|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 4/10/2007
|
Used no Photoshop for years . . . till 2oo6. Download Picassa from google or borrow my program.
No excuses.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Devon Chastain
{K:319} 4/10/2007
|
Yes, YOU... my father, lol! First I must figure out what my first photo will be of, and not to mention, I don't have photoshop so all my pictures will truely be "natural".
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 4/6/2007
|
YOU, my son . . . should say Dad! Start learning son . . . you know where to go when you need help!! Devon, that comment / critique is a complete NATURAL . . . evaluate the picture . . . not so much what's IN it. Look at a lot of shots . . . comment on them and see what others say . . . you'll learn basics like composition in NO time!! Can't wait to see your first upload with the new camera!!
Dad
|
|
|
|
|
Devon Chastain
{K:319} 3/30/2007
|
I'm not sure what to say. Dad or Doyle, lol. This is an excellent picture haha, I love how the facial expression perfectly matches with the b&w shot to set the mood of the pic. Good job, I'll upload photos once I learn how to take shots hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/23/2007
|
That's alright Hugo . . . I had already determined to add some to the lighter areas only since I felt like the even layer would destroy the effect I was seeking. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 3/23/2007
|
Hi Doyle,
Sorry for getting back to you so late, but I think adding the grain to the brighter areas would probably help; adding a uniform layer would only mix the light grain with the already existing grain in the darker areas, not reducing the difference.
I think using Neat image or a similar problem on the darker areas would probably reduce the differences. I do see your point and reasoning of softening the brighter areas, and I think it has the desired effect. Applying digital noise locally (and removing it) is not much more difficult than applying a uniform layer....:)
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/21/2007
|
Well, Doyle, the schange of comments couldn never been great if the image hadn't been great by itself.
There is another method to give emphasis to the face and its expression, namely by using a very wide aperture and have only that in focus, while anything else remains blurry. (Something like the attached manipulated image.) But then the problem is that in such a complex scene there will always be many things that lie in the same distance to the lens, and so they will be also in focus, and so you would have to direct him how to sit and how to pose, which would definitely take all that natural feel away. (Not to speak about the possible problems of overexposure due to the strong light source.) So your choise was a very clever one, which in addition to the above mentioned emphasis gave the image a very distinct atmosphere.
Well, hurry up and go print that in poster size! Remember also to say that you are the maker of the photo when some of the local magazines come and ask if he would like to work as a model ;-)
Best wishes and a good print!
Nick
|
Only the face in focus |
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/21/2007
|
Thanks very much Roby!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/21/2007
|
Nick:
You were right the pushed ISO and heavy shadow areas were what I had hoped to see happen. Of course, I can't plan on the grain in any particular way . . . but it was accented in the darker areas . . . and the fact is, the softening of the cleaner areas reduced the grain in those areas hence the lack of grain towards the right side. You are also right that my intention was to draw the attention to the face and the clean image there was, as I mentioned to Hugo, designed to draw the eye into the composition in a similar, though much more subtle way than the vignetting I see used from time to time. With the strong light source vignetting could not be used and the feel of the image maintained. In fact, I can't imagine any other way to draw the eyes in . . . And who could resist that couch arm as a leading line?? Even without the focal clarity it conveyed texture and an interesting play in tones of various shapes and designed but taken as a whole a linear image which were (overall) like a big ol' fat arrow just pointing at him!! LoL! Not only did I plan for the darkness to be grainy, but it never even occurred to me to try to clean it up . . . I'm not sure that's even possible. You know . . . I had planned on a certain degree of 'harshness' in the shot . . . a gritty real image if you will . . . and the light was in a perfect spot to allow the dark and overexposed portions to work together to emphasize the contours of the face.
You guys opened a great exchange of comments . . . and I'm off to print my picture!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/21/2007
|
Now see J . . . you can absolve yourself of guilt or shame by shooting a B&W portrait . . . well . . . if nothing else, at least you'd get a nice portrait shot out of it!! LoL!
Ok . . . ( yawn ) . . . Uhhhhh . . . book / cover; image / thumbnail . . . it all fits together in some profound meaningful way . . . I'll leave the details for you to put together and be impressed with my wisdom, ok? LoL! Always a pleasure John.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/21/2007
|
LoL! Hugo . . . I don't know what to say . . . you're sooo right, I did NOT see that one coming.
Do you think adding a uniform layer of light grain over the top would improve the shot overall without detracting from the feel of the image I had tried to attain here? I had considered that at one point. -- Mostly to make the noise / grain in the darkened underexposed areas less obvious, but it didn't make it any less obvious as I'm sure you could have told me, (and you know it couldn't be removed) so the softening in the facial area instead seemed to draw the focus there (by my thinking) in much the same way vignetting could have in other shots . . . though not uniform in a geometrical sense but, rather, using the exposure as a guide. While I did ask your opinion . . . you know I'm going to have to go back to the image and see for myself anyway! LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Roberto Arcari Farinetti
{K:209486} 3/20/2007
|
stunning shot doyle.. cheers
roby
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/20/2007
|
Hi Hugo!
Indeed, it's so nice to discuss about such subjects a bit further than the usual one-lined "I like - I dont like" comments ;-)
Very interesting to know that the noise in the darker parts is almost unavoidable. I guess, this doesn't automatically mean that a real deep black is almost impossible - or does it? At least some of my photos with much darkeness on them, do not have such artifacts, while others of course do.
From the purely physical point of view, one should expect that there will be always enough lonesome photons that hit the film or CCD at the places where there was no light coming from the subject. And that they will create much more perceivable spots in some otherwise dark area on the photo, while the don't really count that much on an area that already absorbed much light. (The unavoidable noise at low signals is actually a result of the fact that the ratio of material particles to photons in this universe is one to millions - hey, there is much more light than shadow in this world! ;-)) But if so, then, is capturing a really blackest black a hard thing to do?
Anyway, much of any photo does remain subjective - but it can also go inter-subjective. In this case I see things on the photo that I didn't see before. (So be glad, you managed to influence me! ;-)) Still, as you say, there are also the technical parts which are not subjects to interpretation.
But it is both parts that make such discussions so interesting. It is really remarkable to see how those two apparently opposite parts can work so well together in creating some special atmosphere on a photo - be it pure intention or only partially intention.
Oh, and as about your answer to Doyle, OK, I got you know.
Best wishes and thank you very much again for the insights!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 3/20/2007
|
Hi Nick
I like this kind of discussions; and especially in what Doyle said (or at least how I interpret it) that there's no right or wrong in the subjective parts, but there is in the more concrete technicalities of photography - so thanks for your reply too!
I think the noise in this image is absolutely crucial in achieving the atmosphere and feel, and thus it's the smoothness of the face, as well as the consistency between noisy areas and smooth areas that I - subjectively - referred to as "optimising the quality"... But, even though the noise is probably desired, and Doyle's softening also assists in building the feel in this photo, the noise in the darker areas is - technically speaking - a digital photography artifact; in other words, preventing it would've been much more difficult, if not impossible!
It's exactly that consistency you mention that I was referring to;. The other inconsistencies you mention could also be perceived as assisting in creating (or recreating) the atmosphere.
Either way, intended or not, I do think it turned out very well - feeling wise; but I think maintaining the consistency throughout the image - specifically concerning the noise, but (now you mention it), also the enhancement of the face leaving the other important elements untouched (or at least less modified) is also quite important in creating a "good" photo. It's all very subjective.
As to your PS; the Didn't see that one coming was more in reply to Doyle's reply to me, as he thought I was referring to the softening of the photo....
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/20/2007
|
Hi Hugo, and thanks a lot for your in depth going answer. Of course coincidental noise can't be taken equal to consious selection of the look and feel of some photo.
Looking at this one I had (and still have) the impression that the grain was absolutely intented in the darker areas as an additional support for the very "clean" face, which this way should become a protagonist in some environment that is still interesting but not so important as the face and its expression. I seem to have neglected the right part of the photo which is completely different and doesn't show any noise or very little. So the consistency is not kept over the whole photo.
Wondering why I didn't consider that as carefully as I did for the darker parts, I think that I did so because all the other parts of the photo are in some way "imprefect" too. The right part tends to be overexposed here and there, much of the arm of the sofa is a bit out of focus, and we have grain already on the sweatshirt of the guy. So there is another kind of consistency here, namely to keep only the face enhanced and well exposed and let the rest "go as it wants to go". I think that this "invaded" my mind in a quite subtle way.
I don't know of course inhowmuch this was the result of special settings, intehntions etc, but it looks quite intented to me.
Cheers,
Nick
P.S.: I don't get your last question, Hugo. What did I see coming - or didn't I see? A bit confused, sorry!
|
|
|
|
j esford
{K:13518} 3/20/2007
|
WoW, and I thought this was just one of those ".....get the @#$%*H' camera outta my face!" photos! I'm so ashamed
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/20/2007
|
Exactly what I am trying to say so often when I put some "unpleasant" comment here, or when I heavily criticize those who think that photography is not a matter of hard work, Doyle! But most of the time the representatives of the "simply-go-shoot-something" method seem to prefere the complete "easy" method that doesn't require any work or knowledge.
Indeed there is right and wrong and indeed the negation of some photographic rule has to be done not out of some coincidence but accorring to conscious thinking about the situation as it apears in the view finder or the LCD screen. Or else we could also take a guitar and play "coincidental music", expecting then to sell unskillful playing for some new Zappa sound. ;-)
Of course any discussion about good and bad can't be only completelly objective, but still there is no single good photo (or any other work of art) on this planet that was the result of no thoughts but just coincidence.
I am glad about the comment that brings us on th front page, so let me contribute a little bit!
Yippppiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieee!
Best wisches,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 3/20/2007
|
Hi Doyle,
It's the difference between smoothness in the areas where the photo is properly exposed, and the noticeable grain - indicating underexposure -in the dark areas. I don't mind the grain / noise, and I think a nicely pushed 800ISO film, with considerable noise (all over) the image would've only emphasised the mood. In this case, it's not perfection that makes the shot, but the feel - it shouldn't be perfectly clean and smooth, as I don't think that would fit with the feel of the moment, if you know what I mean. Quality can also be noise! The improvement I hinted at was the consistency within the image - it's too smooth in the well exposed areas...>:) Didn't see that one coming, did you?
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/20/2007
|
Nick:
First . . . Thanks very much. You have eloquently placed my thoughts on this shot into words. Moreover, you have provided some insight into something some people may not understand and that is that there is, essentially, no wrong or right on some of the subjective points in photography.
Well . . . there IS wrong . . . and there IS right (outside the subjective realm) . . . but there is room within the medium for good, really good, photographers to disagree as we see here in your disagreement with Hugo who we know is a VERY skilled photographer. Too often, the old adage about rules were made to be broken is used as an excuse by people to explain lesser quality work . . . or even outright errors. There are, as you and I know, exceptions and variations to basic rules . . . even the rule of thirds . . . but to attempt them without previously having mastered the basics sounds like an excuse made by somebody trying to 'sell' the merits of a less than adequate photo.
All that being said . . . I would also like to mention that your critique is now a featured critique and will land us on the front page. So, in my most professional tone, let me add one last comment . . .
WOOOO HOOOOO! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/20/2007
|
Indeed, I have to agree with you, and completely disagree with Hugo this time. The "standard digital folklore" about quality has almost wiped off anything different than that kind of perfection that is achievable by PS, including one of the most strong means to emphasize some atmosphere, namely grain! If we watch carefully the works of some of the best contemporary photographers, we see that grain is a non-plus-ultra especially in B&W photography.
Like for example in this case. Take the grain and other "imperfections" away, and the real moment becomes something very artificial that never really existed. So, even the fuzzy foreground at the bottom right adds to the authenticity of this one.
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/20/2007
|
Thanks VERY much Iman!! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/20/2007
|
Thanks hugo, I think. (LoL! Your words)
It's a family photo and it was the 'feel' I was after. Quality improvement where, specifically? I softened it a tad to convey the weariness better (I thought) that we were all feeling. Also, that seems kinder on mid-teenage children. I'm assuming you were refering to sharpness.
I convert in three ways depeding on which workd best (IMO) for the image. This was using tools in CaptureNX by Nikon with a color filter. I also routinely add a hue/sat adjustment layer set to color and untouched . . . followed by another hue/sat adjustment layer which I destaurate completely. Then, I go back to the first one and adjust the slider for a hue (filter) and saturation (strength) setting most appealing to the image. Opacity settings on the first layer then fine tune the conversion.
My friend, I know how busy you are and I'm honored when you take the time for me.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/20/2007
|
Wow . . . Thanks very much Nick. I'm not so sure you can't do this already. I couldn't agree more about the light since it was very much what was there at the time . . . brightness not withstanding. I avoided photoshopping and burning it because, to me, it conveyed the image as it was. This should be a joy to the purists with only the distortion correction. I'm so glad you commented. Made my day!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Iman Fouad
{K:12295} 3/19/2007
|
Exellent done Doyle, more impresive with B/W,really express his expresion.
Iman
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 3/19/2007
|
Hi Doyle,
This is a good image, I think. Even though the image quality could be improved upon (what do you use to convert an image to B&W?) I think the feel of this photo makes this shot. A nice composition, and an interesting shot.
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/19/2007
|
That's definitely the kind of photography I wish I would be able to do, Doyle! Much grain, strong shadows, but still great details and a very special moment! Even the slight overexposure on the face does help here, to let the moment appear very singular!
Keep it up and best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/19/2007
|
Tim:
I use CaptureNX which Nikon has proprietary rights too . . . it may be difficult to find in stores. You can download and use it from their site as a trial version is free. While it is Nikon software it's not limited as to who can use it and works (naturally) with all digital images, regardless of the camera choice. Frankly, it's an amazing program overall . . . and you can adjust the amount of distortion . . . increasing or decreasing it. This means you could add a fish-eye effect to a wide angle shot that's not a fisheye shot. Check out the demo at www.CaptureNX.com and dowload the free version . . . It has a timelimit on how long you can use it for free (I'm not sure how long because I purchased mine) . . . but I used the trial version for quite some time before deciding to purchase it.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Tim Schumm
{K:29196} 3/17/2007
|
What software or filter do you use to correct the distortion? Although if i was to get the 10.5mm it would be for the distortion...lol
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/16/2007
|
Thanks Kara! Good guess about the shirt . . . all 5 kids listened to that group (or still do) . . . but as the last of the five still at home . . . he has all he needs to keep the sound down for us.
Three and a half minutes?? HEHEhehee These guys would prabably kill YOU! They sense weakness . . . be afraid . . . be VERY afraid!!! HEHEHEheheheee :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Kara BigCanoe
{K:1328} 3/15/2007
|
This is a great shot Doyle. He looks how I feel after about three and a half minutes with my family! You got yourself a good looking kid there!
Kara
PS: I hope he doesn't subject you to blared System of a Down! (I'm guessing that's what the shirt says) That's almost as exhausting as Christmas with the fam. tee hee!
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/14/2007
|
Thanks Bobot . . . I was a tired as he was . . . but I had a camera!! LoL! Thought it might come out good with the fisheye and I DID like the effect.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
1301307 60
{K:44058} 3/14/2007
|
Really tired, I like the leading lines.. nice shot!
regards...
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/13/2007
|
Thanks Nessa . . . :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
vanessa shakesheff
{K:68840} 3/13/2007
|
Lovely b&w contrast and light ..i used to hate it being so tired and away from home the travelling never seemed to end always semed longer but of course it was,nt ..handsome boy you have there doyle must follow you ..lovely sharp detail..nessa
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/12/2007
|
Thanks Annemette! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/12/2007
|
LoL! Thanks Klaas and funny you should ask. Devon's comment was . . . "I can't find that shirt!" Although he is more interested in my photography than with my genealogy! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/12/2007
|
Great angle and you caught his sleepiness so well. Handsome fellow, too.
Best wishes
Annemette
|
|
|
|
Klaas Baas
{K:15111} 3/12/2007
|
Great catch my friend Doyle, what did Devon think of it????? Your prove to remember him that he can get tired too. Well done.
Take care,
Klaas
|
|
|
|
Sheila Carson
{K:5924} 3/12/2007
|
My daughter just said "why are you laughing so hard mommy?" Too funny!
I'm glad I could help.
:)Sheila
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/12/2007
|
Thanks Elisa! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
NN
{K:26787} 3/12/2007
|
Oh, man ... this guy looks tired ;-) I like the angle you´ve chosen here. Excellent B&W ~ well done!
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/12/2007
|
Sheila:
My Dear friend thanks so much for the comment. GREAT points about the reflected light on the left. Though it appears like I did a lot with this photo in PS I really didn't . . . other than what was listed. I'm thrilled too that you mention the very thing I was hoping to get into this shot, i.e., strong leading lines and a DOF that pulls in the depth and the feel of the fabric! I will certainly handle that before printing and appreciate you pointing it out . . . funny how you can't see things till they're shown to you and then you sit and wonder how you could've ever missed them to begin with ( and then I try to remember how to spell alzheimers and why I needed to know - LoL! )
Best Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Sheila Carson
{K:5924} 3/12/2007
|
Great portrait Doyle! And what a handsome young lad y'all have!
The conversion to black and white is wonderful and I like how you've used the dof. I also like how the couch enters the photo and leads us straight to the subject. It's such a great strong leading line!
The only change that I might make is to clone out the white specks from the background on the left side. I just feel like I'm brought into the photo, led straight to your subject and then suddenly I'm distracted by the little white specks. Other than that, it's a great portrait and I love it!
Gtreat job my friend!
:) Sheila
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/12/2007
|
Thank you very much Jan, my friend!! (Pssst . . . I took this shot myself)! LoL! Ok, I know . . . I'm Baaaaaad! I think I have an idea for a great t-shirt . . . How about: "I went to the Chastain Family Christmas and All I got was this T-Shirt . . . and a new bicycle . . . and an I-Pod . . . and some new pajamas . . . and some new video games . . . and a cell phone . . . and a new car!"
The funny part is he'll scream about I didn't get any car and I'll say, Hey! It's just a T-Shirt . . . you're not really with STUPID either!!! BWA HAHAHAHAA!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Jan Hoffman
{K:39467} 3/12/2007
|
Doyle -- I love seeing family pictures and this fish-eye generated view coupled with the great range of gray tones is really impressive.
I have a picture I took of my daughter Lisa from this past Christmas season where she is whacked out and half-asleep on the couch after travelling from west coast to our house in Baltimore. It reminds me of this picture of Devon. A great time of the year and half the fun is just "surviving" it.
Thanks for sharing this one.
--Best to you, Jan
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/12/2007
|
Thanks Dave!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 3/12/2007
|
You've really conveyed the idea of your title here, Doyle! This will be one for the family album. Nicely done b/w converion, too.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Shirley D. Cross-Taylor
{K:174133} 3/11/2007
|
You're welcome, Doyle!:):):)
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 3/11/2007
|
Hm, I knew that dear Doyle :P
Hugs are only for special friends :-)
Regards
Srna
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Thanks Shirley . . . originally I was considering ennui, but that's not what it was though the expression is similar! Who could be bored on Christmas day?? :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Hugs? Good enough!!! I'll TAKE 'em!!! :P
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Thanks very much Dear Marian . . . and you're right . . . I'm proud of all the kids! ;)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Well Good Luck! Heheheheee. Thanks for the comment Liz and of course you're right . . . it's a pipe dream! Our daughter moved back for a year with her daughter in her 20s! Oh well. Still, none are in prison and most are self-supporting so I call that a win! Just leave an old man his fantasies, ok?? :P
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Shirley D. Cross-Taylor
{K:174133} 3/11/2007
|
Excellent capture of the feeling, dear Doyle!:)
|
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 3/11/2007
|
Doyle, I do totaly agree with Michele and I do not have to add a word !!!
Maybe only hugs from me !!!
Srna
|
|
|
|
Marian Man
{K:80636} 3/11/2007
|
hello there proud dad!!!! fine good looking son you got there!!!!! God bless him!!!!!
excellent portrait with all you did on it!!!!! :)
bravo!!!!!
all the best
Marian
|
|
|
|
Liz Wallis
{K:26133} 3/11/2007
|
A wonderful b/w Doyle...such a great looking teen. It is funny how spening the day wtih family can make you tired like that... although I never realised that they left home at 18!!! in that case I shall mark the calendar, cause I have one that can go in 8 months :)
Cheers
Liz
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Thanks VERY much Sascha!! I always appreciate hearing from you! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
sascha jonack
{K:19715} 3/11/2007
|
Powerful and great shot. Indeed he really looks tired. The choosen contrast and tones underline it even more. Superb done.
All the best.
Sascha
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Thank you very much Txules! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/11/2007
|
Michele:
Now THAT'S a fine thing to say about my good looking son! LoL! But really, Thanks very much! The last child still living at home (of 5) and his 18th birthday is circled on my calendar in red ink like a man in prison circles his release date!! HEHEHEheheheee!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
txules .
{K:62768} 3/11/2007
|
very well done Doyle, BW, DOF, mood and light are perfect; like it a lot...txules
|
|
|
|
Michele Carlsen
{K:146013} 3/11/2007
|
Beautiful portrait Doyle ! I like the fish-eye distortion, AND Devins eye's barely open !!! Also the B&W is more dramatic IMO .. and the light is perfect on his face and fading to the BG.... I think this boy looks just like YOU !!! Excellent portrait 7++++
Best Regards,
michele~
|
|
0 
