# Is anyone interested in a real critique thread?



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2011)

removed by owner


----------



## Bo4key (Aug 14, 2011)

I'm interested even just to read this thread. 

I'm quite inexperienced and I'm really enjoying seeing others work and seeing more experienced photogs critique them. It's been a great learning resource so far.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 14, 2011)

Great idea, I'd like it very much. Getting proper C&C in the newbie forum is a little "hit 'n miss" business nowadays, and it's a neat "addition" to the game thread.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2011)

OK, one of you post a picture, saying what you think about it. 
If no one else chimes in then I'll try and critique it 

Lew


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 14, 2011)

Warped Reality








I love the texture i got out of the wood, especially from the black and white conversion.  But i feel like the composition is really lacking, but i'm not sure how i could make it better.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 14, 2011)

Like the control of DOF even though I would like a little more focus.

Would have burnt the wood more to make the texture more prominent if that's what you really like about the photo.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

A blurred foreground is usually distracting and not pleasing to the eye. A smaller f-stop and possibly a tripod could help. I especially don't like the foreground and background out of focus. You might try shooting from the side instead of the end and moving in closer if it is the grain that interests you. This could work in color or black and white. Maybe you could shoot it at sunset to get richer colors.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

Also, if you are going for texture side lighting can help a lot be it flash or natural light.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 14, 2011)

I for one love the DOP in this. The foreground bokeh just magnifies the depth in this. Black and white works fine, and the textures are nice. The line play in this is very nice, imho. And yet, there's just something with this (great) picture that I don't really, what's the word, believes, and part of it is that wall on the right side. Imo, it doesn't do anything for the images; I don't feel it adds to the composition.On a side note, I find that having to scroll the page to see the entire image doesn't let me see the picture as a whole, and I'm left looking at different parts of it at different times. I, for one, would like to be able to "take in" the entire thing - but perhaps it's just my monitor?I don't have anything to say about any technical aspects of the photograph. Can I ask where the sun was located when you shot this?


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2011)

Clearly you wanted the very shallow DOF because you chose a large aperture and sort of a graphic image.
That sort of brings up the issue of how does the rest of the image interact with the actual subject?
The background is sort of standard OOF scenery and doesn't seem to fit with the content.
Perhaps a different viewpoint (from overhead) or a different much tighter crop would have removed the stuff that doesn't work and concentrated teh view on what does fit.
==============================================================

I have no idea how one gets to post here.
Perhaps when comments sort of fizzle out and someone has something they'd like to hear about they just post it and everyone waits their turn.
=======================================================================================


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 14, 2011)

Wow great critiques.  Very helpful and insightful.  Who's next?


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 14, 2011)

Compaq said:


> I for one love the DOP in this. The foreground bokeh just magnifies the depth in this. Black and white works fine, and the textures are nice. The line play in this is very nice, imho. And yet, there's just something with this (great) picture that I don't really, what's the word, believes, and part of it is that wall on the right side. Imo, it doesn't do anything for the images; I don't feel it adds to the composition.On a side note, I find that having to scroll the page to see the entire image doesn't let me see the picture as a whole, and I'm left looking at different parts of it at different times. I, for one, would like to be able to "take in" the entire thing - but perhaps it's just my monitor?I don't have anything to say about any technical aspects of the photograph. Can I ask where the sun was located when you shot this?



It was an overcast day, so not really sure


----------



## Compaq (Aug 14, 2011)

I'll add a quick edit where I tried to bring out the textures a little more. I also cropped away the stuff behind the... the... erhh... not sure what you call those things 
Just did a curves adjustment where I darkened all tones a bit, and burned a little on the shadows to make them stand out more. You'll have to see if it was an improvement or not.






Mayhaps I've just made it under exposed


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 14, 2011)

Compaq said:


> I'll add a quick edit where I tried to bring out the textures a little more. I also cropped away the stuff behind the... the... erhh... not sure what you call those things
> Just did a curves adjustment where I darkened all tones a bit, and burned a little on the shadows to make them stand out more. You'll have to see if it was an improvement or not.
> 
> 
> ...



I like the crop, but i feel the photo is now underexposed.  But i also like that there is more detail.  And those are two pieces of staging, that fold out into a triangular shape that we put a ladder on to work on a roof, siding, etc.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 14, 2011)

Yep, a balance between the two. I overdid it. You'll find the golden midway


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2011)

Now someone post another picture.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

I am new to this forum and this is my first post so if I get it wrong bear with me. All suggestions are welcome. I was under a bridge during a rain storm and happened to see this guy. I like the tension of the big fella about to devour the little guy and I'm not sure if I would have preferred both to be in focus but kind of like it as is. I realized after I got home that my flash is set for rear curtain sync so there is some ghosting, especially in the web.  


Lunch? by Crece1, on Flickr


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 14, 2011)

Composition wise, I would have centered it a little more.
I like the posture of the spider, which leads the eye from the hind leg to the front where the baby spider is.
The context is good too, sort of a "motherly" nature.
I'd think this will make a good black and white photo instead because the colors as of now isn't really captivating. I think the pattern on the spider will give interesting contrast when in grey scale.
I wish the web is more prominent.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

I think I would like it better with the spider in the upper right quadrant and I agree about the web being more prominent. Too bad the rain wasn't blowing on the web. Here is a quick post in B&W for comparison.  


Lunch? by Crece1, on Flickr


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2011)

It is disconcerting visually to see the entire web suspended from that single thread.
Since the spider won't mind, why not invert it and thus the little spider is escaping up and the villain is climbing after him or her or it.
I thought the colors and the gentle vignette were quite nicely done (although I might crop it to eliminate a bit of the space.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

Interesting vision, I like it.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 14, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> It is disconcerting visually to see the entire web suspended from that single thread.
> Since the spider won't mind, why not invert it and thus the little spider is escaping up and the villain is climbing after him or her or it.
> I thought the colors and the gentle vignette were quite nicely done (although I might crop it to eliminate a bit of the space.



This is good.  Editing wise, it's nice.  Colors are good, although the slight ghosting really stinks.  I as well wish the web was a little more prominent.  Still, for being under a bridge and holding the flash yourself (or was it on camera?), this is still a good shot.  A good first post.  Maybe playing with the highlight curves in ps will pull the web out a little more and make it more prominent?


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

Thanks D-B-J, it was the built in pop up flash.  I was just trying to get something other than the silhouette from the first couple shots. First time out with the D7000 so I'm still dealing with the learning curve. I'm very much a noob in PS/Lightroom so my editing is in its infancy as well.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

Just a side note. I've been viewing this site on an Ipad. I love the Ipad but it just does not do the photos on this site justice. The images on my laptop have much richer colors and detail.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 14, 2011)




----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2011)

If Crece is OK with what has been posted, perhaps another picture now?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 14, 2011)

If we're ready to move on to the next one, I'd love some thoughts on this:

*



*

I find myself attracted to things like this, but I fear they don't make the best pictures... even though I generally enjoy the ones I take.


----------



## Crece (Aug 14, 2011)

I am not quite sure what you are trying to show here but it could probably benefit from greater DOF. I can relate to liking certain elements of a photo as I am attracted to rich earth tones. If you are attracted to the lines, maybe B&W is the way to go. If it is the colors you might want to boost those but as is I'm not sure what to make of it.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 14, 2011)

The focus is good, but the subject matter isn't that appealing to me.  I mean, since i can't see what the lever system? is attached to or running, it's only half the story.  I wish i could see the whole thing, or at least this section of it. However, i do like the way the colors work together, and the composition (for what you focused on) is relatively strong.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 15, 2011)

perhaps the poster of the last photo should call time when he/she has heard enough as one way to move the thread along?


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 15, 2011)

I guess I'll post one.  I hope I'm not encroaching on manaheim's turf, lol.




08031124 by J E, on Flickr

Full size (2995x4531) here, in case anybody is interested:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6138/6008382065_a5d475a81d_o.jpg

What I was going for:  You know those shots of the penny jar that are supposed to show how you should save money and maybe imply that everybody is kinda broke these days - having to resort to counting pennies - I was going for the opposite of that.  I wanted to show an empty penny jar.  A jar that had already been pillaged.  What's left over after you count all of your pennies.  (edit- "desperation", I guess - you've counted your pennies, and this is what's left.)

What I like:  Well, the jar is pretty much empty, so to me - it conveys the point I had hoped to make.  (To me anyway - not sure if other people read it the same way I do...)

What I don't like:  DOF - I think it needs more, but I don't know that it's possible with the gear I have (shot with Canon 100mm macro, at f/11 or 16 - not 100% sure now...) - short of focus stacking, that is.  I also feel that the edges of the jar are not defined enough (and I do not know how to fix that (in camera)).  I think it might work better in portrait orientation, but I thought that would show too much 'nothing' (empty bottle).

ps - ignore the dark edges - I'm not really sure why/how that happened, but it's only a few pixels wide - easily cropped out (or 'fixed').

I'm kind of undecided between 'dirtying it up' more, or going for something more 'pristine'.


EDIT
BTW - in case anybody is interested - this was shot on B&W film (Efke 50, developed in Rodinal).  So don't ask to see the 'color' version - because there is no such thing.  

Also - I know that my profile says "not OK to edit" - that really means 'ask first'.  In this case, you have permission to edit.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 15, 2011)

manaheim said:


> If we're ready to move on to the next one, I'd love some thoughts on this:
> 
> *
> 
> ...



I think it unfair to move on as this picture hasn't gotten much feedback yet.

I'll look at this image with the glasses that is your watermark: impression engineering.
My first thought was "hmm, what did he want to accomplish", but then I saw the watermark. I like the idea, and I think the idea has come to life pretty good. There are a few things I'd like to be different,  for example the two lines coming from lower left and upper right. Those are converging as of now. You probably shouldn't have to move a lot to make those converge, but I suppose you'd have to pay attention to that device in upper right. Apropos that device (not sure what to call it) seems a bit dark for my liking. There are so many lines to follow here, I'm sort of trying to find different paths to where I'd like the lines to converge.  There's actually three lines going that way, and I'v very much like them to converge, if you see. Hmm, there seems to be four lines going down and left. What's your light source? The light seems like it's coming from a powerful work lamp or something coming from lower right?


----------



## KenC (Aug 15, 2011)

Re Manaheim's shot  - I like the colors and patterns -it's a bit contrasty as pointed out, but that's the nature of the lighting.  The only thing I would do is to darken the underside of a couple of beams in the lower right where they are nearly blown out.

Re the pennies, this is a good shot which conveys your intent.  My only comment is that it's a bit tilted and I'm not sure about the blue tint.  I might experiment with that. I know the negative may have had that tint, but you can make it an RGB and adjust if you like.


----------



## Gaerek (Aug 15, 2011)

I like the idea. Though, I wish we could get an entire critique forum instead. With rules, and whatnot in order to keep the level of critique relatively high.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 15, 2011)

Galleries Description said:
			
		

> Photos submitted by members for general display or critique.



Unfortunately no one uses them. I think if TPF had a critique gallery solely for that like POTN, then that would be an excellent idea.

Here's an image of mine that hasn't been posted very many places. This was shot with one light using a beauty dish camera left. The background blur was done in PS and you can see where I ****ed it up with the blur on the girl's forehead, but other than that, what's everyone think?


----------



## Crece (Aug 15, 2011)

I think it is a great shot. I don't like the loss of detail in the girls hair. It looks like an interesting hairstyle that would add a lot to the image but unfortunately I am left wondering where the hair ends and the seat begins. If you could bring out the detail in the hair and correct the forehead I think it would be a much stronger image.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 15, 2011)

Crece said:


> I think it is a great shot. I don't like the loss of detail in the girls hair. It looks like an interesting hairstyle that would add a lot to the image but unfortunately I am left wondering where the hair ends and the seat begins. If you could bring out the detail in the hair and correct the forehead I think it would be a much stronger image.



I agree.  And i also feel this thread is getting slightly outta control.  Nobody should post another image until Village Idiot says that they have gotten enough critique.  Once they give the go ahead, then the next image should be posted.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 15, 2011)

Compaq said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > If we're ready to move on to the next one, I'd love some thoughts on this:
> ...



This is a Carousel, correct?


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 15, 2011)

KenC said:


> I'm not sure about the blue tint.


I think you need to calibrate your monitor...

It was B&W from start to finish - shot on B&W film, scanned in B&W, edited in B&W, and even now it's in a greyscale colorspace...


----------



## gsgary (Aug 15, 2011)

village, nice shot but as above i would love to see her mohican it's blending into the background just a bit too much, also bottom right corner it looks like he has a very long hairy left arm and i would burn his white shirt a bit


----------



## gsgary (Aug 15, 2011)

Headshot


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 15, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Headshot



Nononono.  Why are you posting an image when we aren't done critiquing village idiots?!


----------



## gsgary (Aug 15, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Headshot
> ...



I thought he had quiet a few crits, carry on and then have a go at mine later


----------



## e.rose (Aug 15, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Galleries Description said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure where to start in this thread, so I guess I'll just go with the last one posted...

I really like the feel of this shot, but like others have said, I wish there was a little more detail in her hair.  And I can't help but wonder if you knew that you screwed up the blur on her forehead... why didn't you go back and fix it before posting?


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 15, 2011)

e.rose said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Galleries Description said:
> ...



I didn't notice it until it was several days after being uploaded to Flickr.


----------



## e.rose (Aug 15, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Ahh, okay, gotchya.  :sillysmi:


----------



## Forkie (Aug 15, 2011)

Too.......many......photos.....thread....degeneration.....imminent...........


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 15, 2011)

First to address a couple of your questions.  You are right, with the lens you used, increasing DOF would be tough, but you could have just shot this with a different lens.  This shot didn't really require a macro lens or focusing as close as you did.  I also agree with you that the DOF is a bit too limited on this shot.  As far as the edges of the glass, that's more of a setup issue.  On a white background like you chose, the best way to get great definition on the glass is to use a large black panel to either side of the glass so that the reflection is picked up.  This gives you that definition you are looking for and looks natural since just about every shot of clear glass on a white background uses this method.

As far as subject matter and your intended theme, I can see what you were going for, but it's difficult to arrive at as complicated story as you are trying to tell without some supporting information...perhaps a wider shot with a few extra 'props' to give it some context would be in order...Maybe setting the jar on top of a pile of bills marked 'Final Notice' 'Foreclosure', etc.?   

I think you can really make this shot work and tell the exact story that you are wanting to tell, but as a standalone object, it doesn't really work for me.  Now, if you just want a shot of an almost empty penny jar, use a larger light source, use a different lens or just don't shoot at the min focus distance so that you can get some greater DOF, and use black panels to add definition.

If you're really interested in these types of shots, the book 'Light, Science, and Magic' is worth it's weight in pennies?



O|||||||O said:


> I guess I'll post one.  I hope I'm not encroaching on manaheim's turf, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KenC (Aug 15, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure about the blue tint.
> ...



Yes, sorry about that.  I was using someone else's computer this morning.  Now that I am looking at it on my own monitor it is indeed untinted.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 15, 2011)

Compaq said:


> This is a Carousel, correct?



Yes.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 15, 2011)

Damnit... I had some other comments for the folks who posted but screwed them up trying to reply to Compaq without having my image posted three times. 

In short...

1. The light comes from the column of light in the center of the carosel.  The picture is looking up and left of center.
2. The contrast comments are interesting... I LIKE lots of contrast in my shots.  Otherwise they look flat and dead to me.  Do folks see contrast as a bad thing?  Maybe how much is just a question of style.
3. I see what you mean on all the converging and non-converging lines.  It's a big part of what attracted me to the shot... all the lines... it's just chaos... and yet they clearly all serve a purpose, so it's not.  Both things are evident (to me, anyway), and therefore it makes the shot kind of amusingly painful to look at.  But again, not sure if that's a good or bad thing.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 15, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> If you're really interested in these types of shots, the book 'Light, Science, and Magic' is worth it's weight in pennies?


 I have it, but haven't really read much of it yet.  :lmao:


KenC said:


> Yes, sorry about that.  I was using someone else's computer this morning.  Now that I am looking at it on my own monitor it is indeed untinted.


You should tell them to calibrate their monitor, lol.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 15, 2011)

Why a "real critique thread?" Is it a haven for one's reputation? I may be a poor role model but I cast my reputation to the wind and left honest and sometimes harsh feedback wherever I felt it was appropriate for a long time. A lot of people called me small, mean, insecure, a curmudgeon, nonconstructive, angry, stifling of new talent, oppressive, and sometimes worse. I also gained a lot of respect from a handful of people. Years later I come back here and I don't feel much different. I don't feel a need to reject the social trend towards only saying encouraging, feel-good things to other people. I feel a need to disregard it entirely.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 15, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Damnit... I had some other comments for the folks who posted but screwed them up trying to reply to Compaq without having my image posted three times.
> 
> In short...
> 
> ...



It is chaos. That was exactly my thoughts too, and that's not a bad thing....(It's not a best effort from you...probably not even close if you step back)....


----------



## Compaq (Aug 16, 2011)

manaheim said:


> amusingly painful



I think you reduced my feelings to two words, there


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2011)




----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 16, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Headshot




I can't think of any way that we can organize this to make it neater but perhaps we can ask the OP of each critique to call 'enough' and go on then,

We seem to have caught up to this picture above.

This is a great headshot, which is its achievement and its failing at the same time.Well lit, perfectly sharp ,great 'expression, yet for anyone who doesn't especially like dogs or who isn't involved with this particular dog, it's a one look shot to appreciate its qualities and then a so what.

Like any studio shot, it is out of context and thus aimed for one specific market.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 16, 2011)

Not sure if we are allowed to retort...Some of the very best shots I have seen on this  site are actually of dogs. This one is a stand out. Maybe we can figure out why the dog pictures come out so much better than the people pictures. I know I am setting up this weekend with my dog...after seeing this photo I am struck by it and I am inspired.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 16, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Not sure if we are allowed to retort...Some of the very best shots I have seen on this  site are actually of dogs. This one is a stand out. Maybe we can figure out why the dog pictures come out so much better than the people pictures. I know I am setting up this weekend with my dog...after seeing this photo I am struck by it and I am inspired.



The lighting is very easy, dog is about 5 feet from background he is looking towards a shoot through brolly fitted to a 300watt head at about 45degs to dog just above aimed down second light is opposite behind fitted with 7" reflector with a honeycomb 300watt head about the same hight as main light and about 1 stop under and there was a silver reflect opposite main light to bounce a bit of light on the shadow side, settings were F13,1/125, iso100
here's the setup ata dog show (had to use the bar area)
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Competitions/Miscellaneous/IMG3258/1221933208_r4LVK-L.jpg


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 16, 2011)

Well I love the shot and lucky for me that I have all the gear you used for this set up. :thumbup: Thanks for sharing the details and the dog is beautiful! (Hopefully earning you some ribbons and more)


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 16, 2011)

Here's one from me. Flag of Malta.

What I Like: Simple and clean and colorful.
What I Don't Like: I have to edit out the bit of white at the top of the flag that encroaches into the blue sky.


----------



## skieur (Aug 16, 2011)

Compositionally the foreground should never be out-of-focus because it distracts from the centre of interest.  A slightly higher angle with greater depth of field would be better for this shot.

skieur


----------



## hayleyfraser24 (Aug 17, 2011)

I agree with you georgie girl, it is simple, clean and colourful, the white bit at the top wouldnt bother me too much, it is not a big edit to do.  Its a nice shot.  For me, it would have been good to see some more "movement" in the flag.  I like the ripples in the material but It seems to look a little flat, I agree with skieur that more depth of feild would better the shot.  I like the bright colours, it works well with this type of shot.  The sky looks very dark blue though... almost not like the colour of sky.. if that makes sense?  Was this intentional with post processing to create good contrast?  Or was this the actual colour of the sky?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 17, 2011)

I'll have to check the raw file when I get home and see what I did on the edits to boost/saturate color. I did not specifically amp up the sky or use a polarizer; it was Bermuda. Good notes. Thx.

(P.S. at about 12 miles off the coast the water color is purple...its amazing)


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 17, 2011)

Here are the LR notes:


----------



## RockDawg (Aug 31, 2011)

What I like:  The narrow depth of focus.  The B&W tones.  I feel they are just enough to make the scene ominous, but not so much as to give a sense of dread.

What I don't like:  The bokeh could be smoother, but that is as good as my Nikkor 50 f/1.8D gets.

I'm ashamed to say that I don't ever have much of a message, vision or anything deep in the photos I take.  If I think it looks cool, I shoot it.  I hope that changes at some point as the it seems the better photographers usually have some deeper vision or meaning.


----------



## bazooka (Aug 31, 2011)

Maybe require 5 critique's (not one-liners) or submitter's approval to move onto the next photo? I feel like there are things that can still be said about some of the shots that are getting left behind.

As for the carousel, at first it was interesting because it took me a while to first make sense of the scene, but then after I did that, I was faced with a challenge to identify what it was which was fun to do, but didn't take too long. After I had the image figured out, there wasn't much left to enjoy as the light on the most interesting part (to me), the crank shaft, is dim and I don't see much detail. I suppose you probably didn't have much control over the light for this shot, but maybe a kiss of on-camera fill would have helped a bit.


----------



## Crece (Aug 31, 2011)

I kind of like the idea of not limiting comments to the current photo. Not everyone can check the thread everyday and constructive criticism can be just as valuable today or next week.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 31, 2011)

Seems the highlights are pretty well blown and you already have some blacks bunched up, so I can understand why you didn't up the contrast, but the main subject(at least the part in focus) is pretty flat.  The narrow depth of field does add something to this photo, but the lack of detail or anything resembling detail takes away.  We can't really see the texture of the tombstones, discern any of the text, or really have anything to hold our attention.  It looks like the angle would have been better on the tombstone to the right of the center one.  Perhaps, if the focus would have been on that instead of the one in the direct center it could have made this a much more compelling image.

I like the idea, I just wish there was a bit more.  As it is, I would probably do a fairly tight vertical crop just keeping the center tombstone and the one just to it's right and bring the blacks up just a tiny bit.  I think that could add a lot to this photo.

Just my .02.


RockDawg said:


> What I like:  The narrow depth of focus.  The B&W tones.  I feel they are just enough to make the scene ominous, but not so much as to give a sense of dread.
> 
> What I don't like:  The bokeh could be smoother, but that is as good as my Nikkor 50 f/1.8D gets.
> 
> I'm ashamed to say that I don't ever have much of a message, vision or anything deep in the photos I take.  If I think it looks cool, I shoot it.  I hope that changes at some point as the it seems the better photographers usually have some deeper vision or meaning.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 31, 2011)

It's a simple and effective shot in black and white. I don't mind that there is little true black, but shades of gray, there is a subtle depth to it.


----------

