|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Bob. At least if nothing else the image is finding use as a Rorschach test. |
Nov 17th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Dan. I appreciate the honest review. I will continue to reflect on your comments, as well as those of Cheryl and Haru which seem to be getting at the same underlying issue. |
Nov 17th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hi Emily. You've captured a very nice autumn scene. Your composition feels very well balanced and it is also a balanced subject, with the dominant evergreens complemented by the smaller but autumn touched trees in the background. It is also good timing with the clouds which give the sky interest. To me all it is missing is amazing light. The light is still fairly high and bright, and lacks the warmth it might have had a few hours later. Have you tried it as a black and white? Often this sort of lighting is fine in a B&W, where a little lack luster in a color image. Otherwise, I don't have much to add - maybe darken the sky a bit to help pull the viewer to the main subject. |
Nov 11th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Haru. I think my vision centered on enhancing the heart (or fox face - yes I see it as that now too) in the foreground, with the background more of a "mystery" off into the rock. So in fact I added a glow to the distant portions and reduced their clarity. On the front couple of layers I did try to separate things both with tonal changes and by subtly burning and dodging edges to highlight them. But I did not bring such separation deeper in the image.
I think you are right that more separation of layers throughout would help the viewer sort things - I think we naturally want to. Yours is also the 2nd vote for a darker front layer. So I will try that too, while hopefully maintaining realism and not getting too dark as to loose detail in print. |
Nov 11th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Cheryl. I like your version a lot too, and agree it is a different look. I think at least some days I'd vote for it over mine. I think I have more trouble with higher contrast looks when printing, as they seem to print too dark to my eye, at least without gallery like lighting on them. But I probably should explore more contrast more often before settling where I may. |
Nov 7th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Dan, I think it is a very interesting description, which I enjoyed reading - both the photographic aspects as well as the background. So don't sell yourself short there.
And your description is only exceeded by your image - another very nice one. I like its simplicity as well as how it clearly portrays a moment in time. It would be interesting to see the firing squad shot to see how it compares, but I think the work you did to move and to carefully compose the barn was well worth it. I don't know that I would change much. I might try to enhance the down bursts or rain in the distance, but that is a matter of taste. The only other thing I'd add is that the darkening of the clouds is so dramatic and sudden (moving up from the bottom) that it almost doesn't look real. But it is, which is the point - it is that dramatic a moment in time. |
Nov 6th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Oh Cheryl, that is so much better! I have to admit I am not following exactly all of your different versions, so I am not sure what you did. But if you edited either your "final" or your "Original 2" above to get this, you did a spectacular job. The color changes may be helping too, but it is so much sharper. If you just look at the barn, you can see the sharpness improvement, never mind the stars. And the stars now look not only sharper, but much more natural.
When I shoot some astro I will have to ask you again what all you did. Because this version is now really stunning! Small changes really can make big differences. |
Nov 6th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hi Bob. I like this image a lot - it is beautiful. The contrast of the brightly lit glass with its warm tones and the cool tones of the sky and background are very effective. There are also strong, repeating geometric shapes that I find compelling.
I have three nits. Like Haru, I think the highlights are slightly overcooked. I hope they are not blown out on capture and you have room to pull them back a bit. The second is the reddish light at the extreme left edge of the frame. It is different enough that my eye wants to go there and sort of stay. It would be ok, except it is so close to the edge of the frame. You could try cropping it out, but I might first try removing the reddish hue and toning down the brightness. Finally, I find my self wanting a little more breathing room on the bottom edge. As is the glass gets really close - sort of just touches. My first choice, assuming this is not a crop with some space you could bring back, would be to try to crop outward in photoshop with content aware fill. I find that hit or miss, but the stuff it is filling is simple, so it might get it right. If you can't add, I'd consider going the other way and cropping in. The glass reflection will then make it to the edge, but not "just". It is the just touching that is bothersome.
Of the images you've presented in the Group the last bunch of months, I think this is my favorite.
|
Nov 6th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hi Haru. Wow, that is an amazing tree. The color is great, but when I see the boat and realize the size of the tree, but at the same it's elegance - wow. It has grace like a tree much smaller in size, but it's not. I like the composition with the leading line - there is a lot to explore once you tire of the tree - and I'm not sure who would tire of it.
I think the problem though is conveying the scale. I did not recognize the boat as a boat until I read your description. Even then I kept thinking, Haru must mean a toy boat. There are no other obvious cues to the scale, and the boat is, well, small, and hard to see as such, and believe as such. Cropping as you suggest might help by emphasizing it, but I like the composition as is. I just need another cue to the size. The one other thing I'd look at is the whites in the stones. They look blown out or close to me, but maybe it is the web jpg.
At the end of the day, it is a beautiful shot even if the scale is less than clear.
|
Nov 6th |
| 96 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hi Cheryl, astrophotography is an area I have read a lot about, but haven't done much. So take my thoughts with that in mind. The standard reference on astro stuff is lonely spec (https://www.lonelyspeck.com). You probably have found them already, but thought I'd mention in case not.
They have a exposure time calculator. If you use the standard formula (500 rule), your 15 sec is probably ok. But their calculator takes into account things like how many megapixels you have. And it comes up with 8.5 sec, which suggests you might be loosing something there.
But I agree with you that I don't think that is causing the "blobby" issue - they don't look streaked. Are you sure you nailed the focus? I think that would give you "blobby". It seems to me you also may be missing a lot of the less bright stars in between the bright ones, which could happen I think if the focus is off and they get blurred - they spread out enough they just disappear, essentially just raising the background black. The building and trees don't look super sharp to me either which again suggests focus, but that could just be the low res jpg for the web.
Bottom line to me is that the blobby thing is being contributed to by the lack of dim stars - so the bright ones stand out too much. So I'd also look at other things that might be making the dimmer stars disappear. Could be your processing - for example Topaz Denoise could think they are noise. Also could be flare from the street light (or brightly lit area even without the street light) causing flare and raising the background level of the sky enough you are loosing the dimmer stars. There is a reason people seek really dark places for astro.
Anyways, just some thoughts. Astro is pretty technical, so it tends to make me want to focus there. Aesthetically, it is well composed. I think if you could figure out what is up with the milky way, this would be a really beautiful shot.
|
Nov 6th |
5 comments - 5 replies for Group 96
|
5 comments - 5 replies Total
|
