bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

Photo #1 - What's the topic of interest? The shoreline and subsequent reflection have no detail because they are underexposed.

Photo #2 - The reflection of the sky is 5 times more saturated than the sky. The treeline, again, is underexposed showing no detail. Composition and subject matter a big question mark.

Photo #3 - A Reflection without a source is not right on a couple of levels. You've got rocks in the place where the sky should be.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Nope, wasn't thinking that far out - wasn't gonna. Being the insensitive "loner" clod I mentioned earlier, in an effort to be more in tune with others, I've done a lot of reading on stuff like body language, reading faces, etc., and was just struck by the complexity of my reaction to your expressions in the two pictures of you. Didn't mean no harm but if you want to do a little fishnet now and then, you'll get no flack outta me. S'cuse me for bein' nosey.

gessman Loc: Colorado

post was a repeat and withdrawn - S'cuse me!

gizzy.whicker Loc: Cumberland Co., Illinois

These photos you've shown us are well composed. Congrats on having a good eye for composition. The only thing distracting, to me, is too great a contrast, and that was most probably caused from the bright sunlight. If possible, I'd have waited until it was an overcast day, or early/late morning or evening. I have better luck with color as well as contrast when ol' Mr. Sun isn' shining so brightly overhead.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thank you gizzy. The shots were taken just after dawn and just at dusk with the obvious exceptions. I've been seeing the pronounced contrast all along and am thinking maybe my two biggest mistakes was being overly enthralled with the glassy surface of the water and using the polarizer. I think it could be that the polarizer, perhaps the nature of the film is largely responsible for the high contrast. Could part of that be attributable to the development process? I've not done much darkroom work. Is that possible? Have you ever had that experience? That isn't at all what I saw when I was shooting but there are some aspects in some cases where I kind of like the contrast. I'm not through with film and I do need to get some of the questions straightened out.

tilde531 Loc: Seaford Delaware

*snickers*
Gonna hafta refuse to "s'cuse you for bein' nosey", as I like it! And you're GOOD at it! Err... I mean good at reading body language... not at bein' nosey. *blush*

(swings from the noose in the breeze)

gessman Loc: Colorado

#1 You know, Bob, I was really impressed with the glassy surface of the water and thought I was focusing on that more than anything else. There wasn't anything else in that frame that had much appeal although I didn't take specific action like stopping down to conceal that there was a culvert and a road across the pond. See the attached shot below. You're right, in retrospect, maybe the glassy water surface wasn't much of a subject to focus on.

#2 I've been thinking about that. What, in your opinion, could have caused that. I used a CPL and it was a very early morning shot. Then too, the water almost looked black to the eye and I didn't expect the slides to turn out with such high contrast. Still, my focus was not on the treeline but rather on the quality of the reflection in the glassy water.

#3 Well, I sort of thought I would try to frame that so it played with the eye and brain a little. When I first walked up on that pool, it sort of flipped my mind about and didn't allow it to immediately focus on what I was seeing. I tried to convey that in the shot. To me, it gets even more confusing if you get an opportunity to see it upside down, hence my double post of it, one up, one down. That said, I don't know how to deal with the question of the offense of having rocks where the sky should be. That would seem to imply that we are not entitled to shoot down on a subject and get more of an expanded view than we expected or bargained for. I figured the sky is there in the reflection and that I could get away by suggesting it that way.

I don't intend to appear argumentative, definitely want your input, and am merely trying to answer your questions as best I can recall what I was doing and thinking at the time. I aimed, and clicked the shutter. I almost always shoot AV so the camera did the exposure as it saw it, then the film went to the lab, a pro lab in Denver, and this is what I got. The scanning process is part of the equation also and I may have failed to make some scanner adjustments that could have helped. Thing is that when I try to adjust the dark, it blows the light way out. Help me out here. There may be too many problems to adequately figure it out but I need to because I intend to shoot some more film. Thanks much for your time and use of your expertise.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

gessman - The cause of the underexposure was probably due to the overwhelming area of sky and reflected sky in the water. The metering system on all digital cameras adjust to an "average" reading of the light available. It saw too much light so it closed down the aperature and underexposed everything but the sky. It's a common problem with standing folks in front of backlit windows or on a beach or snow scene with a lot of white overwhelming automatic expose. The solution is to compensate as much as 2 F-stops or spot meter on the trees or shore and hold that metering while you press the shutter button the rest of the way to fire.

As to the upside down rocks you are always entitle to your interpretation of a scene. It is unconventional but certainly your prerogative.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Sorry. I typed my reply to Bob within the quote space so I deleted it and put my reply below. S'cuse me.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks Bob. I suspect you're right on with your assessment of the problem and I'll try to get my feeble brain to remember that. In fact, I'm going to actively experiment with it and see if I can't perfect it a little better. I've become a little more experienced since I took those shots and have a little less trouble with it now.

The bottom one - normally I don't work on being quite that unconventional but I've had fun with that shot. It takes folks a little time to go from, "something isn't right with this" to "you've got it upside down." Just a warped mind, I guess. Thanks again.

TJ Loc: Austraila, Toowoomba.

Thank's mate, had a bug up inside a flower the other day it was very low to the ground and the little sucker was a bit bigger than a pin head, i tried but shutter was to slow for hand held.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Challenges, challenges. We sure get 'em don't we.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

I will critique your reflections. You reflect well on the complexities of life. you reflect well on the nature of women you reflect like will rodgers... Oh you ment your photos. I dont see any major technical flaws in any of them. There may be minor flaws but who the heck cares. These are the kind of shots I would hang up in my man cave (if i had one) to relax and unwind. they are very calming and serene without nbeing "wussy" serene in a manly way. The colors are bold and vivid without going over the top like some hdr's. The polorazier really pumped up the color. I am a vivid color fanatic, yet i still love black and white. crazy. I admire your skill with photos and with words.

TraceyG Loc: SW, Fl.

I think you have quite and eye for these scenes. They are all very beautiful.

The only one I have a slight issue with, is the 2nd from the bottom, the reflection seems to be very dark.

That's about it, love em! :thumbup:

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thank you once again kind sir. I would elaborate but I've been here way too long today and am developing stumps in my shoes. Got to move around some. Later.