« The Contax RTS II (Part III) | Main | Blog Note »

Thursday, 18 May 2023


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I really enjoyed looking at these. Different ways of seeing. How refreshing.

I scoured computer folder after computer folder looking for the shot I wanted to enter. I have the print hanging on the wall behind me now, but I don't know where the electronic file is.
I thought it had an outside chance of being selected, but alas: Carlos' photo is kinda similar but clearly superior.
So I feel better now!

[There were actually lots of photos I could have chosen besides these. I'll do a post about editing these when I get back. It was more of a judgement call than usual, and it's usually a judgement call. --Mike]

Good job from all. For me, Joel's image just jumps off the page (sreen?). Its so simple yet very well executed. A 1/20th of a second an still maintaining sharpness in the coupler mechanism is pretty good, since I'm assuming that the use of a tripod was not possible.

MJ thank you for the post and the folks who sent in their photos. It is nice to see photographs and the explanations by their creators. It is nice to see real photos not AI creations, or those photoshopped to death photos.


(The first two images are showing as broken links for me, Mike.)

At the top, Schermerhorn's image doesn't open for me, although Sailer's did. Wondering if anyone else has had trouble with Schermerhorn's.
I have loved reading the descriptions of the images and the acts of making them.

I find Joel's railroad image very appealing, one I would be very proud of. Congratulations for all who entered, chosen or not. You are the folks who DO things, not just talk.

Rick Schermerhorn's picture does not show up for me on Firefox.

My three favorites are all in a row: Collin J. Örthner, Jed Soane, and Ralph Saulnier. Great job, everyone!

For me, the first two photos do not display on the page; the first opens when I click on the link, the second does not.

I see everything crystal clear, although some of the pictures look a little blurry to me.

Kidding aside, it's a fine collection.

I was able to view all of the pictures this morning. As of now, Shermhorne's doesn't come up when I click on the link.

As others have said, the first two don’t show but the first does appear if I click and “open in background”. Same trick on second just shows a black rectangle.

For folks who can't see the top 2 images, right-click, "open in new tab","copy link address... and paste into address bar" or whatever options your browser offers, and then remove "-popup" from the end of the URL

Here is Rick Schermerhorn's lovely photo for those that cannot see it, albeit a smaller version:

On the the first two images. I signed with Typepad (I have an a/c but have never used it so it must be free) and the images appeared correctly.

I'm mostly an anti-fan of unsharpness, and LOTS of these images are intriguing and interesting. Nice work, photographers and of course Mike who selected these out of rather more (I'm sure many of the ones he didn't quite select would also intrigue me!).

Alan Sailer's image is, I assume, deliberately not coming up without clicking on it since for some workplaces it might not be "safe". It's a nice image, not fully abstract, but the interest for me is color areas and their relationships.

Rick Schermerhorn's image I accept as pure abstraction. It's striking, somehow, beyond my ability to really see why I like it, which is why I so seldom venture near abstraction in my own photos.

John Gillooly's photo, the double exposure, is made of competing sharpish areas, and I really don't like that generally, including in this case. His explanation that it's juxtaposing 2 moments in time interestingly is entirely true, but does not make me like it any better. Just personal taste.

I'm really not planning on doing comments no every photo, but those 3 I needed to. Let's see, what else...

Joel Kirsh's train coupling photo is a technical achievement, but I find the background insufficiently blurred to really work.

Francis Sullivan's juxtaposition of a moving boy with a bow is interesting for accepting the background as sharp and the human as blurred, and for the hand holding the bow being the sharp bit of the figure, but again I find the blur not enough or not interesting enough of something, it doesn't really work together entirely for me.

Jed Soane's story is more interesting than the photo, sorry. This is a classic illustration of why I basically don't like pinhole photography.

Jim Simmons' photo works partly just by exploiting the loophole in the rules -- limiting only the width of photos means portrait-format works get displayed much bigger, which is nearly always an advantage. I do see little bits of the optical illusions or whatever it is that's causing it to sometimes seem like something is moving, and that's interesting.

FYI, I didn't have any trouble seeing the images in Chrome, Firefox or Edge. Strange problem.

This call for work has really opened my eyes. I will be working more with blur in the future. Lovely work by all. Congratulations to everyone selected.

After sitting with this set for a couple of days I find that I’m still drawn to the pictures that initially jumped out at me. Jed’s pinhole picture is lovely and has an Andrew Wyeth impressionistic quality about it and Collins picture is just fantastic. I have a harder time defining why Collins picture appeals to me. There is just something about it. I’ve finally decided it must be the sense of nature that seeps through. I spend a lot of time wandering in the wilderness with my camera. And even though I’m a color guy, Johns picture is really wonderful. I like how he was able to capture a fleeting moment of love that normally passes in the blink of an eye.

Still can’t see the top 2. Why can’t the article be edited to have them in the same format as all the other photos?

Jim: Good point about Jed's picture being reminiscent of Wyeth! I hadn't made that connection, but yeah, very much. The landscape is the right kind of thing, and the color palette is very much right.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007