After a few weeks at my computer almost full time (with breaks for the holidays), my website is done (for now), and I can start easing back into the online world. Though it may be a little while before I feel like doing much more scanning or significant HTML coding. Anyway, here's something from a party that happened a few weeks ago. The shadow detail's better in the print.

mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 04, 2000

Answers

Ooops, missed the closing quote mark the first time. Hope this worked.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 04, 2000.

Mike, I think it's a fun shot. I have a question though. Your pictures are consistently so dark that I can't see anything except hightlights on my monitor, and my monitors are calibrated fairly well. Are they artistically meant to be virtually indecipherable (i.e. the concept that things that may not be visible to the human eye are actually visible if they manifest themselves even minutely) or do you work on a monitor that's calibrated "hot" (i.e. too bright?)
Enclosed is one that I've massaged with photoshop. I mean no disrespect if it destroys your artistic vision.


-- edward kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), December 04, 2000.

Nice hangers on the chick, anyway.

-- steve v (steve1chsn@aol.com), December 04, 2000.

After the lightened, rack-revealing version, it's difficult to judge the artist's original intent, although I might relate to a happy in-between somewhere. The one thing that pops out at me is your consistent selenium-purpleness-maximus which I've really gotten a kick out of of all your work. Well, the other day I thought about you as I mixed some chemicals. Made a batch of 1:10 Sel. at about 80F... left some MG IV FB specimens in for as long as 10 minutes or so, and I _still_ can't reach this level of toning. Just how do you do it? Anyway, about your photograph. It seems slightly unsharp. I like the toning, though.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), December 05, 2000.

I don't like this pic due to the characters expressions... She doesn't really look too worried, and he is over acting badly. The lighting (I would agree with Tony on image brightness.. somewhere between to two) is excellent, highlighting the expressions well. The level of movement is also nicely selected (I say 'selected' since I think Mike chooses this in making his images with some knowledge and success) I'd imagine a lighter than the original representation could do with burning in her left 'hanger' (a breast to most people!) a bit to loose that hotspot! I would like to here about the toning too.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), December 05, 2000.

Ohh, that really pisses me off!! I just spent twenty minutes writing a complete response to your questions, and the *&((_)& system has eaten it!

After I settle down, I'll try to repost the hightlights. / /

-- Mike Dixon (mike@dixonphotography.com), December 05, 2000.

Hangers? Her hair is covering her earlobes and I can't see ear rings of any sort.

-- John Thurston (john_thurston@my-deja.com), December 06, 2000.