P6_Kim

=Kim Huett=

// Kudzu Creep //


__Tags__: soccer, field, kudzu, creep, double exposure

Self Evaluation
(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || __Critique 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 this 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%

In terms of communicating the concept of double exposure, I feel that this photo does an adequate job. I took a picture of kudzu creeping up a telephone pole wire, flipped it 180 degrees, and then layered it with a second photo I took of a soccer field. I layered at approximately 50% opacity.

Compositionally speaking, the photo is all right, although I agree with my peers that it needs more. If I just knew how to actually superimpose other cut-out images (without including the white square), I'd be set. I probably would've thrown a shiny red fire hydrant in there or something to add interest. As it is, the shot might make a good backdrop for a text slide of some kind. It's a bit empty for my taste. However, the angle I used in shooting the field (with the lines receding) is somewhat interesting, and I do find the tornado of kudzu coming from the sky to be kind of visually compelling, too. Although, the angle of that kudzu tornado...do you think it distracts the eye away? It's hard to tell.

In terms of focus, we're talking about two different shots. The focus was intentionally clear on both shots and uses a depth of field that is appropriate. For the soccer field, the depth of field is at least 15 feet, and I find it appropriate the the receding lines should blur off into the distance somewhat. The focus on the kudzu shot was appropriately clear, too, and the depth of field seemed to adequately capture the leaves in the original (now obscured due to the double exposure). The aperture and shutter speeds were appropriate for both shots.

The tags I selected work as well, and the use of the word "creep" was a little more on the subjective side, but because I am the artist describing this shot, I feel I have the interpretative right to t of tagging this photo. If others on the web seek a photo that conveys "creep," perhaps this photo would suit their need.

//Postscript on what this Photo Taught Me// I had to rein myself in and acknowledge my limitations when working on this photo. I began with lofty goals, and ended with a modest demonstration of the concept of double exposure. I spent a couple of hours driving around and shooting all sorts of objects in my town. Then I spent several hours going through the images and using the lasso tool to cut out a man's body (his one-piece jumpsuit was wonderful), my dog's head, and a McDonald's sign. When it got down to combining these elements, I realized I didn't have the //Photoshop// know-how or the time to achieve what I wanted (even upon acquiring the correct tutorials). So, I ended up doing a simple double exposure.

As a result of my discomfort with using the digital editing software, I decided that it's time to purchase my own book on the topic, which I just did: Beginning GIMP is on its way. I find that combining the learning curves of both digital photography shooting and digital photography software use to be insurmountable without an explicit technical guide.

Student name: Kim Type of evaluation (peer). Include name of peer: David || Does an adequate job communicating the concept. || Does a poor job communicating the concept. || || || Focus is an adequate match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is a poor match with the concept of the shot. || || 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. || Comments: I really like the ambiguity displayed in this picture. It took a minute (before reading the tags) to discern exactly what I was seeing). There are two suggestions I would make for this shot. I think the grass looks somewhat washed-out and could use more color; and, I think the transparency should have been removed from the kudzu, so the lines didn't show through.
 * 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.
 * Technical Aspects || Shutter speed and aperture were perfectly 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.