Crossings
by Imagineer

Comment:
I've had second thoughts about this image. Not on its quality; I still like it very much (see original comment below). It's about the processing. Several commentators suggested stronger contrast, yet two specifically applauded the contrast as submitted. And most (including me) commented on the appeal of the stacked vertical layers. But there's another dimension of layers here - look at the horizontal layers. There is a beautiful relationship between tone and horizontal distance in this image. In some places it's bold (the background buildings visible through the mid-layers of the bridge, versus the bridge), and in some places subtle (the watercraft through to and beyond the second bridge). There's even a gentle tonal separation-by-distance of the major parts of the foreground bridge structure. So, the moderately long focal length compresses the scene, but the tonal control deftly separates the elements within it. Elegant. I think this would have been lost with stronger contrast. Now I like it even more.

Perusing the Menu
by Keith Maniac

Comment:
Nice portrait, beautifully lit. Dad, huh? I thought I recognised that distinguished head shape.

The Shapes Of A New Year
by I Enjoy Ham

Comment:
Happy New Year from the Critique Club!
I've seen your portfolio and this is not your best work. What it lacks (but what some of your other stuff does exhibit) is a point, a reason for the viewer to give it any attention. The photograph is not, despite your title, really about the shapes of the pictured objects in any but the most incidental sense. Sure, the bottle has an interesting shape, but if you were going to pay tribute to that shape, this is not the most flattering of points-of-view to see it from. The glasses have an elegance of shape, too, but if they are the subject, why is the champagne bottle in the shot at all?
I know this must seem a dismal and mean-spirited critique, but I don't mean it that way. If your other images did not include some very thoughtful work, I wouldn't dare to be so blunt (i.e if I thought this Shapes II entry was your best stuff).
For example, this ...

was not just beautifully executed technically, but it also elegantly captured the character of the rice; it's simplicity and its purity.
And this ...

was rather more ambitious, and had some very impressive qualities, not the least of which was a meaning, an artistic intent. And that's just what the Shapes II shot is missing.
From a technical viewpoint, the photograph is competent; focus OK, reasonable lighting and depth-of-field, and all that guff. But if the image isn't about something, the quality of the technical stuff is wasted.
As an aside, how'd the glasses get full if the bottle's unopened?
Having said all that negative stuff, I nevertheless wish you a great year in 2006, and will look for your future entries at DPC. Cheers!

Bright
by Cutter

Comment:
This is a very fine photograph. It's rare to see what is at first glance an almost purely graphic image that on closer inspection turns out to have some editorial or artistic point to it. Here I see uncertainty, distrust, perhaps fear of exposure - plenty of absorbing figurative possibilities. It's also a technically confident photograph, presumably because you clearly knew what you were trying to say, so you didn't need to equivocate about how to say it. Clever, that: a deliberately ambiguous message but an unequivocal delivery!
I admire this image because it confronts the viewer, and challenges him/her to think; to participate in the image.

Once upon a time
by jmritz

Comment:

Originally posted by ubique: ... I don't think one can successfully simulate pathos.

I was wrong. This ....

shows how little I know.
My apologies.

Every line has a story
by jmritz

Comment:
This is sublime. For me it suggests something of Norse mythology. Heroic and classical.

And I recently suggested to you that one can't simulate pathos ... more fool me! Whatever this is, it's real.

Opps! Forgot My Spoon
by oerkan

Comment:
Well, hello from the Critique Club,
This won't be easy. According to your profile you have entered 1 challenge, never voted, never posted to a forum, and you live in Turkey (although this photo was taken in Kansas City). You have not ticked any of the 17 comments on this photo as helpful. And you have been a registered user on DPC for more than a year. Hmmmm.
OK. The photo. Pretty popular with the commenters, so I can't argue with that (my personal view is a little less enthusiastic). Technically it might have been improved by less brutal use of the on-camera flash. In fact, by no use of the flash at all. Children have bland faces by comparison with adults, so a more subtle lighting plan does tend to maximise what facial interest they do have, and makes for a more interesting photograph. On the other hand the focus is pretty reasonable. And the frame is very nice.

Message edited by HBunch - fixed CC glitch.

Will
by tate

Comment:
Nice candid portrait. The "matching" beard and hat make a wonderful woolly hamburger bun enclosing his face. I suppose some will be saying "Where's the city?", but where else are you going to find this guy but in a city? He's not going to look comfortable driving a tractor on a farm. He can only be a city guy. It's a very good interpretation of the challenge, to choose a subject that is not the city, but is nevertheless unmistakably part of the city. If the theme was "Africa", the face of a leopard would be equally legitimate, would it not? Bump to 8.

The Joy of Sledding
by puzzled

Comment:
Congratulations on your top score, Amy. Now you've got to beat that, of course!

Once upon a time
by jmritz

Comment:
You'll dislike this comment, but I don't think one can successfully simulate pathos. The quality of the photograph is very nice, though. Very good tonal range. 6.