|
Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
11 |
Feb 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Peter! It was fun finding this amidst the creatures. |
Feb 15th |
11 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Jim,
My wife and I visited this area a number of years ago, but we were too cheap to do the Eye. I think now we were too hasty! This is terrific and monochrome works beautifully here. |
Feb 15th |
11 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Remarkable capture, Nenette! Not too many people would think to capture an image like this but you did and it's an impressive image. I do agree with Peter that you could lighten it a bit to bring out more detail, but that's a judgment call. |
Feb 15th |
11 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
I really like this, Sheldon. My wife and I visited this place for the first time a couple of years ago and enjoyed it immensely though I didn't get anything nearly as nice as this. You caught the shapes and textures beautifully. |
Feb 15th |
11 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Peter,
Lovely image. I really like your crop and light processing here. The only thing I don't like is the vignette. It feels overdone with the defined edge at the top of the image. You might consider a lighter touch with more feathering.
|
Feb 15th |
4 comments - 1 reply for Group 11
|
66 |
Feb 25 |
Reply |
Good suggestions, Melanie. I wasn't really thinking of this as high key, but of course you are correct. |
Feb 15th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Reply |
Good thought, Emil. Thanks. |
Feb 7th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Thanks, Gary. I considered getting rid of that tree, but got lazy. I'll take another look. |
Feb 5th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Charles. The camera was an indulgence, but I've been really happy with the results. I forgot to include that this is a full spectrum conversion with a 720 clip filter. As I said to Jack, more contrast is definitely called for here. |
Feb 5th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Jack. I've gone back and played with contrast a bit and I have to agree about the tree trunks. |
Feb 5th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Well done, Emil! It's not obviously IR, but I find IR brings out tones that are lost in a conventional image so it probably made a subtle difference here. No suggestions. |
Feb 5th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Gary, this is wonderful. I don't have too much more to add to what others have said already. I do think I prefer the version that you submitted in response to Jack's comments. I do agree with Arik that removing a few of the branches that cross the structure might be worth the effort. Otherwise, it's terrific. I hope you get a chance to print it. |
Feb 5th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Charles,
Lovely landscape that works really well in IR. Not much I would change here. Maybe open up the shadows of the building a bot and up the contrast in the sky. |
Feb 4th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Beautifully composed. I like the tree and find the vines an important part of the overall picture. I do agree with Arik about midtone contrast, particularly in that tree. |
Feb 4th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
I do love good leading lines, Arik and I really like the lines in this image. It's very satisfying all around, I have no suggestions. |
Feb 4th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Comment |
Arik's "Ouch" comment mirrors my own first thought. My second thought is that this is terrific street photography. I like everything about it.
|
Feb 4th |
66 |
Feb 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Arik. |
Feb 1st |
7 comments - 5 replies for Group 66
|
11 comments - 6 replies Total
|