Browse Responses
‹ Newer | Up | Older ›

Response to Curves (Response #22)

Uploaded 626 Days Ago by Jondor - - 14 comments

Photo © Jondor (Gerhard Hoogterp) - ithaka.mine.nu/
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

moodeous said 626 days ago:

Very pretty composition, well lit and I love the reflective quality of your surface for the glass. Great!!!

groen65 said 626 days ago:

very nice. looks professional like a product photograph.

Scarf-Face said 626 days ago:

Well done, perhaps consider changing the composition to make it more dynamic (too much empty space all around).

kadenajack said 626 days ago:

This is very nice. Very fitting image. A little less depth of field to put more focus on the green rock would help though.

Ana said 626 days ago:

this is wonderful. love the curves and the black background.

King said 626 days ago:

Okay, we are dealing with an artist here. We are to be concerned with shapes and colors, irrespective of representational ideas.
Heck, what is it? It's some kind of translucent stone, shot on black plexiglas, with some kind of reddish pigment in the foreground and a blurry, rock-like shape in the background.

This would be a case when having adequate depth of field (or shooting with a view camera) would lend a lot to the photograph (IMHO...don't forget to type IMHO or the WS comment police will jump all over you).

It's curvey and has some design elements. What is it? or is that not supposed to count?

Not meaning to be curmudgeonly...just perplexed.

Jondor said 626 days ago:

@king: eye-candy? Does everything need a deeper meaning?
The redish foreground is the light shining through the red piece of glass, the underground is black, shiny plastic and the used dof seems to trigger opinions.. some like it, some dont.. But then again, isn't that for most things in life?

King said 626 days ago:

@Jondor
Don't misunderstand me...I gave you credit right off the bat for being an artist. I also decided that this is not representational art, and I think I was right. I gave you high ratings in every category (although I didn't mention it earlier--I wanted it to be a surprise). I did not use the word "eye-candy" nor ask for any.

I think you may be experiencing a translation problem, because my tone, to native English speakers (I hope), would appear more fun-like and not so critical.

Just having some fun here Jondor...no offense intended. You are a finE photographer and this is good work.

And don't forget, I used the magic abbreviation, IMHO.

King said 626 days ago:

@kadenajack
Do you mean *more* depth of field?

Jondor said 626 days ago:

@king
Sorry if I came across somewhat defensive.. I wasn't offended or something. I just had the feeling you were searching for a deeper meaning which isn't there. Eye-candy was an answer to that question. Not something I accused you of implying..

I looked up "representational art" (learned something new today.. whee.. Tnx ;-) and no, it's not..
I often enjoy a more abstract style, especially since I don't have to leave home for it..

Anyhow, what I like about this site is the comments, Yours being a fine example. Thanks!

feelingdave said 626 days ago:

This looks like sushi on a plate from thumbnail size. Maybe I'm just hungry. Excellent.

kadenajack said 625 days ago:

Yeah King I meant more, not less, depth of field. Though some might say less is more, in this case more really would have been more. I'll shut up now.

subjektiv said 620 days ago:

colors are very nice. beautiful image.

alex said 619 days ago:

Very nice, but i would like more depth of field.

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.