|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Interesting thought. What you see actually has a great deal of light painting in it. I think I used something like 30+ different adjustments to get it where it current stands. The trouble for me was all the light play was behind the building. I do feel like I should darken the sky. It seems too bright and due to its size seems to make the entire image feel brighter. It was grey---so maybe I should just make it a darker grey. That would throw move focus to the foreground. |
Dec 17th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Bill
Just for future reference. If there were entered i9n competition the judges would look at what they can see in the image---they would have no knowledge of what is cropped out. Thus they would expect to see the colors match what they can see. You would thus have to adjust the image to meet these expectations. If the image is just for your personal viewing---then ofcourse you can make it look any way that feels right to you. AFTER ALL, YOU ARE THE CREATOR and are therefore correct. |
Dec 17th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Interesting thought. The building was originally painted blue but that was about 150 years ago. The color has faded drastically. |
Dec 7th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thank yo Arne. I am pleased with this composition. While onsite it was interesting to feel this all come together. Especially when I started with the grass being my photographic center point. As I'm sure you can tell, there was quite a bit of dodging and burning in completing this scene. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Hi Barbara. You really should give Photopills a look over. It really helps with locating sunrises and sunsets when you are in a new environment as well as locating moon rises and the Milky Way. You can plan a shot months ahead and be dead on. The exposure calculator really make using optimum setting easy. I use this tool a great deal. It is not very expensive and although there is a learning curve, it is pretty simple. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Michael. I'll check the straightness of the image. d It is really nice to know that you spotted all the things I tried to incorporate into the image. The complimentary colors the leading line of the tree, the light shafts and the grasses were all things I tried to weave into a cohesive scene. Thanks again. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Richard. I'm really glad that I managed to move your eye toward the grasses. One of the things I stress in the photography classes I teach is the idea of trying to do something different. Here, I tried to practice what I preach. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
I think this is the most powerful image of the month for this group. When I look at this I feel the light seems similar to the alpen glow of the mountains. Dawn touches the high points first and slowing works its way to the valley floor. I think playing with a linear gradient darken the foreground and subtly lead the eye to the peak would add a great deal of drama. Note there is already some highlights on the top of the rock formation all i'm suggesting working off this concept and letting the light drift down the rocks.
It does appear that there is a bit of noise in the sky and could be brushed out. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
This is one of the better images I've seen of this falls. I do like the choice of shutter to show the power of the falls. I also certainly laud the creativity and drama you added to the image and the results are certainly worth your efforts.
With the recent improvements to Lightroom and Photoshop it has become so easy to do sky replacements. While to the casual viewer the scene looks right I do not feel that, in this image the colors work. You sky has two sources of color (light) that may impact the image. There is a white area toward the left and an orange area on the right. I feel that the orange area contains the color that SHOULD impact the entire image. However, your misty water has taken on a magenta hue both on the distant falls and in the foreground mist. I feel this should carry more of a warming tone to reflect the tones in the sky. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
This image has instant impact created by the gaudy color. While that color draws the eye I feel that interest in the image quickly dies. The composition is strong with the temple centered and the view through the "window" to the distant structure but the image feels cluttered. There is just too much going on. Red is a dominate eye catching color and the red light trail in the lower left I find distracting. This whole image feels like a slap in the face. I'm jolted shocked as I look at it. Toning down the foreground would center the eye of the viewer. In my opinion, you need to decide EXACTLY where you want the viewer to look. As shown,my eye has no place to come to rest. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
This church and you goal of bringing forth its place in the world is excellent. The idea of a light in a dark work is quite timely. This works really well in b/w.
The lower wall does not bother me and in fact I feel it helps create a diagonal rise coming from the lower left in the image and leading to the church. You might try a linear gradient used diagonally from the lower left impacting only the land. This movement from dark to light would move the eye and also contribute to your story. You also have the skills to brush in a slight gradient on only the church. moving from dark at the base to leaving the steeple a bit brighter. Sort of like the alpen glow on mountains tops at dawn. This would also, if kept very slight, help you sell your story of a light in a dark world.
I love images of old building like this. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
To me this is all about textures. From the smooth clouds to the rugged tree and then to the mixed brush in the right quadrant. I feel that since there are so many light tones that creating some shadows would make it more dramatic. Note, that i prefer drama in images so I lean toward included a diagonal linear gradient in the lower right to draw more attention to the tree.
You did a good job of bringing this special type of tree to life. |
Dec 6th |
| 36 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
I have always been a proponent of using a telephoto lens to highlight specific areas of a landscape. The idea is to create some sense of originality, something the eye does not generally see. Mostly when we view the moon it is really small in the sky. This image makes the moon look larger and that is what make the shot. If you want the moon to be important then, like several others I would rather drastically crop the image. At a minimum I would from from the right coming into the frame at least to the orange colored tree on the right. You might even explore being more drastic than that. Remember you can increase the pixel size of the final image quite easily using Lightroom.
Fall is a time when photographers can get away with a bit of color increase--as we all expect to see more of the fall colors. You should try to use a bit of luminance to make the colors a bit more lively. Better yet--try some dodging and warming using a Lightroom brush on selected trees. |
Dec 6th |
6 comments - 7 replies for Group 36
|
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Perhaps leaving the bottom stem will provide some context since it is something everyone has not seen. |
Dec 8th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
This is an interesting image with an original feeling. It is NOT something people see all the time and so that alone lifts the quality of the image. The editing you did all helped to make the image better.
I believe that the stem coming out of the top of the pad is a continuation of the stem at the bottom but the color shift makes it look unnatural. The blue is likely caused by the stem being in more shade. I feel you have two options. You could use Photoshop to or the new Lightroom to make a selection of the blue stem, and then adjust the hue until it matches the lower portion or, and what I feel is a better compositional solution, just remove it and then change the cop of the total image |
Dec 8th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
While this is an improvement over the original submission, I still think the swan on the right in the original would make a better image. I would also leave it in the landscape orientation rather than the portrait or vertical. It would be a more peaceful feeling image and add to the elegance of the swan. The swan you submitted here feels more angry to startled and that takes away the elegant feeling. |
Dec 8th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
David is exactly right. This image is just too busy with the multiple birds. The story if the bird on the right. I would be very, very tempted to move this into Photoshop and use so me content aware fill and remove the birds on the left. Then crop the image to just allow the bird on the right to have enough room to move into and call it a day. Sometimes less is more. You have a good reflection, some nice light and a sharp bird. Celebrate the accomplishment. |
Dec 7th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
You have good action here and this is the goal. I would suggest that you use a bit of dodge an burn technique and slightly brighten the buck on the right. that would also solve the eye problem. This thing keeping this from reaching awesome is just the angle the bucks are facing. But when shooting nature, even when you are prefect, nature often is not. It is still a great shot to have. |
Dec 7th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
To me the story is the damsel fly. Nothing else matters. I would eliminate the bright yellow distraction as it adds nothing to the image or the story. I'd even remove those web hairs for the same reason. The story is the fly and you captured that really well. |
Dec 7th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
As I noted everyone won't like this shot, or even understand it. I know that. It has meaning to me (and that is all that really matters) becasue I know what is happening. Would I enter this in competition, very likely note proverb. But I think seeing her emerge from the moss like the proverbial ghost was a thrill for me. |
Dec 7th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
I'm still quite happy with my D850 and my backup D810. They both are delivering the shots I want and I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
My biggest problem with birds is wing tips. I want to get as large an image as possible (fill the frame) However sometimes when I fill the frame and those big wings open (think owls, eagles GBH, osprey) sometimes I lose the tips. But that is MY fault not the camera or lens. Using my gimbal head, the focus features of my long lens and my panning ability I still manage. I'm very careful about exposure and work the light to optimum advantage. I will pass up shots if I think they just won't work or I won't like the results. About 70% of the time I actually fire of a 3-4 frame burst i get a shot to keep. Are they all contest winners? No. But when you shoot action little things (a close eye in flight or a branch held in a beak or bill may block an eye) may render a shot not perfect. |
Dec 7th |
| 67 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thank you for your comment. I'm not sure what you mean by the D850 not being fast for birds in flight. shooting at up to 1/4000 of a second I recently stopped and have a pin sharp image of a red tail hawk in a stoop diving at 120 MPH straight down on my camera and it is a perfect shot.
I think a lot of the capture ability depends on the lens (my 200-400 with tc1.4 never fails) and the second is the ability of the photographer to handle his gear. |
Dec 6th |
4 comments - 5 replies for Group 67
|
10 comments - 12 replies Total
|
