|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Reply |
Thank you very much Madhusudhan. A few years ago many of my landscapes were quite awful (I thought). Then I began to ask what was I trying to accomplish by taking this snap? Once I began figuring out a goal the work got better. Also, understanding the dynamic range of the camera and how to make use of this range correctly made a big difference.
Thanks again, you are most kind. |
May 21st |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
This is a really interesting falls and the angle you chose to capture it merely enhances the impact. Using a 10-20mm lens means that you were certainly quite close to the falls. I think your camera settings were well chosen to get the capture you were seeking and with that lens you easily should have had enough DOF to keep everything (rocks and trees) sharp. However when I look at the image there is really nothing that is truly sharp. The water I can understand, as you dragged the shutter to make it blur, but the rocks should be clean since that lens at f22 has awesome DOF. I can only guess that one of two things went wrong. Those gorilla pods are not the most solid things on the market and my guess is that over the time of the exposure the camera moved slightly costing you the sharp focus. The only other thing I can figure is that you moved the camera when you tripped the shutter and I would rule that out because you have demonstrated too much skill with your camera gear over the last few months. Did you use a cable release or perhaps the self timer to trip the shutter?
I would think the falls is beautiful enough to be worth a second trip. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
This is a bright cheery "tropical" feeling image. I personally do not mind the clipping of the wing on the butterfly on the left, in fact, I would have cropped more of it. Maybe evening off the space on the left so that it matches the space on the right. hat would focus more attention on your model in the center. Since you cropped so much of the original, I might suggest that you don't crop off the purple flower at the bottom center. With cropping, either really crop or don't crop at all. Don't make it look like a error, make it say--I meant to do this.
I feel this ia a really neat capture of the butterfly and sets it off quite well in the frame...
I've done some reading about Topaz and the sharpening of AI and i know that it is a memory hog. It does not appear to have done too bad of a job on the foliage but I think it appears to have built up quite a lot of contrast in the wings. I'm looking forward to seeing you use more of this tool so I can see how it works. :-) Except for the contrast, it seems to have worked pretty well. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
I love shots that have high drama within them---and this fits the bill. I think this is really quite interesting. I do feel you could crop a fairly good sized chunk the right as there is nothing happening there and it would focus more attention of the damsel fly. I'd also bring down the brightness of those flowers (since they are a somewhat out of focus) because their brightness competes with the two insects. If you bring down the brightness of the image (in global) you could use the adjustment brush to brighten the damsel fly and make it pop a bit. That would help to fix the eye of the viewer on the action.
You really have a cool action shot here. Thee is lots to like about this image. Well done! |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Reply |
When the chicks are really young they are more creamy in color. As they age they get more yellow. If you add a vignette it will begin to look pretty phony. But you might be able to add just a little bit. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
As I noted earlier the overall quality of this image is much improved. The fact that you were able to use almost the full frame really does make a great difference. Yes, you are right---this is the male. The female will have a brown ruff on her neck when she is in breeding plumage. Nature is tough with all the foreground litter that usually shows up but as long as you can keep most of the bird clear---the the heads are clean you can make it work. Overall, the composition is very nice and you should have shoved a few of those photogs out of the way---I probably know most of them. The worst part about the image is the white area on the nest under the birds. Remember white draws the eye of the viewer. You said you added a filter to the area to to darken it a bit---try working with the adjustment brush in Lightroom to bring that down a bit more. You also could darken the applied filter a bit without causing any real damage. While you did a nice job on the wings to bring back detail (as you noted) try that adjustment brush set to about the mid 70s for flow and feather and raise the clarity and contrast a bit as you brush over the white areas of the wings. That should help the detail. You also may have to lower the exposure a tiny bit---but try without doing that first. You also might try using that adjustment brush with the same flow and feather settings and this time lower the exposure then brush over the heavy bright branch just above the bird's head. darkening that branch will help the image a great deal. Just don't go so far as to let it get muddy.
You did well with this image. Now you will have to go back again. :-) I'm 25 minutes from that location. If you return and want company give me a call (or email). I got a couple of other nearby places you could try as well. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Reply |
I agree with Cheryl. The second photo is pretty neat. The only draw back is the eye of the bird on the left is a bit hard to see. Try that burst mode with the cable release and see if you can get lucky when you go back----you ARE going back right??? :-) |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
I really like this composition---sort of a frame within a frame to set off the bird. Like you said, it is unfortunate that the ISO is so high as it softens the bird a bit. It appears the tree is really pretty sharp so I'm thinking the softness of the bird may be due to motion blur. That D800 should hold better at ISO 1600. I understand the AUTO ISO issue as that takes a bit of doing to get it to work right. Were you shooting in manual mode? Did you try shooting in bursts? That will often help with getting one shot of the burst to be sharper than the others. Another suggest -- a couple of weeks ago I shot eagles returned to their nest with food for the chicks. I had my long lens on a tripod with gimbal head and everything locked down to prevent movement. i was shooting with a cable release. This way,since the nest was stationary I never had to touch the camera I could just stand there, enjoy the scene and use the cable when necessary. The only thing I do not like are the hot spots on the tree that are burned out. Tree looks much better in your attached photo. I know PSA would frown on it, but could you clone in some bark to fix the tree?? I hope you get back again to shoot the wee ones when they are more mature. Looking forward to more images of the family. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
Thank you Cheryl. I often go back to the same place, under different light, time of year and weather a location may look quite different. I've found that my best shots are often planned to some degree. If course, you have to be flexible because thing can change rapidly when in the field. In the last year or so I have found that the app PhotoPills really does help in planning a shot. This photo is not in a gallery but it has been sold several times to private companies and individuals and is displayed in that manner. The largest is a 60 inch wide print that Motorola bought. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Reply |
Thank you Richard. Please go ahead and be "you" and look for things to change in the image. The area that you thought of as marsh is actually a bit of a coral rock edge. While the stone may look more white in the daylight it is actually pretty dark and covered mostly with mold and algae. There is little there to add to the composition. There is more foreground material when the water is low, but not at the ti me of year that this was taken. If you plan to come down, let me know, I'll be happy to act as a guide. I do know a few places... :-) |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Reply |
Thank you Michael. I remember when I was in high school and reading the Odyssey by Homer how he constantly referred to dawn as rosy fingered. Can't get that phrase out of my head even after all these decades. I tend to use it in titles fairly often. Finding neat foregrounds in the dark is always an issue. This time I got lucky. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Reply |
Thanks Wayne. You are right about the featureless nature of the everglades. You have to really look to find a good photo. For the record, I use a GND filter on about 90% of my landscapes simply because the camera cannot record the entire dynamic range of most images and it needs a bit of help from the filter. I kept this much darker so as to guide the eye of the viewer to the areas I wanted them to look at. That is why the trees are in silhouette. Thanks for the compliment. |
May 10th |
| 67 |
May 19 |
Comment |
Just finished up loading your images. The first thing I noted was that you didn't crop much of this image and the increase in quality literally jumps off the screen! Well done!!! I'll write a full comment when I finish with all the uploads. |
May 2nd |
7 comments - 6 replies for Group 67
|
7 comments - 6 replies Total
|
