Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by Falc:
brilliant use of the chain-link fencing

Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by srbrubaker:
I love the way the wire fence frames the eyes. We are left with a strong impression that the bird is a sentient being and that she sits flightless but safe behind this fence sadly dreaming of a wide open range. For the first minute I spent with this photo I strongly resented that the wire cut off her beak. And then I discovered that this sentiment somehow put me metaphorically on the same side of the fence as the captive. Now all I can say is Bravo. It's brilliant.

Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by lshles:
This one really catches my eye. I think I might have cropped it with just the rectangle that the subject is in. The lower area with the beak detracts. Great eyes!

Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by alfresco:
Nice capture, excellent use of the fencing to frame the (quite captive) subject. 7

Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by BAMartin:
High marks for humor :-)

Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by JunieMoon:
Since I am lacking in technical skills, I cannot give helpful comments. I am strictly a photo buff who is trying to improve, but as to telling you what is wrong or right, I am in no position to say. I am simply voting based on whether I like the picture or not. Sorry, maybe someday I will be able to give helpful advice

Captive Gaze
by KaDi

Comment by CorySmith:
the eyes are really pretty, nice and bright red
almost neon

No Turning Back
by KaDi

Comment by mesmeraj:
KaDi - compared to the other typerwritters, this was one of the better ones imho. You took it from an interesting angle, and i like that you took it to the next level by typing just a smidge.
The lighting seems a little iffy - i cant quite put my finder on it, but i think you are just lit from the rifht and maybe a counter balance of the left side would have helped. Metal can sometimes get that funny oversharpened look to it when it is narrow, and i think that might be what happened here. I have a feeling the image might have been slightly stronger in b&w (check out the typwritters that did score higher than yours) and a little jiggle with the curves so that the paper was a true white.

I think you did really well, it is hard to score when there is more than one person with the same idea and you still pulled through!

No Turning Back
by KaDi

Comment by nico_blue:
In respone to the brutally honest obsolete thread here is my hopefully constrcutive critic...

First thing that i noticed was the wierd lighting.. seems like your white balance was off, and you were mixing two types of lights which further confused your camera (seems like blue light coming from the left and tungsten light from the right)... also the image quality seems really bad.

Looking at the photo info i think i can immediately pin point the problem, you shot at 8 seconds exposure! Assuming you used a tripod and a remote to remove any camera shake it is really really hard to get fine detial from such a long exposure if whatever you are shooting isnt producing its own light. Things to take at 8 seconds are city scapes at night, moving lights of various kinds e.g. moving car trails, moving water, mulitple exposures with strobes, etc.

Take the same shot outdoors in broad daylight and compare the two...

I would also recommend you read up on exposure, aperature, shutter speeds, etc. You seem very fond of using high aperatures e.g. f16 or f20. Using such high aperatures is not necessarily a problem but using them in the wrong situations is. Also do some research on the lenses you use, find out which aperature settings give the best results.

I think once you learn good techniques you should notice a change in your scores. Also dont be afraid to sit down and read your camera manual from cover to cover.

Good luck!

No Turning Back
by KaDi

Comment by dahkota:
KaDi, in looking at other typewriter entries two things strike me - B&W and high contrast. I would bet if you had desaturated this, it would have scored higher. No clue why... A few of them used a lot more editing from what I can see. Not better, not worse, just different. In this particular image, I think your lighting doesn't help you. There seems to be more than one light source - one tungsten and one natural daylight - that compete with each other to set a mood. Neither win, leaving your image sort of flat. This is a great shot of an old typewriter. Its just not much beyond that. Its like stock - technically good but doesn't make me feel anything. Make sense? Hope I'm not too harsh...