|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
I appreciate your response - did some reading - you are correct. Other images this month have similar pixel dimensions and are sharp. File compression (wherever it's happening) is likely contributing! I wasn't thinking about that, but it makes sense. |
Oct 17th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
I think you are right . . . I did increase the saturation of the bandanna (too much). The image was processed with Lightroom Mobile; it has several masking features. I thought about trying it with this image - because Lightroom has a color range mask. Since only the bandanna was red - it was pretty easy to select it (the tool also captured some of his skin and woodwork around window since they had some red - which I was able to brush away). Once I had a selection of the bandana only - I inverted that mask (so everything except the bandanna was selected) and desaturated the image - resulting in B&W. |
Oct 16th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
Kieu-Hanh: Thank you! I think you are right that the broccoli and cauliflower may add more distraction than interest. I will play with tighter crops. |
Oct 16th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
How about B&W with a red bandanna? This is a fun image! |
Oct 13th |
 |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
I brought Ruth's edited image into Lr - and it measured 829 x 768 pixels. Not sure if that is the size of what Ruth sent you - or if the size changed during the your upload (unlikely). Most mobile screens are about 2500 pixels tall and 1200 pixels wide. I agree with you that some softness in Ruth's image may be due (at least in part) to the pixel dimensions. Images that are <1MB and approx 1400 pixels on the long dimension are probably optimal for this system. I appreciate that isn't always possible. Posted: 10/13/2022 11:09:03 |
Oct 13th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
I like your crop better . . . mine was too tight. |
Oct 12th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
I suspect it's not you - rather the minimum focus distance of your iPhone. If you get your phone too close to a small subject - it will be out of focus (the iPhone is unable to focus that close). Unfortunately - I'm not sure the iPhone has a way to tell you that (and the details will vary with phone/software version). You might have better luck backing up a little and cropping, if needed. Another possibility could be movement - if the iPhone wasn't steady - in a shot like this where you were holding it very close to the ground. Just some thoughts for your consideration.
Does anyone know how to tell is the iPhone achieved focus on a very close subject? |
Oct 9th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Pat - This genre of photography is way outside my experience. I look forward to learning more about it. Very creative! The cemetery is interesting - not sure exactly what you did with it - it's recognizable and keeps my attention. I like the sharp/cool/blue feel. The trees are bit bright - almost infrared-like. The are also sharp and easily recognized.
Regarding the dancers - to my eye - they are little too white/bright and seem to get lost against he white trees. Their shapes are still there - but I'm not sure I would have recognized what they were if you hadn't shared the other images. I'd be interested to see what this would look like if you didn't invert the dancers; perhaps use the dark silhouettes, feathered, at less than full opacity? They might be more recognizable and pop against the white foliage. Just a thought.
|
Oct 8th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Great shot - well exposed/framed and sharp. I love the reflection. The individual panes of glass have just enough separation/angle - to make the whole thing look like a jigsaw puzzle. Very creative!
My only question would be about the sky replacement - it's technically perfect (what program did you use to do it?) - but I'm not sure that sky goes with the image.
Something you might consider is a tighter crop of just the reflection - perhaps playing with that, rotating it, etc. - to create something abstract.
Reflections are a lot of fun to photograph!
|
Oct 8th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Ruth - Your crop/rotation dramatically improved the image. In the original - the lizard seems to be climbing down and literally out of the frame. In the rotated version - he is climbing up into the scene - much more interesting/better composition!
I agree the green on the periphery is a bit distracting - you could selectively desaturate those areas - toning them down and still leaving some green. A vignette might also help.
I agree with Quang that the focus seems a little soft; not sure if this is real? Due to crop? Or perhaps you were too close with the iPhone such that it was unable to focus?
I like that you included the pecan - it provides important context for the size of this tiny animal.
Well done! |
Oct 7th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Street photography is tough - and this is a good example of it! I love the intensity, muscular shoulder/arm, puffed cheeks, red bandanna and foreground items. They tell a story. I can imagine the music!
Regarding composition - from my perspective - the musician is too close to the left edge - that limits some options unless you have a wider shot. I think that the seal on the building (upper right) distracts and doesn't add anything. It would be easy to clone or crop out. Several of the edges are a bit bright - that pulls the viewers'gaze from the subject.
I played with this a little (see image) - cropping square, darkening the edges and slightly enhancing the musician - all trying to draw more attention to him.
A tighter crop could also be interesting - but it would lose the "street" vibe.
I love the groups name - however - if you hadn't pointed it out - I would not have noticed it.
iPhone is perfect for street photography!
|
Oct 7th |
 |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
Thanks Ruth!
I think you are right - I overdid the darkening on the cauliflower. I think it was too bright in the original . . . but I darkened it too much. |
Oct 7th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
I enjoy this scene and am not bothered by all the activity. It is not cluttered - it's what I imagine the scene would look like. Reality. The layers of interest (grapes, vines, mountains, sky) work well. The colors are good; the red sweatshirt a bonus! I think it's fine that we can't see their faces; we know what they are doing and that they are busy at work. If you were to shoot this again (or have a larger frame), I'd rather include the whole body of the person on the right. To my eye, having him at the edge of the frame (and cutting part of him out) makes the image less pleasing. You are fortunate to live around such beautiful scenes! |
Oct 5th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Quang - beautiful image! I enjoy the layers of interest (grass, gun, trees, sky, birds). My eyes wander around - in a good way! The main subject in my mind is the gun. Your low vantage point makes it pop nicely against the sky. I like the contrast between the hard/violent gun and serenity of the rest of the image (including birds peacefully gliding). I did have two questions - my sense is that the sky looks a bit over processed, but perhaps that was what the scene looked like? Also - what was your intent in choosing that texture? It strikes me as a bit harsh/rough - in an otherwise soft scene. |
Oct 5th |
| 86 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
Thank you. Taking pictures with the iPhone is so enjoyable/refreshing - compared with a larger camera. I look forward to learning more! I must confess that although I enjoy brussel sprouts, I did not purchase a stalk. Perhaps next year! |
Oct 5th |
6 comments - 9 replies for Group 86
|
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Kind of reminds me of your Oct 2019 image :)
I really like the softness of this image - something I'm learning from you and Will's recent work - is that tack sharp isn't necessarily best. We don't need to see the pores in their skin!
The fact that we can't see either of their eyes works perfectly. Sometimes a closed eye or downward gaze fits the vibe. I'm sure if I was taking this picture I would have instinctively asked your daughter to look at me - which of course would have ruined the image.
The soft focus fits the serenity of the scene - and the B&W works well! Definitely more pleasing than a high key/tack sharp shot. Beautiful image/beautiful family.
One question - at least on my monitor and with the low resolution image posted - I'm not sure what is really in focus. Perhaps Isla's left eye (the lashes seem pretty sharp) - but even they have a softness (perhaps due to low contrast)? What do you think? |
Oct 7th |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
. . . some people will use any excuse to avoid getting on a stationary bike . . . |
Oct 6th |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
|
Oct 6th |
 |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
|
Oct 6th |
 |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
Cindy - you raise an interesting question about the dice overlapping vs. separated. I had some frames with the latter - so I used those dice in the following edits - one sharp - the other with some blur. I tend to prefer the sharp image. Thank you for your suggestions! I think I'm done editing this shot. |
Oct 6th |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Beautiful image - I love the color and waviness of the moving water. And it's sharp! I didn't realize that these animals appear above the water? Am I seeing that correctly? And the reflections are a bonus! The waves create mirrors at different angles (your title is perfect). I also like the contrast between the soft/peaceful water - and the painful sting of this creature. Fun shot - I could see this being part of a series! |
Oct 5th |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Very nice image - the B&W works really well - you have the full range of tones; from bright white to dark black. The soft shadows around the individual pieces of soap create some moodiness and interest. I like the black background. I must confess that when I first glanced at this - my thought was medication prepared for the morning! My father used to have a small dish on the kitchen table that he used to prepare his medicine for the next morning. A good/warm memory. |
Oct 5th |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Well done image of a very moving scene. Great use of shallow depth of field! The crosses that seem to go on forever convey the magnitude of the loss. War today seems very different - with planes/drones dropping laser guided bombs; less man-to-man brutality. On the other hand - perhaps Ukraine looks very much like this battlefield. The whole scene seems a bit dark to me - from the 1/8000 shutter speed - I'm guessing this was taken in bright sun. Perhaps this alternate rendition captures what the scene looked like? Or maybe your intent was to keep it a bit dark consistent with the overall vibe? |
Oct 4th |
 |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Comment |
Your puzzles are great . . . still remember the ice cream sprinkles! These look to me like either some effervescent liquid or tiny suspended droplets of water (or oil). I'm interested in the droplets on the right - that have an octagonal bright spot - perhaps an octabox with a diffuser? The black stuff on the left could be etchings in a glass. I like the way the light hits this in different ways, different sized blobs - and the gradual transition from blue to red. I'm guessing you used two light sources with different gels. I await your behind the scene explanation! |
Oct 4th |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
|
Oct 3rd |
 |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
|
Oct 3rd |
 |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
|
Oct 3rd |
 |
| 87 |
Oct 22 |
Reply |
Exposing the surrounding scene wouldn't add much - it's my unfinished basement! I am intrigued by your suggestion to add motion to the dice. I was so focused (pun intended) on freezing the action - that I didn't consider the alternative. I was lazy - so tried it in Ps. The following three images introduce motion blur at a 45 degree angle - with 40, 80 and 120 pixels of blur. What do you think? |
Oct 3rd |
5 comments - 8 replies for Group 87
|
11 comments - 17 replies Total
|
