|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Breathtaking vista! I can't add much to the comments above - other than I'd love to have a chance to visit - sound pretty amazing. Great colors and layers! |
May 28th |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Reply |
You raise a good point about some passengers on the left. I may have avoided taking pictures of people as they approached me (some people don't like that) - also they would block the lit wall on the side. There is a similar wall on the other side - obscured by the passengers. I'll look through my images - perhaps there is a better one. |
May 9th |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Comment |
You did a great job of making the plants/colors pop more. Definitely more vivid and interesting in you edited image. One question I would ask - is whether they might be too bright/vivid - for a very foggy/overcast day? Are they consistent with the background lighting? They do make the photograph more interesting/pleasing to the eye.
Regarding pixelation . . . it's all about image size vs. the screen you are viewing on. These are relatively small images (approx 1000 x 700 pixels). Viewing them on a phone - they'll look fine. Enlarging them on a desktop screen - makes them appear pixelated since each pixel in the electronic file is filling several pixels on your screen. I imported them into Lightroom which allows easy viewing at various magnifications. Viewed at 100% (which most people recommend for viewing, editing, etc.) - they look fine. Expanded a little (200%) the pixelation is very apparent/distracting. If you wanted to view large or print - you could try expanding the image with LR/PS. I agree that your edits made the pixelation worse (probably by sharpening some noise present in the original image). |
May 8th |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Yes - I agree that your composition gives the viewer a sense of place/size - and the subject is clearly unexpected! Well done - I think that creates interest. Where do you think he came from? I admire the way you were careful not to hurt the small snake - rather relocate it to a safe refuge! This kind of image might make a good monochrome - since there is little color in it. |
May 8th |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I like this image a lot! So many leading lines to the sunrise (pier, fishing pole, man's gaze). Warm colors in the sky. The person adds so much interest to the photograph! One suggestion might be to crop it to 16:9 aspect ratio. Half your image is sky - which doesn't add much. By cropping and darkening the left side - I think you further emphasize the fisherman/sunrise and might improve the image. |
May 7th |
 |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Quang - I agree with LuAnn's comments above! A simple (almost child-like) rendition of the scene. Very pleasing and well done. The edited version holds my interest much more than the original. The Washington Monument is perfectly captured by the edits. The flag surface a bit less so; but still well done. I may also explore Inkblot! |
May 6th |
| 86 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Very interesting image - I like how the foreground structures (temples) contrast in style/color with the city in the background. I'm not sure I would have thought they were temples if you hadn't explained - but they are definitely different. Good exposure/sharpness throughout. Regarding the flag - in my opinion it doesn't add much and distracts from the main subject. It's the brightest/most colorful part of the photo, at the edge, and cut off. Including the full flag closer to the center would have added and given a sense of place. I appreciate that you had no opportunity for such a vantage point. |
May 6th |
6 comments - 1 reply for Group 86
|
| 87 |
May 23 |
Reply |
Thanks Chan - appreciate your thoughts. After sending Lance the text above - I found the image on the memory card - and was able to see where the focus point was (it was on the edge of her right arm and the fence behind her). Agree the shutter speed is fast enough for this type of action. As you suggest - if I had it to do over - I would use a somewhat smaller aperture to have a little more (forgiving) depth of field. |
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Reply |
The 70 - 200 is a very different lens. The 24-105 is > 4x zoom and typically doesn't open wider than f4. There are rumors of such 2.8 lens in the future - but I didn't think it exists today. |
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Great image - I have nothing to add to the comments above. A soft/pastoral scene! Interesting foreground, mid-ground and background layers. If only that mare wasn't there! |
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Beautiful image. Prior to reading the comments above - I was not bothered by the focus; rather enjoyed the beauty, softness and colors! Jennifer makes a good point about modern cameras. You can shoot full autofocus or manual (as Lance suggests) - but there are a range of options in between - where you select the point(s)/zone of interest and let the camera focus there. I find that works well - if you have the time to think/manipulate the focus point (either in the viewfinder or back screen). Might be the best of both worlds! Lately I'm using manual focus only for static/tripod mounted scenes (either landscape or macro/tabletop) where I have lots of time.
Was this shot at f2.8? I didn't think there was a 24-105 lens that opens that much?
|
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Kudos to you for taking a "different" picture in a fish market! It does have a sense of old alongside modern. Agree the foreground fish are distracting - between their brightness and color - my eye keeps getting pulled to them. Might try either darkening that area or reducing the saturation - to help focus the viewer on the transaction. I have two non-photographic comments:
1) Why haven't these wireless devices that have been required in Europe for two decades made their way to the US? Always makes me nervous when a server takes my credit card into some back room to process a transaction. Much safer for customer to do it himself at the table.
2). What is the purpose of the glove? If it's to keep the food "clean" - why is he doing the transaction with the same hand?
|
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Nice image - great color/depth - in something so small. Agree when photographing flowers (especially inside with no wind) - it's a perfect opportunity to practice manual focus on specific parts of the flower - also varying the f-stop to get a range of depths of field. I like Lance's edits - including the B&W. I'm always amazed that B&W images of colorful flowers can be so beautiful. Your image, coincident with the arrival of Spring, motivates me to photograph flowers! |
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Your wife did a great job finding material for this subject! Love the colors. My thoughts viewing this image - I agree there is too much table. I'd make the focus more the food. If there a way to increase the depth/texture of the fruits and veggies - making them pop more - seem seem a bit flat to me (perhaps with light from one side). What are the pros/cons of juxtaposing things that really don't go together - for example the strawberries and Brussel sprouts? Is this what you brought back from the market (in which case you don't need to board or knife) or is it food ready to be chopped/prepared? Might also play with replacing the knife with a loaf of crusty bread? Or a glass of wine? Fun subject with so many possibilities! |
May 6th |
| 87 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Interesting image - and kudos to you for having your 300mm lens handy en route tot he gym at 5AM! This image is very reminiscent of the images you posted some time ago of reflections of trees in your coffee mug. Same aesthetic! There a halo of light around the moon - at first I thought you used some kind of vignette to create this - but then realized it's probably just the natural moonlight. Well done! I agree the square crop works best. |
May 6th |
6 comments - 2 replies for Group 87
|
12 comments - 3 replies Total
|
