pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by Pixlmaker:
I really like this shot, but I don't see much in the way of shallow DOF. 5

pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by batmaing:
DOF not very apparent in this image. I think allowing more a bit more light in the background would've helped.

pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by fotodude:
the lighting throws me here it is lighter under the cats chin but if it was true moon light it would be lighter on the face with a shadow upon the chin and under fur of the cat.....sorry i over think things..but don't ignor your lighting please cause this is a fine shot but for that small detail...really light is your image with out light there would be no photography or digital imaging or anything of that nature...so don't ignor it. i can make or break a photo...in this case it just shows that the photo was staged, not a bad thing but if it was not your intent to show the staged nature of the shot then do your math...i gess that the best way to put it....

if it is real moon light then try to make that the only light in the image or at least the predominit light scorse...so the viewer doesn't doubt the photos validity...

the noise level is reasonable and doesn't distract and the smoothness of neat image of a gaussain blur apea to be there but not in any overwhelming way so over all it is a nice shot and i wish u luck....btw the 3 light spots in the cats eyes also are odd when talking about moonlight which when it is high in the sky is primarly ambaint...and when full and lower in the sky would show as a very large reflection or flar in the cats eye...like i said GL 7

pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by lectrol:
Not exactly shallow DOF but an awesome picture!

pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by LaMerry:
So deep... Never seen a pic of a cat with such a deep sight... Uhm.

pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by msieglerfr:
I do not like the lighting. sorry - 4

pale moon rising
by dragonlady

Comment by Tommy 2 Tone:
Love the photo I just don't think their is enough depth of field

the painting
by dragonlady

Comment by n1c0la:
Very different subject matter. Magical qualtiy

the painting
by dragonlady

Comment by hutch699:
This would have been great with a brush in his hand and then called it "The painter" with a reflection of how the old painters had to work before lights. Still enjoy the image though

six
by dragonlady

Comment by ubique:
Greetings from the Dead Critics Society!
There is much to like about this photograph. It's a very absorbing study of tone and shape, and the minimalist lighting was well chosen to accentuate those two qualities of the subject - tone and form. Several commentators endorsed your achievement in that respect.
Another comment, perhaps the most interesting and perceptive of all, applauded the "misleading" nature of the effect you have achieved. By this she clearly meant that the subject forks were presented in a way that disguised their identity, at least at first glance, but which instead revealed something important about their true nature or "personality" ... i.e. their clean, elegant lines, especially when seen as a group.
There are several things you have done to accomplish that in addition to the lighting; there's the top-and-tail arrangement of the forks, the cropping to exclude the tips and handles, and the rotation of the image to provide a less familiar viewpoint.
The result is two things. First, ambiguity. Ambiguity is always good in an artwork, because it forces into gear the brain of even the most lazy of viewers (well, maybe not literally the most lazy, otherwise this would have appeared on the first page of the challenge results). Second, it reveals and celebrates an essential quality of the subject that we would probably have overlooked had it been instantly apparent that we were just looking at half a dozen forks. My first guess, if I were seeing this image without the context of the challenge topic, would have been some kind of fine glassware.
Possibly a greater depth of field may have satisfied those viewers who need to see everything in focus to avoid 'distraction'. It may even have thereby resulted in a higher score for this thoughtful image, but I'm not sure that would have added anything to the considerable artistic merits of your work.
And that's the point of my critique. Those photographic pedants with elaborate equipment and perfect technique may feel they could take a better photograph of forks. But what they would be failing to understand is that yours is a photograph about forks.