Doylestown 1223-04/10

I'd suggest that you not reduce your scans so much, Richard. Something closer to 600 pixels per side makes it easier to get a sense of the original.

This has a lovely delicate quality to it. I think the color works really well here, and think this one is the best of the one's you uploaded today. For some reason, color works when it's very monochramatic like this, and I think the small size really makes you look closer, just like a whisper really makes you listen harder. I imagine the actual print is far more jewel like in person, and that quality is sadly lost in this form. Thanks for sharing.

Mark, I aprecciate your suggestion, but please don\'t be offended that I disregard it. The small size is part of what makes it what it is. The original is not 600 pixles wide (@72 dpi) so I don\'t know how you can get a better sense of the original when it does not exist at that size.

\"For some reason, color works when it\'s very monochramatic like this . . . \" You made a similar comment about another picture of mine that was made in B+W. I think that in the natural world color can be all too discriptive when I am seeking to become more and more abstract in my aproach to picture making. I have recently been photographing the less recognizable and here color was finally an option for experimentation. I don't know if I will pursue it further in color, but most certainly in black and white (where it started).

I look at the left edge where there is a transition from blue to yellow and it is distracting. I love the overall color of the photograph but the color shift makes it look like an unevenly toned silver print. Where do I see this work going? Nelson's gold toned silver contact prints (or albumen---but it is very, very cold out).

I liked the color before, but on my monitor this repost looks better. Little more subtle.