Buried
by FleaNZ

Comment:
What a great camouflage idea :)

1987
by joansuzy

Comment:
::: Critique Club :::
Well, this takes us back a bit doesn't it. Yes, by definition a slide is made with transparency film. What a hassle it used to be getting out the viewer and/or the projector just to admire your work.

First Impression - the most important one:
The first impression for those who've been there is a nice bit of nostalgia. For those that aren't familiar with slides, it would be a bit puzzling. The image doesn't have a dramatic impact, more of an editorial interest. There's not a hook of some sough there to draw you into the picture a little more.

Composition:
This composition of piles of slides certainly conveys the volume of slides that we acccumulate and also how hard they were to view. Such a busy layout poses a problem for the viewer - they don't know where to look. All thse composition rules might sound silly but they are about the way in which people react to an image, any image. So using the 'rules' of Thirds and Leading Lines can and do make a difference. Google them, there's lots of good informationa and discussions on the net.

Subject:
You are spot on the challenge subject, in fact more so than 90% of the entries because you have found a literal transparency and shown it well. So it's probably a surprise that so many voters didn't get it.

The apparent subject in this image as presented is busy nostalgia when in reality though, the story you wanted to convey was about the transpaerncy film as a genre. So what's needed to do that? I would think less slides probably, a layout that was part of the story and a way in which you can see the film's transparent properties.

Technical (Colour and light):
It's sharp and perfectly exposed but the lighting is where it could have really shone but didn't. You need backlight. As the commenters said too, just some light coming through the film would make all the difference. You have the perfect subject but it needs backlight to show it off.

Ok, how do you do that? Someone mentioned a 'light table'. Now most homes don't have such a thing. Why would you, but you can make one. If you have a piece of glass anywhere in the house, you've got a light table. There's glass in the most unlikely places like a china cabinet. Lift a door or shelf out and lie it flat on a few books to give you some space under it, put tissue or paper under it with a light = light table.

To get a Ribbon?:
Drama and impact get votes. Anything that generates an emotive reaction will attract people to spend a little longer looking at the image. If it makes them smile, gasp or cringe doesn't matter - any of those are better than no reaction at all.

Summary:
I think you have a very very strong idea here and its a pity that for technical reasons it didn't come off as well as you hoped.

It's hard to know what the wow factor could have been without experimanting. Certainly the lighting is important but over and above that it would need something else. That might be in the selection of the slides and some of the slly images they have on them. Perhaps it might have been just one slide with a poignant image in it and very soft gold light just illuminating the cardboard slide frame.

Such puzzles are certainly the fun of the challenges and I see that you have entered many with really good ideas. Looking at your portfolio I would suggest working on three areas - simplicity (less is more), composition and low angle lighting. See how you go, look forward to seeing the results :)

Brett

Transeyes
by gaeali

Comment:
::: Critique Club :::
Good quality nature photography, especially macro, is a pleasure to view.

First Impression - the most important one:
Stunningly clear and interesting. The whole package is strong and draws you as viewer into the image to learn more. Even though I hate bugs, this is a cool photo. I didn't see it as transparent.

Composition:
Normally, one is obliged to point out the thirds rule and suggest that a centred image, as this one is, can be less powerful than on off-centred one. I'm not sure that is the case here since it looks balanced and well composed just as it is. Part of that perception of balance may be because the subject itself has formed a leading line which then determines the point of interest at the head rather well.

Subject:
I don't really see this as a record of transparency, which is probably where it lost most of its voting points. Getting away from the challenge and concentrating on the photograph, it is a powerful and well crafted image of a praying mantis. I could see that as an illustration in a book quite easily.

Technical (Colour and light):
The real power of this image is in its colouring. Image how it would have looked if there'd bee red or yellow flowers behind the mantis. It is the green subject on green background (the same greeens too) which give it such a significant look.

Your lighting, focus and DOF are superb. I'm drawn to the little folds on the lower neck. The 90 deg to the left lighting is just perfect for this. The shine on the foreleg gives us a feeling for the texture of the skin yet the parts in shadow are still quite clear and detailed.

The light catching the eye is just plain spooky. When you look really hard, you can see the transparency of the eye, it's just not expected or believable at first glance - which is a shame.

To get a Ribbon?:
This is a fine bug shot. Bug shots don't get ribbons, they're not meant to. They are there to inform and involve, which is an entirely different brief. As an insect study its a 10. To get closer to a transparency ribbon then I suspect you have to go for the drama and impact of the transparent eye.

I don't know how much is cropped already or how many megapixels you have to work with but a head-only crop would be pretty scary and interesting. It would have serious drama and would meet the challenge in a way that few other submissions did.

Summary:
I didn't 'like' this image when I was voting, I only gave it a 5. I didn't see the transparency of the eye, even though it was in the caption. Without the ability to zoom in and have a look or darken the room, I missed the most important point of it. Since it has come to me for critique and I have had the chance to work with it as an image outside of the challenge as well, I have come to really appreciate it.

You did well
Brett

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 18:03:05.

CHANEL No. 5
by Faye Pekas

Comment:
::: cRITIQUE cLUB :::

Nice Product Shot.

To really push transparency, you probably needed to work some backlight into this shot. Your subject has ended up more opaque than transparent.

I can't really do a complete critique for you as there are no Photographer's Comments with your submission which would give us a sense of what you were trying to achieve and how.

Brett

Petals and Raindrops
by Bowerbird

Comment:

The commenters have said it all really.

I would have preferred to have seen you Photographer's Comments with your submission so we could get a sense of what you were trying to do

Brett

Message edited by HBunch - Removed Critique Club status.

Pasta of Activity
by kingduck777

Comment:
The out of focus just renders this as a bad image. If you meant it to be in motion then you needed to induce more motion into it so it looks deliberate

Busy Boy
by gsal

Comment:
Great sharpness and light, has a 'story' because he's doing something, not posing.

Dead End
by tfarrell23

Comment:
Great image. Just the right amount of drama and mystery to make it interesting ... and one of the few so far that even gets close to the subject!

Feather Bed
by tonyv

Comment:
::: Critique Club :::
This was always going to be a fun challenge to critique since the interpretation of "Delicate" is so flexible and free-ranging.

First Impression - the most important one:
I must confess, I looked at this image and thought it was "nice". Nice is ok, but it doesn't quite turn you on. It's a perfectly lovely picture but not exciting . Itis by no means a bad photograph, on the contrary. I think that's probably why you're dissappointed with the way it scored. Lets see why that might have happened.

Composition:
The composition is great because the joining of the hard-shelled egg and the soft fronds of the feathers blend on the thirds intersection. There is a good leading line formed by the two feather stems. That featherless valley is running perfectly from bottom left to the egg's point of interest. Whatever elements we might explore with this image in an endeavour to make it attract a higher scoring, composition will not be one of them.

Subject:
The choice of two iconic delicate items, eggs and feathers, was a clever one. The subject is right on challenge. An awful lot of submissions (some scored higher too) were not strictly adherent to the subject, this one is. You have the elements here to create a feeling of delicacy and lightness but it just seemed to fail to ignite voters. Instead of wondering -what- it was, I wondered -why- it was. There seemed to be a 'reason' missing in the image. I'll talk in general in the summary about viewer involvement.

Technical (Colour and light):
The brown egg and soft white of the feathers is an attractive combination. Your focus and depth of field are great. To get such sharp feather elements as well as the egg's shell texture is good skills.

I think the element via which you would probably be able to inject more drama and voter emotion into is in the lighting. It looks as if you may have used daylight from a window? Perhaps over your left shoulder? The effect of that full light on the subject is that it flattens the image and fills in a lot of the potentially interesting shadows. If you still have this set up, I wonder what it looks like as you move a light source around to the side, to the back and/or underneath. Each of these would create a vastly different effect. It may be better (subjective response) but it may not.

To get a Ribbon?:
The sole purpose of the lighting variation exercise is to see if you can get an "Oh wow" response to a capture. Winning votes is a somewhat artificial goal if an image has a story to tell. Often you can't tell that story with a likeable image. But shots like this don't have a story, they therefore need somethhing more. As I said above, if we have to ask why the image is there then we have to win some hearts (and votes) by throwing gee-whiz factors at them :)

Summary:
This isn't directed at you or your image specifically Tony, its an observation I'd like to make in general.

[SoapBox]In saying that just aiming at winning votes is an artificial goal, I was being a little cynical. With any image not made for your own personal enjoyment, you are by definition preparing your image for other people. In doing that, you are wanting something from them. You are asking for approval, understanding, or support. If you are asking, then you must give in return. This is what commercial images do. In advertising, editorial, exhibitions and journalism you have to find that element that connects with the viewer and draws them into your image. Usually that means you have to get an emotive response which can range from a laugh to a tear to a nod of understanding to a gasp of shock - it doesn't matter. You may get all of those from different people to the same image - way cool.[/soapbox]

Thanks for the opportuntiy to review your image

Brett

the creamery
by mcmurma

Comment:
Oh yes, very well done. Great rainbow light, looking forward to finding out how you created that.