|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Comment |
Hi Bob, after many months of seeing your photography, I am learning more about you - I think (?)
Your style is consistent. I assume it's deliberate. Your images are hard looking, what I would identify as "The Metalica Look". In a way, it's hard rock at it's best. Your portfolio sometimes looks angry, anguished. Your skies are often foreboding. Your subjects, tormenting. Your imagery is fun to view.
So, is this you? I bet if I were to meet you, I would find you to be one of the most gentle, easy going guys I would ever meet.
I have to say, Bob, I am often stumped as to how to comment on your images. They make me look more at your images than most others. Mainly because I try to figure out what's behind them - what's the purpose. This is good. With the hundreds of images we scan through every day, having someone stop to take a closer look is good.
You should seriously consider having a show of your photos. |
Nov 21st |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Comment |
Hi Kate, having such a long lasting and personal memory of a place makes it difficult to photograph. We see so many things that come from emotions which makes it nearly impossible to translate into a single dimensional photo.
I did a crop and water cloning just like Robert did. Because they are so similar, there seemed to be no reason to post what would essentially be the same photo. I have to say that I like the photo in color better. Your colors are soft and without heavy contrast. This is very nice and goes along with what you described.
I prefer Bob Wills' crop. Bob seems to have captured the emotions best. His conversion to Landscape mode feels more natural to me. The vertical version does not feel right to me as it does not seem to have a purpose.
Many people use photography to express how they feel. I appreciate what you do with your imagery.
|
Nov 21st |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Reply |
My answer to your question is from personal preference. I prefer Landscape framing more. To me, Landscape is more natural as to the way we see. Of course, there are exceptions: trees, people and other vertical oriented things. |
Nov 21st |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Reply |
Thanks, Haru. Yours and Roberts suggestions are similar. As I replied to Robert's comments, I will give these suggestions a try. |
Nov 16th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Reply |
Thank you, Robert. I read your comments with great interest. I think your idea of a crop and a stretch might work well. |
Nov 16th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Comment |
Hi Gloria, the entire Pacific Northwest coast is such of wonderland for us photographers. I really can't get enough of it.
It's hard for me to add much to Cheryl's comments. Her rework makes a big difference and gave your photo the needed "pop". A small suggestion I could offer is to make use of the color Calibration tool in LR or ACR. In particular, the Blue slider might help. Other than that, Cheryl went beyond what I could suggest. |
Nov 10th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Reply |
Thank you, Kate. It's nice to know that I'm on the right track sometimes. |
Nov 10th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Reply |
Thank you, Cheryl. I very much like what you did. In fact, before submitting, I went back and forth with a near identical vignetting. I simply couldn't decide what I liked better. Having your fresh eyes see how some of these lines lead the eye out of the frame convinces me that I should deepen the vignette. Thanks again. |
Nov 10th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Comment |
Hey there Robert! Yeah, that sky is something. To my eyes, you nailed it perfectly. I believe I can feel that early morning anticipation that you described. Most of us have had those experiences. It's nice that you articulated it so well.
Compositionally, I can see your use of the "Rule-Of-Thirds". There's something about the image that makes me feel like this rule was forced. But, without being there, I can't offer any suggestions. I can only say that my philosophy on the ROT is that it's a good technique for bringing order to a composition but it sometimes compromises the finer aesthetics that can be found in a scene.
I don't belief the foreground mountain is too bright. I too struggle with this issue, but the first row of mountains is such an important part of your composition, I think it looks good as it is. On the other hand, though, try something more radical: Make a new layer, select that foreground range and darken it way down. This will change the entire look of your photo. The idea of giving it some deep richness might make for an eye catching look. If you don't like it, it's easy to delete that layer. Or, have two versions. |
Nov 10th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Comment |
Yes, it is nicely done, Haru. I think the reflection is an important part of your image. You captured it well. I understand your wanting a higher tide so the separation is more defined. But then you would probably lose that gorgeous reflection. You are the only one who knows about your compromises. As we all know, shooting landscapes and wildlife is about compromise and adaptation. If we didn't know, your shot would look perfectly planned.
Bob's crop, in my opinion, does a good job in helping simplify your composition.
I think it's an artistic shot that deserves a good dose of kudos. |
Nov 10th |
| 96 |
Nov 22 |
Comment |
Hello Cheryl, terrific image. I don't know if I would suggest changing anything. Although the sun area is quite burned out, I believe we as viewers expect the sun to look this way. It's natural. The bright reflection appearing on the sand is a nice touch that makes your photo real and not over processed.
The person and dog work well. As well as giving the scene scale, the person and dog give life to your image.
|
Nov 4th |
6 comments - 5 replies for Group 96
|
6 comments - 5 replies Total
|
