This website uses cookies to access various functions, personalize its advertising, and analyze traffic. Use of this website implies agreement with our use of cookies. More information  OK

What's new?

Gerry R. Dagonese


Free Member, Highland, CA

Comments 61

  • Heribert Fischer 06/19/2007 19:06

    great shot. like it
    regards Heribert
  • Gerry R. Dagonese 04/22/2007 0:58

    First of all, a thank you to Stefan for proposing. I would also like to give thanks to all who participated in the voting, and whether pro or contra, especially to those who left comments.

    Gerry
  • CsomorLászló 04/22/2007 0:47

    100!
    Congrat!
    CsL
  • Dennis Maloney 04/22/2007 0:47

    There is only one little thing that bothers me on this and it is the halo look around the left rear of the car....but, the detail, the title and effects are something that I like, and I am voting on my first feelings....pro
  • Renato T. 04/22/2007 0:47

    PRO!
  • PINDORIUS 04/22/2007 0:47

    -
  • Pascal Viyer 04/22/2007 0:47

    Sorry PRO
  • Gerry R. Dagonese 04/22/2007 0:47

    Thank you Patrick (and to all who have voted so far),

    You raise some good points. Aside from the headlights (already discussed), I would consider painting the effect into the rear and side windows also at a lower opacity.

    Gerry
  • Oliver Suhr 04/22/2007 0:47

    contra.
  • Ivano Cheli (1) 04/22/2007 0:47

    pro
  • Patrick B. Parenteau 04/22/2007 0:47

    Trying to get clean shots of cars during a street show is very hard to do. You have to deal with reflections, people, wires etc. so a motion filter can work to your advantage if used to its full potential. Lets assume for a second that the filter is acceptable as a creative device in this case - I see two "mistakes", one as pointed out, the blur off the headlights and you missed putting the effect thru the back and side windows. I think your basic idea works great for this "rod", but you need to finish the job. Contra (for now)
  • Alessandro Della Casa 04/22/2007 0:47

    ++++++++++
  • Gerry R. Dagonese 04/22/2007 0:47

    Hi Andy,

    Thanks again for the time to look and study, and return to look again; thank you for the comment. We all benefit from the comments. Most of all, thank you for yours to Stefan; your act displayed character.

    I think the reason for the effect would dictate where it was placed, to what parts of the photo, and whether it was a "mistake." Just like the decision to leave parts of the car in the effect (i.e., the tail end), the decision to leave the effect on the light was intentional. Indeed, in the post-processing stages, I had removed the effect from the light. But, because I liked it better with the rays running from the light, and because I felt it was within the context of my intent (the car emerging into existence not necessarily all at one time), I painted it back into the picture. At the same time, I decreased the opacity on this part of the shot so the light has slightly less the effect.

    I appreciate the comment and the opinion being expressed. Without that, we do not always have the opportunity to see what went into creating a work, and in the process, learn--both as the photographer and the viewers.

    Gerry
  • ivano cheli (2) 04/22/2007 0:47

    +++
  • Andy Pomplun 04/22/2007 0:47

    btw, I now found the mistake on your photo: it is that the filter goes off the headlight on the left as well and this is the most disturbing there, the effect should only go around the outlines of the object... :)))