P6_Cathy

Double Exposure Assignment Cathy Carpenter Group: VSpacers1 Title: Hummingbird Heaven Tags: hummingbirds, fantasy, surrealism, magical realism

Working with PhotoShop requires a lot time and constant use to be able to be consistently successful. I had an idea in mind but had a hard time getting what was in my head to transfer to a good composition. I am not really a fan of manipulated images even though they can look interesting and serve a role in advertising or other mediums. The two photos in this shot consist of night traffic to create the obscure image in the back and then a hummingbird shot that I cut, duplicated, and rotated. I also changed the color of the background image a little to blend more with the colors of the hummingbird.

The value of this assignment is in forcing yourself to look at photography a different way and to work with image enhancing software. The frustration isn't in not wanting to work with the program, but the time to learn to practice and use it well. I had personal help, used the tutorials and the help menu and still feel way less than competent with this program. I would like to be though so I will continue to work at it! It was very handy to have someone who knew what they were doing show you more tools to create a softer look and to blend the pictures together better. Unfortunately, when someone does it well, they have to be patient with you and let you do it yourself or you won't remember how you did it.

Self Evaluation || Shutter speed and aperture were adequately chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were poorly chosen and do not match the concept. || || Title and tags were adequately chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are good with only minor errors. || Title and tags were poorly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Contains multiple spelling errors or wrong word choices. || (45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || Peer Evaluation: Stephanie Jackson
 * Category || Strong || Adequate || Weak ||
 * Concept || Does an good job of communicating the concept. || Does an adequate job communicating the concept. || Does a poor job communicating the concept. ||
 * Composition || Photograph uses composition principles very effectively. || Photograph does a good job using composition principles. || Photograph does a poor job using composition principles. ||
 * Focus || Focus is a perfect match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is an adequate match with the concept of the shot.   || Focus is a poor match with the concept of the shot. ||
 * Technical Aspects || Shutter speed and aperture were welll chosen to match concept.
 * Depth of Field || Good use of depth-of-field. || Adequate use of depth-of-field. || Poor use of depth-of-field. ||
 * Title/tags || Title and tags were well chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are excellent with no mistakes.
 * ** Instructor evaluates shaded section ** ||
 * Self Critique || Excellent self-assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate self-assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor self-assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * Peer Critique || Excellent peer assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate peer assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor peer assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * Peer Comments || Peer comments exceed expectations. || Peer comments meet expectations. One or two comments might be missing. || Three or more peer comments were missing, incomplete or poorly written. ||
 * Total Points || >89%
 * Total Points || >89%

This makes me say wow! This was a very creative composition. This certainly did an outstanding job of communicating the concept of double exposure in a very artistic manner. I personally wish I knew more about photoshop to do creative photos such as this even though I am personally not a fan of double exposure. The shutter speed and aperture were very appropriate. The focus could have been sharper perhaps subtracting noise in the photo and more of a glowing feel to reflect the lights and tones of the photo. Also, perhaps softening or adding blur to the headlight just a tiny bit so there is just a small amount of glare. The humming birds were beautiful. The beak on the first looks like it might be in the neck of the second but for this surreal photo it is okay. Excellent job!

|| Does an adequate job communicating the concept. || Does a poor job communicating the concept. || Title and tags were perfectly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are excellent with no mistakes. || Title and tags were adequately chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are good with only minor errors. || Title and tags were poorly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Contains multiple spelling errors or wrong word choices. || (45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) ||
 * Category || Strong || Adequate || Weak ||
 * Concept || Does an outstanding job of communicating the concept.
 * Composition || Photograph uses composition principles very effectively. || Photograph does a good job using composition principles. || Photograph does a poor job using composition principles. ||
 * Focus || Focus is a perfect match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is an adequate match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is a poor match with the concept of the shot. ||
 * Technical Aspects || Shutter speed and aperture were perfectly chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were adequately chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were poorly chosen and do not match the concept. ||
 * Depth of Field || Excellent use of depth-of-field. || Adequate use of depth-of-field. || Poor use of depth-of-field. ||
 * Title/tags ||
 * ** Instructor evaluates shaded section ** ||
 * Self Critique || Excellent self-assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate self-assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor self-assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * Peer Critique || Excellent peer assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate peer assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor peer assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * Peer Comments || Peer comments exceed expectations. || Peer comments meet expectations. One or two comments might be missing. || Three or more peer comments were missing, incomplete or poorly written. ||
 * Total Points || >89%
 * Total Points || >89%