|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Reply |
Thanks. These are improvements that I can live with. It is better. |
Apr 20th |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the comments Ed. As for the noise, if you re-read my description and my reply to Paul, you'll see that the digital noise was an unplanned aberration. You don't have consider that the image has too much noise because it has too much noise. There's a lesson to be learned from this and I've learned it very well. (Apologies to Paul Simon, and The Cyrkle). I've come a long way since 2008. |
Apr 6th |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the comments Ed. As for the noise, if you re-read my description and my reply to Paul, you'll see that the digital noise was an unplanned aberration. You don't have consider that the image has too much noise because it has too much noise. There's a lesson to be learned from this and I've learned it very well. (Apologies to Paul Simon, and The Cyrkle). I've come a long way since 2008. |
Apr 6th |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Reply |
I recently had some images evaluated by an assessor at the RPS. I am learning how difficult it is to be objective about images that I have captured. One image was of a waterfall and there are 3 elements in the frame that were noted as deficiencies. I did not see any of them when I submitted it. I suppose that's the reason we have others view our work and point out how to improve our skills...... |
Apr 3rd |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Comment |
Paul,
To me this image speaks of solitude with a sense of gloom. From the image, I can not tell that Debra is reading and my impression is that she is contemplating. I find that the space to the right of tree is "negative space" in that it does not add to the overall impression of the image and I find the wispy clouds at the top of the frame distracting. I have respectfully brightened the image just a bit so that Debra's blue jacket is more apparent and cropped it so that Debra appears as the obvious subject. The leading line of the dock and the reflection in the still water are both spot on. The tall grass in the bottom left nicely fills that space. |
Apr 2nd |
 |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Comment |
Nicely captured and processed. Well done. |
Apr 2nd |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Comment |
Hi Michael, I am also a member of a couple of other organizations that provide professional constructive assessment of members' images. I am going to use the comments from a recent critique of one of my submissions to comment on yours. I think the comments are relevant.
"The clarity of intent is unclear as the image lacks a point of interest." The bullrush on the right side being partially out of the frame and the branch in the top left corner are "distracting and shows a lack of attention to detail." I would consider a tighter crop to address these issues, isolate the two small rushes in the centre and place them in the bottom right where the ROT lines intersect. I'd also consider removing the tall grass to the left of the rushes in post, especially since it is not in focus. (surprising actually at f/22...). |
Apr 1st |
| 93 |
Apr 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Paul. The lens I spoke of had a very poor ability to transmit light. Sharon and I were out driving on our way back from Montepulciano where I had been capturing images in the narrow streets and laneways in the later afternoon. I was handholding the camera/lens and used ISO3200 in those situations. I had promised not to stop on the way back to take every possible shot. When I saw the undulating hills, pulled over and in spite of my earlier promise, grabbed the camera out of the trunk and took a few shots in less than 5 minutes. I did not think to reset the ISO and that's what happens....
Now I check settings BEFORE pressing the shutter! Lessons learned. |
Apr 1st |
3 comments - 5 replies for Group 93
|
3 comments - 5 replies Total
|
