that might work a little better, but this would be kind of hard to do within the basic editing rules.

What's really working against you here is the blown-out highlight of the flame. If the flame were properly exposed, it woudl have nuances of color and separation that would bring life to the image. This, most likely, would require supplemental lighting to bring up the candlestub itself. So while you're dealing with this lighting issue, you can also light the background in such a way that both the stub and the flame "pop" out from a more subdued, but still visibly-grained, horizontal wooden backdrop.

I hope this has been helpful. If you try to remake this image, as an exercise, please let me know and I'll look at the new version too.

(robt)

Wind summoned
by nico_blue

Comment:
***CRITIQUE CLUB RESPONSE***

Nico,

I can see in my mind's eye what you're after here, and it's quite a challenge you set yourself with this picture. It would be extremely difficult to pull off, and this particular image isn't even close to the "wow" point, unfortunately.

1. The overall sense of the image is muddy.
2. The depth-of-field is way too shallow.
3. even within the shallow DOF, the fingertips are not what we'd want to emphasize, certainly not at the expense of the paper fragments.
4. The vertical framing is working against what you'd want to accomplish; landscape mode would allow more horizontal "woosh".
5. For an image that's meant to convey "wind" this is curiously static. The horizontal framing proposed above would help free it up, as would placing the fingertips at a more dynamic, diagonal angle.
6. I suspect that using some degree of backlighting (only the fingertips would be lit, not the finger fronts, and the paper chips would glow a little) would help this image a lot.
7. I'd also like to see, within the horizontal framing, some of the paper chips blown beyond the fingers, I think...

Good luck with this one if you choose to keep trying to perfect the concept. I'd love to see any further results.

(robt)