P2_Cathy

Transforming an Object Assignment Cathy Carpenter Group: VSpacers1

Tags: Baranquero, Colombian birds, Blue-Crowned Motmot

These were just more fun pictures along the same line. The inside of this flower looks like it has a world of its own. Self Evaluation || 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.) || **Comments**: I like to take pictures close-up and then use them in class for attention getters to see if the students can figure out what it is. It is a great way to get them thinking of different perspective, especially if you are teaching point of view in language arts. We get this bird on our balcony so it gives me lots of chances to get it really close with the long lens; if you can't tell, it is banana that is in its mouth. It looks really scary with the red eyes and jagged beak close-up but is really a pretty bird overall.
 * Category || Strong || Adequate || Weak ||
 * Concept || Does an outstanding 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 perfectly chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were adequately chosen to match concept.
 * Depth of Field || Excellent use of depth-of-field. || Adequate use of depth-of-field. || Poor use of depth-of-field. ||
 * Title/tags || Title and tags were perfectly 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%

The value of this assignment for me is to continually look closer at the world around me to see things from a different perspective. It also challenges you as a photographer to think about composition from another angle as you still need the same guidelines even when the subject is not as recognizable. I have had the most fun with this type of assignment at the zoo. It is a great way to teach textures and surfaces to young kids. Peer Critique for Cathy Carpenter - Assignment Two - Stephanie Jackson The Baranquero is a beautiful bird. I love how the colors compliment the bird. It's great that you can get a close up view. The angle at which the shot was taken makes the viewer feel like reaching out to touch or hold the bird because of its proximity. Students would certainly be able to write a report or have a discussion on this. The opening of the birds beak certainly gives you a different perspective if you've never seen it before.

My suggestions for improvement would be to select an appropriate shutter speed and aperture. The focus was not as sharp as it could have been. Each element of the bird needs to look like details put nicely together as in other amazing photos you've shared such as the one with the elephant. I did not see a title but you have appropriate tags. Thanks for sharing.

(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || Additional Group Comments:
 * Category || Strong || Adequate || Weak ||
 * Concept || Does an outstanding 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 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 || 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. ||
 * ** 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%