|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
I love the rays of sunlight breaking through the clouds - I'm always looking for opportunities to capture that effect and never seem to have my camera with me when it happens. For me those sun rays are the center of interest.
I also like the mood of the image - the coming storm. I think you could go even more dramatic in the contrast and darken the tonality overall to enhance that further. I also think the water looks a little soft to me - perhaps go with a little higher shutter speed next time, given the moving water and moving boat.
But great image. And I guess you won the race to get to land before the storm hit.
|
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
My own experience is that it is extremely difficult to walk away with good images of the Yellowstone thermal features. So congrats on capturing such a nice image. Indeed it does appear like the bright colored portion of the pool is floating. |
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Among your crops I would vote for the 16:9 one. I think it leaves enough of the grass to anchor the foreground, and I like the pier right on the thirds line with lots of negative space above. Nice image! |
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
The church looks very familiar. :)
I think this is a really nice image Cheryl. I'm not an astrophotographer either, but your capture of the sky seems right on to me. I think the clouds add interest and don't seem to obscure the comet. I might crop a little tighter on the left and top, but I tend to like tighter crops and perhaps tend to push things too far there. I like it a 1/2 to 3/4 stop brighter overall too as the colors in the sky seem to start to come out a little more. That brightens the church a smidge in the process.
I tried a different quick and easy approach to remove the orange glow on the end of the church, namely playing with the orange/red HSL channels in Lightroom. But that wasn't enough. So, I agree with Dan that you'd have to work to clone or content aware fill in PS. Either way I suspect it is going to be a bit of work to get it look right to close inspection. But I think it is worth it since the image is amazing other than that distracting bit of orange.
|
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
Gerard, I too like your questions. I think that while it is useful for the Group to provide detailed suggestions on improvements to individual images (and I have received already amazing suggestions that I would not have otherwise arrived at), I think it is also very useful to have broader, more philosophical discussions. Your questions provides the opportunity for that - several discussions actually, like "complexity vs. simplicity in images", "the implications of trends in photography", etc.
Behind a lot of those questions though is the fundamental issue of what we want in our photography vs. what others want (where here "others" are judges, the mass of other photographers, etc). We've all probably had the experience of an image we really hold particularly dear receiving poor scores or other lack of praise in the eyes of others. The dilemma when that happens is sorting out whether the masses are right or not. By that I mean, are there "things wrong" with our image that we would see if we were not so biased about our own image, or is the issue that it is "different" and doesn't conform to the current trends or thoughts of the masses in the photography community. As an example, in my local photo club, it is pretty impossible to receive top scores on an image unless the saturation is pushed to 11 (or you shoot a portrait of a bird - but that is a different rant). Try to do a subtle landscape with soft colors and it is almost sure to score poorly.
The easy thing to say is to ignore the critics, stick to your guns, and do the images you want. But again the difficulty is sorting out when you should be improving things in your images vs. just conforming. And there is no hard line between the two. It helps when the criticism is specific (vs. just a bad score), but even then things are not clear. Take the criticism you mention receiving about not having a clear subject - who says an image has to have a clear subject? Well, pretty much everyone, which is the problem. Is not having a clear subject "something wrong" or is it just not following the mass trend.
I think you can probably sense that I share some of your frustration. I think the photography community encourages creativity only so long as it stays within pretty narrow bounds. And certain sub communities can be even more narrow minded in those bounds. I'd love to hear others thoughts on this challenge. I think sorting out when to listen to the masses vs. not becomes a little easier as one gains more experience. The only other thought I'd add is to keep coming back to an image. If it brings me joy to look at an image, in a way that I want to keep looking at it and exploring it, and if I still feel that way a month later, and six months later, then I conclude it is compelling to me. It might break rules, and it might not win contests, but I try to be ok with that, realizing that I am my own tough judge and that the image somehow moves me. |
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Gerard, this is a great alternative rendering. I've been afraid of doing a wider vertical crop because it seemed the sky was too uninteresting. But you've actually brought some contrast to it and shown that could work.
I think the other big difference is the darker more contrasty rendering you have done with the rocks. I have gone back and forth on this one. And there is of course middle ground between what you and I have done with them. On one hand I like the ethereal feel with them lighter, but I think most people would like to see more contrast between the water spray and the rocks. So I'm not sure which direction to go - other opinions from the Group would be welcome.
You have also darkened the evergreen trees in the center (or not lightened them like I did). I do think that one is definitely correct. I went too far lightening them.
Thanks again for your take on this.
|
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the very kind words Dan. I'm not sure I "knew what I was doing" as much as you suggest. I think the crop and some of the other changes are as much to recover from capture mistakes as they are driven by creative decisions. But I'm glad to take what praise I can find. :) I likewise look forward to some great discussions - welcome to the Group. |
Sep 12th |
| 96 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
A very nice image Dan. It is simple, clean, and elegant - well composed, and the graphic forms work well in the B&W rendering that you've done. I love the full set of tonality you have used. I also think the bird really makes the image for me - adds a "dynamic element" - so glad you didn't shoo it away.
Since it is such a nice image, I'd offer a couple of minor touches for your consideration. I think the horizon is slightly out of level - it is close but given the simplicity of the image it was standing out a bit to me. Of course an easy fix. I also feel like the top edge needs a little more breathing room. If the distance from the top of the taller rock to the edge were maybe 50% more, I think it wouldn't feel as tight. Perhaps re-crop with content aware fill, which I imagine would work pretty well given the simplicity of the sky. Again, just a couple of thoughts. Even without it is a beautiful image.
|
Sep 12th |
5 comments - 3 replies for Group 96
|
5 comments - 3 replies Total
|
