|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Pinaki - your suggestions are helpful.
|
Jul 28th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Jim. I too would like a little more sky above. I did not see this as a vertical when I captured it, and was pressing to get everything in at the bottom in a horizontal framing.
For me the image is about the juxtaposition of the soft ethereal background with more harsh textured foreground. So I probably don't want to darken the mountains with that in mind (and in fact I deliberately softened them). In contrast, I may darken some bits of the foreground further to enhance that "Two Worlds" appearance. |
Jul 25th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Jim. I too would like a little more sky above. I did not see this as a vertical when I captured it, and was pressing to get everything in at the bottom in a horizontal framing.
For me the image is about the juxtaposition of the soft ethereal background with more harsh textured foreground. So I probably don't want to darken the mountains with that in mind (and in fact I deliberately softened them). In contrast, I may darken some bits of the foreground further to enhance that "Two Worlds" appearance. |
Jul 25th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Bruce. Yes, there was a quiet, mystical feel to the morning. |
Jul 20th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Rick. Yes, I agree that the top is a little bit tight. Had I shot it as a vertical then I would have had the room. |
Jul 20th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Comment |
Hi Bruce. Though I've visited Grand Teton a couple of times, I never made it to Mormon row. There was always so much else to see. It is nice to see there are other image opportunities beyond the classic Moulton barn.
You've made a very nice image. It does feel a little bit tight, particularly in front of the house. Was there a reason you didn't go a little wider on the zoom? |
Jul 12th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Comment |
Hi Kenneth. I like the very balanced composition you have in this image. You have a leading line from the lower left corner in the fence, and the other piece of fence and the clouds hold the other corners to keep the eye wanting to stay in the frame and explore the buildings. The power lines, which we often see as a detriment in a landscape, here provide a sense of continuity to what is beyond the side borders.
My only suggestion, following a little on what Rick mentioned, would be to make the tonalities a little more dynamic. I think with some dodging and burning you can enhance the sense of depth in the image. Done carefully I think you can do that while also preserving the soft painterly feeling that the image conveys.
|
Jul 12th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Comment |
Hi Rick. In general, the ability of AI, Generative AI, or other means to digitally manipulate and create images gives rise to two dilemmas - that of deciding what is "allowable" in different contexts (e.g., our group, various contests, social media, etc.), and that of determining when people are breaking the established rules. The latter dilemma is a case of the larger problem of "fake news" - lots of smart people are working on solutions to that and hopefully they are making progress. But for us here in the group I think this latter problem is irrelevant because I would argue most everything should be allowable.
My perspective is that this is a learning space not a competition. And, as a learning space, I think most anything is acceptable in the interest of learning. Case in point, if someone thought their composition was not quite working and wanted to "change a few things" with generative AI for the purpose of better understanding what was throwing off the composition, I don't see a problem with that. I'd hope they would admit to it - perhaps even provide both before and after - and ask the group if indeed it fixed things. You may recall that I did exactly this sort of thing with a tree image from Owens Valley some months ago. I'd never enter the modified image in a competition. It was already dead to me as a portfolio image. But it was still useful as a learning opportunity.
Furthermore, I'd say that outside of the group many (indeed most) photography competitions allow a high degree of digital manipulation including cloning out objects, composting, focal length blends, time blends, sky replacement, warping and distortions, etc. If we want to help people learn and improve toward submission in these sorts of competitions, why would we not allow the same? And indeed, based on my history with the group over a bunch of years, I've seen most of these sorts of manipulations submitted by others (and a couple of times by me) - and I'm only counting the ones where people admitted to it.
Finally, were we (or PSA) to decide to limit things in the group, I would caution that intent and semantics are two separate things. Many tools that folks have used for years with far less controversy have AI behind them. As you are no doubt aware, if you use the clone tool in PS to remove a sensor spot you are using AI. Few would question the appropriateness of that. In contrast, say "Generative AI", and now there is a debate. To me whether that debate is warranted or not depends on what one is doing with the Generative AI tool. Case in point, not too long ago when I was first working with a "new to me" used camera, I captured a once in a lifetime image only to find it had the mother of all sensor spots. Shame on me for not cleaning the sensor before using it. I tried the clone tool, but it wasn't working. I tried context aware fill, but it wasn't working. So, desperate, I tried generative AI fill and told it to basically clone out the sensor spot. That worked like a champ. So, my point is, if there is going to be a discussion or debate, it ought to be around what one is doing to the image, not what tool is used to do that and whether it has AI or generative AI in the name.
|
Jul 12th |
| 96 |
Jul 25 |
Comment |
Hi Pinaki. This is a beautiful image - thank you for sharing. There is a lot to like about the way you've composed and processed this. The lines you have coming from all four corners - the wake of the boat in front and the mountain slopes at the top - help to hold the viewer in the frame to explore. The lower contrast, particularly in the mid and far areas - gives it an atmospheric feel consistent with the summer time when you shot it. I also like the repeating layers and triangles at the top of the image. Again, many great visual elements.
I'm curious why you decided to go with B&W. I can imagine pale blues to the glacier that it seems to my imagination would add to the image. I also feel like I want a richer set of tonalities, a deeper black somewhere, in the B&W version. Can you show us the color version?
I guess if I were to suggest a few things, I'd selectively darken down some of the shadows to get those blacks, but then maybe even add a little light at the top to suggest flare from the sun. I'd try to get a richer set of tonalities in the boat and maybe the "island" to its left. Perhaps most importantly though, I think I'd crop in from the right. The image for me suggests the boat heading off into the layers of the glacier and hills. I think the far right side just distracts from that message - try to pull the eye over there to no real purpose. Also when I blow this up there seems like there is a lot of noise. Maybe it is added grain but it comes across as noise. There is also a large sensor spot in the upper left - easily enough cloned.
I tried some of these changes in the image below. Not sure it is consistent with your message. It's just the direction I'd take things. Hope those thoughts are helpful in some way.
|
Jul 11th |
 |
4 comments - 5 replies for Group 96
|
4 comments - 5 replies Total
|
