P6_David

Tags: Panorama; Mountains; Landscape

Student name: David Type of evaluation (self). || 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. || (45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || Comments: This is one of the projects from the Kodak web site entitled "Think Big." The project requires taking multiple shots in succession of the same thing, and then putting them together to make one complete picture. This picture series was taken on a recent trip to the north Georgia Mountains, in the town of Helen. The town has a German/Austrian Alps feel, which can be seen from the photo montage. I think the picture does a good job revealing "the big picture" by showing a horizontal vista. Unfortunately, the color in the far-left print did not come out as a perfect match.
 * 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.
 * **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%

Student name: David Ackman Type of evaluation (peer). Include name of peer: Cathy Carpenter I'm not sure what the topic is because I think you did something off the Kodak Website options, so I'm not sure how to critique it. Did you take a series of pictures and then put them together in PhotoShop to try to create one image? If so, one idea might be to use the clone tool to add just a little to the picture so the tops and bottoms all match exactly. I like the image of the village and think panoramic shots can be really interesting. They always remind me of the Cyclorama in Atlanta. I like being able to look as well and see lots of different things going on in various parts of the picture because that holds the viewer's interest. Could or should one of the tags be the name of the place? Think Big as a title reminded me more of close-up of a big building where this image seemed more like a big things come in small packages, Miniature World, or maybe German village in winter. || 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. || || Adequate self-assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor self-assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. || || Adequate peer assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor peer assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. || || 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. || || >89% (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 effectively.  || Photograph does a good job using composition principles. || Photograph does a poor job using composition principles.
 * Focus || Focus is a good match with the concept of the shot.
 * Technical Aspects || Shutter speed and aperture were well 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 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.
 * Peer Critique || Excellent peer assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements.
 * Peer Comments
 * Total Points
 * Total Points

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. ||