|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 87 |
Jun 21 |
Reply |
Thank you, Lance for your kind comments. This has been an interesting assignment that caused me to visualize two or three directions that I could pursue. I greatly value your input. |
Jun 9th |
| 87 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Jennifer. Very well done. The delicate texture of the ferns compliment the rougher texture of the tree bark. The contrast between light and shadow works well. The most interesting elements, to me, are in the way the shadows serve to outline the diagonal and vertical lines of light that lead my eyes up the hill and more deeply into the forest. |
Jun 7th |
| 87 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Dale. I like this image. The strong shadow pattern in the snow turns it from a "so-so" image into one with a great amount to interest. |
Jun 7th |
| 87 |
Jun 21 |
Reply |
Thanks for your comments. I agree that the "flip' and the warmer tone helps the image. |
Jun 3rd |
| 87 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Steven: Two nice images. I like the larger one, the one with the shadow of the fence added the most. The fence adds much more interest. I also like the texture of the grass that shows so well within the shadow. Who knows, you may start a new craze of "Shadow Selfies." |
Jun 3rd |
| 87 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Lance: This is not an image that I can look briefly at and then pass on. I find myself studying it for a longer period of time. I do know that I find it appealing.
I am fairly sure part of the interest comes from the fact there is a mirror like substance below and behind the candles. the mirror behind the candles appears to be slanted back to give the elongated candle flame appearance.
My biggest uncertainty is whether or not I like the hand. On the one hand (no pun intended) I feel it adds a needed break in the pattern/rhythm of the candles. On the other, is it too abrupt? Perhaps my ambivalence is due to the size of the hand, or the fact it is cut off at the joint. I remain undecided.
Despite my indecision, I do like the image. |
Jun 3rd |
4 comments - 2 replies for Group 87
|
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Reply |
Very nice images. Your Full Spectrum conversion is better suited for Orchids than my Deep B&W conversion. My IR conversion (830nm) does not record color information due to the fact there is none in the pure IR spectrum of light. At the time I had my camera converted by LifePixel, I was mainly interested in B&W from IR. |
Jun 12th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Reply |
Henry, you have now missed a great opportunity. You could have quickly posted one of the other photos and convinced my you responded to my suggestion by running back to reshoot. How would I have known for sure? |
Jun 11th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Gary, very interesting subject. Yes, I see the problem with the great difference in light. I had to deal with this in my days a a Wedding photographer and out of doors portraiture. The best way I found was to place the subject in the shade and use off camera flash balanced with the metered reading from the background full sun area. But I have never experimented with flash and IR. Perhaps you can darken the distant center of the image using the Radial filter in Lightroom, or similar feature in PhotoShop. |
Jun 11th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Jeff: You have found outstanding subject matter. I especially like the way the thin clouds in the sky appear to mimic the tangled pattern of the tree branches. The presence of what appears to be a cruise ship in the background is an added bonus. I like what Henry has done, but I would suggest that more be done to create a level horizon. Unlevel horizons are one of those elements that once noticed will always decrease your enjoyment of the image. I know this from personal experience. This image has the possibility of becoming one our your best. |
Jun 11th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
I like this image. Well done. The only suggestion I could have made (It is so easy for someone else to look and say, "You should have done so and so.") is that of framing in the viewfinder so that the carved figures were a little closer to the right edge. This would also cut out a small portion of the cloudless sky and left room on the left for a larger portion of the more interesting cloudy sky. (Please run right out and reshoot this and repost by tomorrow.) All kidding aside, very nice job. |
Jun 11th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Reply |
Henry, please see my response to Chuck above.
I do like what you have done. I think I still prefer the flipped version that I feel helps the image to better read from left to right as our eyes are accustomed to following. That is the way our culture reads. One the other hand, you are convincing me that your crop that maintains more of the lake and the nesting Sandhill Crain adds interest. I also like the lighter tone that you gave. Your suggestions on my work are always received with great appreciation. |
Jun 11th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Reply |
Sorry for the delay in responding. I thought I had responded earlier, but must not have completed the "Submit" process. No, you are not in the dog house. I appreciate your work. I settled on the crop because the original foreground was slightly out of focus and I wanted to emphasize the sky. My camera conversion (830nm.)does not contain any (almost none) visible light. Only the IR. Therefore, there is no color information other than the slight red tint. I simply added the brown tint in LrC. No channel swapping is involved. I do like your interpretation. |
Jun 11th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Nice use of the IR to produce a very interesting, high contrast photo. The square crop simplifies the image and really make the tree it stand out. |
Jun 4th |
| 91 |
Jun 21 |
Comment |
Judy. What a very nice image. I like the way the orange and the blue compliment each other. Almost you make me wish I had opted for the full spectrum filter in my IR camera conversion. The choice of the low angle used in capturing the image adds a great deal of interest into what could have turned out to be "just another ship photograph." I can add to that statement by pointing out the way you used the anchor cross bars to frame the bow of the ship. |
Jun 4th |
5 comments - 4 replies for Group 91
|
9 comments - 6 replies Total
|
