|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
Yes, it would have been nice had there been some people in the picture. If I had been clever I could have asked a friend who was with me to go to a nice spot in the picture. I'm not too interested in adding things to images that weren't there in my mind's eye as I took the picture. |
Aug 6th |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
It took me a bit of thinking to understand why the different sets of parallel rows don't have different luminosities as would be the case if they were flat surfaces. The rows are bushes however, and we are seeing the light that is reflected from the leaves. These are oriented in all directions. Therefore, all the different rows should all look the same since they all consist of leaves oriented in random directions. |
Aug 6th |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
Your original from which you took the roof shows a piece of corrugated steel roofing obscuring increasing parts of the bottom row of shingles. Because you included that bottom row of singles, but not the corrugated steel, your bottom row trails into nothing and a couple shingles at the end ore totally obscured. Simply not using that bottom row of shingles seems likely to have avoided the two problems. |
Aug 6th |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
It seems likely to me that the bottom plane is closer to the camera than the top plane because they are not stacked vertically. If they were perfectly stacked vertically, from the structure of the planes, it looks like several components would either be in direct contact or interpenetrating one another. This explanation would also explain the fact that in lots of other shots, one of the planes appears longer than the other. It would be interesting to see one of these "stacks" from the front. |
Aug 6th |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
I like the feeling of depth and the aged feeling generated by doing it in B&W. Possibly a bit more contrasty would add more pizaz to the image, but this may not so easy as the back wall should not become dead black. |
Aug 2nd |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Thank you. Yes, the bench must go and increasing contrast of the greens would add some zip. I don't have a good way to darken the trees, but I'll keep working on it. |
Aug 2nd |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Nice subject and excellent reroofing job. On the topmost section of roof and the closest section of roof, the bottom row of singles trails off to nothing was it comes closer to the camera. In the original, this line is obscured by what looks like a piece of tin that you didn't include in the new roof. Alas, to me this line of shingles in the final image looks doctored. |
Aug 2nd |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Spectacular! Perhaps reverse, as I and a lot of people like things to move from left to right. Why is the bottom plane longer than the top one? |
Aug 2nd |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
I like the subject, the colored buildings and the shadows of the trees. I'd like it more if the colors weren't so vivid. Is there any way to bring out some texture in the walls of the buildings? |
Aug 1st |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
A very intereting subject. In your processed version, the green band on the left and the reflection in the mirror distract me a little. Oddly, they don't distract me in the original. To me it is a trade off, the one has the beautiful green of the pendant, and the other has a more comfortable context for the pendant. |
Aug 1st |
| 78 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
I like the scene and the sunset. I think that I like the original more than the processed one, which feels a bit unnaturally emphasized. |
Aug 1st |
7 comments - 4 replies for Group 78
|
7 comments - 4 replies Total
|
