Critiques From Stephen R. Zang

	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/14/2004 2:19:04 AM Mike/Rupert/Blueskies, Yes, I'm a moderator, and the one who deleted your imitation magazine cover. (mainly because of Trademark reasons) Since I don't know your real name, I can't say for sure if I went to high school with you, but I seriously doubt it. {:-) Usefilm.com is a photography learning site, and we prefer the use of real names. If you look around, you may notice that you were about the only one using a ficticious name. If you really do support the site and what it stands for, you will surely understand the logic behind this. Thanks again.
Photo By: Michael Alexander  (K:5293)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/12/2004 10:44:03 PM Mr. Skies, you need to change your name to something real. Non real-named accounts will be deleted. Thanks!
Photo By: Michael Alexander  (K:5293)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/4/2004 9:24:37 AM Just a couple things: I knew the sheep were fake before you mentioned it in your comment below the shot. It's really obvious with the light on the sheep's backs, and the shadow under them. The horizon is tilted rather badly about 2 degrees counter-clockwise, and I can't help but wonder, how did you get Agfa APX 100 B&W film stuffed into a digital camera, and if you did, why is the picture in color? Hand color in PS also?
Photo By: ken krishnan  (K:19102)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   3/31/2004 4:28:31 PM How do you get Agfa APX 100 into a G2?
Photo By: Lucas L  (K:11978)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   3/23/2004 11:16:59 PM Nice, even lighting on this one, but I have mixed feelings about the umbrella. I'd either like to see more of it, or none at all. This is just me. Good work!
Photo By: Janusz Borowik  (K:27)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   1/31/2004 4:49:14 PM Marcos, copying and pasting the same comment to every picture you see isn't really helping anyone, and it makes you look rather impersonal. It looks really obvious when someone clicks your recent comments, and the same thing appears on the last 20 pics you've left comments on. Try commenting something different, instead of editing the same text over and over.
Photo By: Marcos Duarte  (K:15402)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   1/25/2004 9:30:16 PM I agree about the background. Great image of the bird, but it doesn't look natural with the heavy PS'd background. You provided no exposure info, but I'm willing to wager that the depth of field had the surroundings somewhat sharp also, and you tried to blur the background digitally, so it just doesn't look right to me.
Photo By: Teresa Moore  (K:10954)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   1/15/2004 2:25:59 PM Thank you, Steve. Yes, I can get you a print made if that's what you're interested in. The original is a sharp slide, and enlarges well. Let me know what size you are interested in, and I can get some prices for you. You can email me at Stephen@usefilm.com Thanks for all the comments, folks!
Photo By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   11/4/2003 8:46:48 PM Too much digital manipulation for my taste. The colors are way off, and Superia isn't nearly that blue sensitive. It's way too oversharpened, and doesn't look natural at all. This may have been a decent shot before it was manipulated so heavily.
Photo By: Pedro Libório  (K:36301)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   9/28/2003 5:36:06 PM No Christmas lights Jeff, just the end of growing season for Morning Glory vines. I was trying for the "Alisa" perspective, but didn't quite get it. The brick is recently tuckpointed, but the roof is about 12-15 years old. Pretty much a test shot with this new digital, trying to learn what it can do. I'll get there sooner or later. Thanks, Jeff.. {;-)
Photo By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   8/3/2003 8:58:08 AM The Photoshop work is a bit too much in this, as it looks distorted. Also, the tree on the left is cut off, but maybe you wanted it that way. I'd like to see more of it to make the composition complete. Pretty decent manipulation, beyond those things. Disregard if those things were what you were after. Also, not sure why this is in the egg project, either. {:-)
Photo By: Alberto Agnoletti  (K:12808)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   8/1/2003 5:38:16 PM Did you drop the camera or something? There is nothing in this image. But wow, look at the ratings, and comments. Unbelievable.
Photo By: lowell whipple girbes  (K:13181)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/28/2003 9:15:33 PM Definately red, Kelly. She looks severely sunburned in this one. Could be the light, or the film, like Jeroen said. There appears to be a shadow across both of their heads, too. I think there is too much wasted space in the frame around them, and my eye goes to the big hunk of wood in the center, instead of the people. The sunburn makes her teeth appear very white however, and her obviously colored hair shows the dark roots too much in this light. Perhaps more overcast sky would help that.
Photo By: Kelly Abrams  (K:233)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/25/2003 11:41:48 PM Very nice work, here. The buildings add a neat element, and it looks like some of the domes were in use at the time, with a bit of motion blur. Well done! Kim, I somehow don't think that is Polaris in the southern sky, as viewed from Chile, but you are close. {:-P Great stuff, Uwe
Photo By: Uwe Bachmann  (K:10222)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/16/2003 4:24:01 PM Raymond, To quote the FAQ from this site itself, which echoes the presentation of photos on most other sites as well: "Any other usage of the submitted photographs, apart from their internal display on UseFilm will require the authors' permissions." If you read copyright rules and restrictions, uploading to a website is indeed publishing, and falls under the category of usage, regardless of whether or not you are getting money for it. True, you are only using a small part of other people's original works, but they are copyrighted nonetheless. Since the now modified image is "© Copyright 2003 Raymond Rochelle" it kinda looks like you are copyrighting already copyrighted images, and taking full credit for creating them as your own originals. For the above reasons, I have to respectfully deny you permission to use my frog picture for any use by you, personal or otherwise. If you would like, I could grant you a limited usage permission to utilize it for a period of 45 days, for the low low price of just $500 U.S. dollars, cash or money order only. Let me know, I'll have my attorney draw up the paperwork. I like what you do, and I don't mean to ruffle your feathers either, but please shoot your own photos to use in your art. Stephen (not Steven)
Photo By: Raymond Rochelle  (K:92)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/15/2003 8:23:45 PM !!!!!!!!! Nice shot! Excellent! Regards, Stephen
Photo By: jeff lynch  (K:4770)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/15/2003 6:24:58 PM So, let me get this straight, you take original works by others, and use software to "create" these things from other people's images? Perhaps you should try shooting some of your own, instead of grabbing copyrighted pictures, and taking credit for the images you make out of them.
Photo By: Raymond Rochelle  (K:92)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/9/2003 7:17:05 PM A little air freshener, quickie wax job, and a 143 point safety inspection, and it'll be good as new!
Photo By: Shawn Kellogg  (K:454)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/9/2003 5:15:37 PM Although well composed, nice colors, blah blah, etc. This shot lacks shadow detail. Perhaps opening one stop more would have been a good idea. It could also be the film you use, and it's lack of shadow detail capturing characteristics. If you shoot digital, (since you don't say one way or another) Then maybe you shoot invest in a film camera, as you just uncovered one of the faults of the digiwondercams. "Regards", Stephen
Photo By: Hayri CALISKAN  (K:16203)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/7/2003 3:31:04 PM This looks way oversharpened, as I can see all the jaggies nearly everywhere. I don't know what's happening in the sky there, but it almost looks like it was cut from another picture. The top edges of the buildings simply look fake to me, against that background. The light is a bit harsh also, but overall it is a good composition. Stephen
Photo By: Alberto Agnoletti  (K:12808)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   7/2/2003 8:35:18 PM Better light here, Kelly. Still a bit harsh though, like Michael said. However, it is more even. I'm glad you got out from under that tree. One thing though, is that someone else's hair coming in from the right side? Whatever it is, you should try to remove it. Getting better, Kelly.. {:-) Stephen
Photo By: Kelly Abrams  (K:233)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   5/28/2003 8:34:19 PM Eric, this is way Morgan Smithlike, but much more colorful, and you don't have the telltale 75% black darkness thing around your subject. Only think I see wrong is a small dustlike particle in the center left of the image, although that could be part of the art too, for all I know... {;-) Neato Nifty shot! Stephen
Photo By: Eric Goldwasser  (K:4294)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   5/22/2003 8:28:49 PM I dig this pose, too. The light coming through the trees makes for a nice background, too. I hate to agree with someone else, but if the camera were a tad lower, to include the elbow, and slightly less top space, this picture would really be perfect. Well done! Stephen
Photo By: Kelly Abrams  (K:233)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   5/21/2003 9:24:27 PM Kelly, this looks a wee bit soft to me. Might be the scan, I'm not sure. The pose looks good, but is a bit standard, kinda reminds me of those pictures that come in the frames when you buy them. Nice, but normal looking. I agree that you should try some different camera angles, and try cropping some excess area around them that isn't really doing much. Exposurewise looks great! Stephen
Photo By: Kelly Abrams  (K:233)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/29/2003 9:52:09 PM Hmmm. I could drop my camera on the ground, and get abstracts too.. No, I don't get it. It's a blob, plain and simple. I hesitate to use the word "image" because it looks to me like more of a photographic "typo". One does not have to know what exactly is the subject of a photo to like or dislike, but this is just plain nothing. No subject, no light, no focus, just something strange, surrounded by black. Have you tried watercolors or oil painting instead? People tend to appreciate painted artworks that have no bearing better than photos. Sorry, Morgan. I know it sounds harsh of me, but I too, don't share your vision, and I love abstracts, ever since I dropped acid back in high school.... {;-)
Photo By: Morgan Smith  (K:304)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/23/2003 5:19:51 PM I knew this Velvia just from the thumbnail image. Kinda punchy colorwise, but nice job.
Photo By: Mike Hollman  (K:315)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/23/2003 5:07:00 PM Pretty cool image. I have to say that the blue is a bit oversaturated, composition is a bit crowded, and it looks a little bit tightly cropped on the right and top, with IP addresses running out of the frame. Have you tried this in Tmax? {:-P
Photo By: Phillip Cohen  (K:9538)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/22/2003 9:11:54 PM I like the light on this one, and the water is nearly perfectly smooth. Nice colors, too.
Photo By: Kelly Abrams  (K:233)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/13/2003 9:25:36 PM Äã?Ķú¶äÕýÔÚ??¶ŸÂÌÉ?
Photo By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)
	Critique By: Stephen R. Zang  (K:1044)   4/12/2003 3:47:54 PM I think the framing is too tight on this one, and a bit distracting to me. I'd like to see more details in the shadows, but since it's only a digital original, I'll give you that one. Not many digicams can get decent shadow detail. Beyond that, I like her expression, and overall appearance. I can't help but wonder what's on her mind at that moment.....
Photo By: Jytte Kristensen  (K:446)