Pensive

[Rob C]

Well, I've said it before and doubtlessy will again: Michael, 'people' is your strength.

Rob C

[fredjeang]

I do agree,
"people" and "people's environment".
It's funny, it is like one's strength or style is always present, regardeless of the evolution in time.
I've always found that Michael's landscapes had something very closed from reportage or news.
and if I do not make a mistake that is where he comes from.
Well it's clear that we can not denie the origins througout the time.

Great picture.

Fred.

[David Sutton]

Yes, while I've been following some of the recent discussions with considerable interest, this image is a wonderful reminder of what waving a camera around is really about. That's a an awkward way of phrasing it, isn't it? You know what I mean to say.

[John Camp]

I like the image's potential, but don't think this reaches it. The problem is, it's difficult to read with that bright stonework (or whatever it is) behind the figure. Brightness makes an area come forward, and this is so bright, that it does exactly that; at the same time, the dark figure (darkness causes subjects to recede) is obviously in front of the bright area. It's this immediate visual confusion that makes the photo difficult to read -- in fact, I have a hard time really looking at it. The photo would be better if the stonework were taken down a couple of levels, IMHO.

[JohnBrew]

I like the image's potential, but don't think this reaches it. The problem is, it's difficult to read with that bright stonework (or whatever it is) behind the figure. Brightness makes an area come forward, and this is so bright, that it does exactly that; at the same time, the dark figure (darkness causes subjects to recede) is obviously in front of the bright area. It's this immediate visual confusion that makes the photo difficult to read -- in fact, I have a hard time really looking at it. The photo would be better if the stonework were taken down a couple of levels, IMHO.

Yep, I'm in John's camp on this assessment.  

[fredjeang]

It's funny, talking about that white, watching the picture in different browsers and this white has different intensity.
For some delicate pictures, this fact is really a mess and I hope they will meet a standard one day because it is just confusing.
But in any case I have such a difference in the white than the one you describe. It is subtle.
I think this pic is all about mystery and has a romantic style, the disposition of the masses light/dark/and intermediate is pretty well executed and if you try to take down the stone a little, it just does not work as well. Try it.
It displays best in my case in Moz and Chrome, over-contrasted in I.E and too light in Safari...nice standardization!

Regards,

Fred.

[Jeremy Payne]

It displays best in my case in Moz and Chrome, over-contrasted in I.E and too light in Safari...nice standardization!

... there is a standard ... Firefox, Chrome and Safari are all color-managed and respect ICC profiles ... IE is not ...

[HickersonJasonC]

... there is a standard ... Firefox, Chrome and Safari are all color-managed and respect ICC profiles ... IE is not ...

Do you still have to "turn on" color-managment in safari? This may be what Fred is seeing. . . ?

edited to say: Not being the "biggest" fan of Michael's work, I find this image truly beautiful.

[fredjeang]

Well, I've said it before and doubtlessy will again: Michael, 'people' is your strength.

Rob C

...and the last Lilly seller comes to confirm again your vision Rob.

Fred.

[Rob C]

...and the last Lilly seller comes to confirm again your vision Rob.

Fred.

I was just going to write a comment on the pic, but I see you have done it for me! Merci beaucoup!

Ciao

Rob