|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
I like the seemingly endless rows of flags. Your edits work really well - you improved the image in so many ways! Removing the distracting elements definitely helps!
What made you shoot with your iPad (as opposed to your phone); I never considered that? Do you think it has advantages over the phone?
Regarding sharpness/resolution - when I view these images (both the original and the final) on my computer at 100% - to my eye they aren't sharp despite having adequate resolution for my display. What do you think the iPad locked focus on? |
Jul 15th |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Love this image - very interesting how you captured the backlit cacti (almost like rim lighting). Interesting that the cactus along the right edge has a very red hue. Whey do you think that is? I like that the foreground cacti are sharp . . . and the focus fades; works really well! One question - do you think the large branch on the upper right helps or hurts the image.
To my eye - it interrupts the scene - you already have other spectacular foreground elements. I played with removing it. What to you/others think?
|
Jul 15th |
 |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Interesting image - the colors work well together. Agree the water droplets add interest. I like the appearance of the blurred background - using portrait mode was a good/creative idea. On my monitor - the flowers don't appear sharp. Not sure why - what do you think the camera locked focus on? Unfortunately there is no way to go back and see that in the metadata (I wish there was - also for "big boy" cameras). |
Jul 7th |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Hi Jack - nice image - the fog is like nature's linear gradient. Works well! Regarding the cables - I personally find them a bit distracting (I tend to prefer clean shots like this). I'm a bit bothered by the fact that they overlap the top of the church (one of the more important parts of the frame). If I was shooting this in the future - might leave the cables in - but try to move to a spot where they frame (but don't overlap) the top of the church. I can see that others may find the current location another layer of depth/interest that improve the picture. |
Jul 7th |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Nice image - well exposed. Each sunset is unique. Regarding the color - it looks to me a bit over-processed (of course, only you know what it really looked like). It could be the cell phone camera - which tends to render images even more brilliant than they appear in reality (perhaps because that's what manufacturers people like) - or your processing in LR. Did you know that after you hit Auto in LR - you can see what it did to all the basic sliders - and then tweak them further. Auto is often a jump start - and from there you can more easily adjust everything. |
Jul 7th |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Well . . . I'd say that the leaves are a happy accident. They make the image better/more interesting. Without them - it would be just another shot of the moon. With them . . . I can wonder what they are - and even more - imagine what they could represent - sort of like an abstract Rorschach image. Nicely done. |
Jul 7th |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Reply |
Thank Jack. I agree that the image posted in Group 87 is a more interesting/complete. |
Jul 7th |
| 86 |
Jul 24 |
Reply |
You make a good point - in the color - the hands pop more . . . and that pad on his chest is less distracting. I could also tone it down in the B&W. Thank you.
|
Jul 7th |
6 comments - 2 replies for Group 86
|
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Although I can't put my finger on exactly why - when I view this image - it looks a bit artificial/surreal. Might be because I've never seen a scene like this? Or your stitching together five frames (you don't state the focal length) - even overlapping - creates a field of view that is unnatural. I like that you placed the horizon low. The foreground of the dormant fields works well. You have become a storm chaser! |
Jul 12th |
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Reply |
Thank you.
The #2 pro seems very important.
Your image will send me down a rabbit hole where I will spend countless hours. |
Jul 7th |
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Really interesting image. I never would have thought about combining ICM and multiple exposures. I like that the movement in the two frames is in different directions. I find myself wondering about what the scenes really were; keeps my interest. One question - what do you see as the pros/cons of doing this in-camera vs. in Ps? Novelty? Better results?
By the way I looked at the website you shared - beautiful/interesting . . . I was going to sign up for her newsletter/group - until I saw the price that I thought was ridiculous.
Tx for motivating me to try this! |
Jul 7th |
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Can't add much to the other comments - beautiful image of an amazing spot! Definitely a spot to return to - so many permutations for how you could frame/expose this scene. One comment on settings - esp if you intended to print - (I have that lens - love it - it's my favorite lens!) - I would have closed the aperture a bit more (perhaps f5.6 or f8). You have enough light, would have enjoyed more depth of field and overall a sharper image. I have definitely found that this lens is not sharpest wide open. Using the base ISO (100) would have also helped. Great work. |
Jul 7th |
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
GREAT image - love the processing. I can feel the connection/comfort/warmth between them. Although their facial expressions are very different - they're expressing their warm emotion in their own way. Hope you print/display this! I agree that the processing is perfect; reminiscent of an old B&W photo from a family album. I rarely like the white vignette - but it's perfect for this image. |
Jul 7th |
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Chan - I like the processing - reminds me of old Kodachrome slides - a warm/comfortable vibe. Interesting scene - well exposed/processed. Two questions: It appears that the final image is different from the original shared (position of man's arm, box, second person behind him) - or are these due to your edits? Also- in an image of this type - does the person add or detract from the scene?
Thoughts? |
Jul 7th |
| 87 |
Jul 24 |
Comment |
Interesting image/creative processing. My eyes go straight to the bright flowers . . . then wander around the frame - trying to understand the background and darker leaves at the bottom. The primary focus is the largest/brightest flower facing the camera - but the nearby smaller/darker flowers add to the scene without distracting. I wonder if the processed lighting is a bit over-done; trying to understand how this variation in lighting would exist in nature. You have an interesting series of images! |
Jul 7th |
6 comments - 1 reply for Group 87
|
12 comments - 3 replies Total
|
