New Photo to critique for the Week November 13th

In recent weeks we seem have gotten very dynamic with this
process,
which I find to be a nice way of approaching this critique
group. The
"target" posts a shot, maybe with alternative
versions available, we
critique and offer sugestions, the target may implement some
of those
suggestions. Sometimes a reviewer throws in their own
version of the
same image, The body of images to be considered widens
through the
week. Makes us all stay on our toes, right?

This is working so much better than the prior attempt where
there was a
string of images to be dealt with from different
photographers. Here we
are able to really dissect a particular photograph or
subject quite
extensively. As long as the target has thick skin, it seems
to be
working nicely. I have learned a lot in the few weeks we
have been
doing this, and not only from my own week in the hot seat.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Photoblog Critiques" group.
To post to this group, send email to photoblog-critiquesgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
photoblog-critiques-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/photoblog-critiques?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I agree.  I'm impressed with how you've all worked this out.
 It's
cool to see things move along like this.

-b

On 11/15/06, forgingahead <rfoss1nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> In recent weeks we seem have gotten very dynamic with
this process,
> which I find to be a nice way of approaching this
critique group. The
> "target" posts a shot, maybe with alternative
versions available, we
> critique and offer sugestions, the target may implement
some of those
> suggestions. Sometimes a reviewer throws in their own
version of the
> same image, The body of images to be considered widens
through the
> week. Makes us all stay on our toes, right?
>
> This is working so much better than the prior attempt
where there was a
> string of images to be dealt with from different
photographers. Here we
> are able to really dissect a particular photograph or
subject quite
> extensively. As long as the target has thick skin, it
seems to be
> working nicely. I have learned a lot in the few weeks
we have been
> doing this, and not only from my own week in the hot
seat.
>
>
> >
>


-- 
Brandon Stone
http://www.brandonstone.
com/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Photoblog Critiques" group.
To post to this group, send email to photoblog-critiquesgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
photoblog-critiques-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/photoblog-critiques?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Here is a link to the original photo.

http://www.pygment.com/blog/2000/11/01/original
-catherdral-image/

I put the full image up so that anyone can play around with
it... I'll
be taking it down at the end of the week.

I own a Nikon D70 but this was taken with a Canon IXUSi, and
it has a
different aspect ratio than the other photos on my site so I
cropped
it down to fit in with the rest of the images, I rearly take
photos in
landscape format....

The IXUSi also allowed me to take the shot in B/W a feature
that the
Nikon doesn't have, This doesn't bother me but it's nice to
have on a
small click and shoot camera.

I removed the wire and the poles from the shot they were
totally
messing it up and it was too much of a modern day intrusion
into the
photo. No one noticed the patchy job i did on the roof of
the
cathedral  sometimes
it's hard to tell if you've gotten it right, or
even just OK.


Dave G
www.pygment.com
----------------------------


On 11/15/06, Brandon Stone <stonelbstone.com> wrote:
>
> I agree.  I'm impressed with how you've all worked this
out.  It's
> cool to see things move along like this.
>
> -b
>
> On 11/15/06, forgingahead <rfoss1nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > In recent weeks we seem have gotten very dynamic
with this process,
> > which I find to be a nice way of approaching this
critique group. The
> > "target" posts a shot, maybe with
alternative versions available, we
> > critique and offer sugestions, the target may
implement some of those
> > suggestions. Sometimes a reviewer throws in their
own version of the
> > same image, The body of images to be considered
widens through the
> > week. Makes us all stay on our toes, right?
> >
> > This is working so much better than the prior
attempt where there was a
> > string of images to be dealt with from different
photographers. Here we
> > are able to really dissect a particular photograph
or subject quite
> > extensively. As long as the target has thick skin,
it seems to be
> > working nicely. I have learned a lot in the few
weeks we have been
> > doing this, and not only from my own week in the
hot seat.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Brandon Stone
> http://www.brandonstone.
com/
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Photoblog Critiques" group.
To post to this group, send email to photoblog-critiquesgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
photoblog-critiques-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/photoblog-critiques?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---