tikkathreebarrel's 52 2011 - week 3 Stylie added

tikkathreebarrel

tikkathreebarrel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,150
Edit My Images
Yes
Week 1: accomodation eh? Nothing from today's shopping shoot in Cambridge so tomorrow it'll have to be.:naughty:

Good luck everyone.
 
Last edited:
WEEK 1: NEW

Somewhat belatedly and if this doesn't fit the rules then c'est la vie.

I thought the new year in nature would provide me with something but it's slightly too early for most plants.

I regard this entry as weak but hey, make a start and grow and get stronger as the year goes eh?

IMG_4616-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
WEEK 2: ACCOMODATION

Okay my brain's in gear now. A slightly different take on this. The Churchyard provides our final resting place, accomodates us when our time here is done. Beyond, the roofs of houses and their proximity to the burial ground remind us of our mortality, and the fact that as some pass to the next life, others remain to remember us.

IMG_4615.jpg
 
I really like the colours and DOF on the 'new' photo, nice one.
 
For me, I think your accommodation shot would be better if you made one of the grave stones the focus point.
Your 'New' shot is similar to mine, that is you've taken a shot of the new shrubs coming up. Considering the frost and snow we've just had, these little shoots do surprise me.
 
Thanks guys for the rapid responses - if only I was as rapid in making my weekly submissions.:bonk:

Stewby: I've got my dates mixed up? That's it - ruined!!!!:bang::bang: Why did I think that "new" might have been the theme for the 1st week? Oh well...

mentalblock: I deliberatly chose to make all the head stones oof firstly out of respect for the families concerned and secondly to acknowledge our vagueness about the life after this one.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Thanks guys for the rapid responses - if only I was as rapid in making my weekly submissions.:bonk:

Stewby: I've got my dates mixed up? That's it - ruined!!!!:bang::bang: Why did I think that "new" might have been the theme for the 1st week? Oh well...

mentalblock: I deliberatly chose to make all the head stones oof firstly out of respect for the families concerned and secondly to acknowledge our vagueness about the life after this one.
Click to expand...

I suppose it would have made sense for new to be week 1 :cool: i know gettingbthe dates wrong doesnt matter, hope you didnt think i was being critical. I like your reasoning behind why the headstones are oof. I like the doff you used as although they are they are so obviously headstones that it works
 
Last edited:
THis one caused me to scratch my wooden top rather a bit. Having resolved to get my entries for this challenge from within my everyday sphere of activity.

So, here's a fabulously 1960's style shopping experience, complete - if you look closely - with a little decay here and there.

IMG_4706copy.jpg
 
Three good pics.

Week 1: really like the vibrancy of the green. Good use of DOF. Well lit with good detail. A nicely composed shot which is very appealing.

Week 2: good composition and very atmospheric. I feel it would have been better to have the a deeper DOF with a least some of the gravestones in focus and the building behind out of focus. But I still like it.

Week 3: not as keen on this as the previous two. I can see what you are aiming for, and you have partly achieved it. It is well exposed and composed, but for me it lacks interest.

Great start to your 52
 
PatrickO said:
Three good pics.

Week 1: really like the vibrancy of the green. Good use of DOF. Well lit with good detail. A nicely composed shot which is very appealing.

Week 2: good composition and very atmospheric. I feel it would have been better to have the a deeper DOF with a least some of the gravestones in focus and the building behind out of focus. But I still like it.
Click to expand...

Thank you chap. I've been pleasantly surprised by the feedback on no.1

PatrickO said:
Week 3: not as keen on this as the previous two. I can see what you are aiming for, and you have partly achieved it. It is well exposed and composed, but for me it lacks interest.

Great start to your 52
Click to expand...

For me it's about the projecting angles horizontal and vertical, the onset of decay is a little bonus, the blue sky enabled the shot. Perhaps I should have shot from lower to make more of the angles of the canopies but I wanted to keep the wide shot but avoid too much background and lens distortion.
 
That's the biggest M & Co shop I've ever seen... or is there some PP trickery?

Nice take on the style shot... It actually works... I say that sounding surprised as a bit of me thinks it shouldn't but it does say 60s style!
 
I really like the first two, number one has a really good use of DOF and the vibrancy of the greens just screams new growth so this adds to the image for me, and number two I like the thought process that has gone on here, works really well, and is a real left field concept.

Not sure on number three, to me is just lacks punch, but I am probably in no place to comment as my image is very much lacking for this theme this week.

Matt
MWHCVT
 
markelliot said:
That's the biggest M & Co shop I've ever seen... or is there some PP trickery?

Nice take on the style shot... It actually works... I say that sounding surprised as a bit of me thinks it shouldn't but it does say 60s style!
Click to expand...

PP trickery? nice one but no that's it. :shrug: Would you like me to measure the frontage for you and the total length of all the zig-zag bits? Whoa - just kidding!
 
MWHCVT said:
Not sure on number three, to me is just lacks punch, but I am probably in no place to comment as my image is very much lacking for this theme this week.

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

Fair point Matt. What I had in mind all along was the way this "exciting new white-hot-heat-of-technology-and-design" might have looked in the original artist's impressions of the period but I didn't want to spend time cloning in happy 1960's family groups or cloning out the shadows of the railings.

In essence then, a reprise of 1960's aspirations. Hmm, quite like that.:rules:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top