[fig]

June 4, 2010 at 8:54 am

Thanks for the comments. I agree about the lean on the beacon and will defo fix it before printing thanks. I’m not entirely happy about the flare either, I think my lens wasn’t as clean as it could be.

[fig]

June 3, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Thanks for the comments Brendan. Yeah I was kicking myself after I noticed I had cut the wheel. I had about 5 mins to setup the shot and take it and just wasn’t concentrating.

[fig]

June 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Just a few pointers on this image:

It’s dark.
I think a better exposed image of this waterfall would have more impact and life.
Composition is off.
The waterfall seems cut short and is flowing to the centre of the image. There is also distracting elements

and dead space

.

Context
I can’t get a feel for the scale of the waterfall. I think moving back a little to show surroundings might help

Phil

[fig]

June 3, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Well spotted. Makes me kinda dizzy looking at it.

[fig]

December 2, 2009 at 3:15 pm

No Martin you didn’t miss anything the website and application form say 50cm x 40cm but this is not the case. They say that the form is wrong and it is always 16×12 max. You can see why I and my friend are so annoyed!

[fig]

December 2, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Ballyman: Don’t get me wrong I completely agree with having a maximum size although I think 10 inch on the shortest size for digital is too small and 18×12 would be more in line with the 16×12 35mm print. The problem I have with this whole thing is the application form and IPF website clearly states 50cm x 40cm. They did not honour this size and my friend who produced prints at 18×12 at considerable expense was left with 10 mounted prints that are no good to him. It’s a shame as he was not trying to gain an advantage and didn’t need a truck to get them in.

[fig]

December 2, 2009 at 2:10 pm

I’m not 100% sure what happened since as it wasn’t my panel but I’m sure they will have to refund the money for the application.

I know distinctions aren’t for everyone but I do think they are good to have in place. Some people like to have something to aim for to help them improve and a lot of people in my club aren’t into photography for any professional or artistic reasons. They just like to take photos and have them appreciated by people. It’s a shame that something like this had to happen because I think it will put most people in our club off the idea of going for it again.

-P

[fig]

September 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Wow never picked up on the fact it was the ear ring (it looks a bit strange?) Agreed Mick’s looks the most pleasing. Well done.

[fig]

September 25, 2009 at 8:32 am

I think the reason it won so easily is Mick was one of the only people to remove the god awful shadow growing from underneath the models chin? IMO this was the first thing that should have been “fixed” before applying any other effects.

[fig]

September 15, 2009 at 11:25 am

[fig]

September 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Didn’t notice I got a nomination ( Thanks a million Bricker :-) ).

Congrats Gary, That’s a class photo that could keep you entertained for ages.

– Phil

[fig]

August 26, 2009 at 8:55 am

http://www.mzephotos.com/equipment.html This should work.

Pretty cool.

[fig]

August 11, 2009 at 11:33 am

Gregory Crewdson.

I love the cinematic style, the detail and light in the photos as well as the real sense of something going on.

[fig]

August 4, 2009 at 7:46 pm

I Like that a lot. Love the cheeky grin. Maybe a crop like Jenny mentioned.

[fig]

July 28, 2009 at 8:41 am

I think most people use a third party website like this one http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php Also you can use flickrriver.com to show your images in a stream constantly scrolling down the page and on black. Just put your username in at the top. http://www.flickriver.com/

Phil