|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Lauren
This series of "antique" objects (I used one quite like this at my father's office) continues to be a pleasure.
To my eyes this image does not look quite as sharp as last month's. You did not mention the speed, but I suspect it is falling beyond what the human hand can sustain. If a tripod is impractical, you might consider a monopod which adds stability particularly if braced against a table. Another possibility would be along the lines Karl suggest of focussing on detail, but doing so with a hand-held light (I'm thinking of an LED the size of a couple of credit cards). With this you might illuminate small features like the keys or the letters on the striking arm: not the whole object but the essence of the object - but if strongly lit, it might be easier to retain crispness within the poor lighting of the shop. |
Mar 17th |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Karl
I like the cloning trick to give the floating illusion; very effective and I am glad you explained it since I was puzzled as to how you could capture the falling leaf so well. The veins of the leaf stand out well for me, and its corruption adds to its interest ( I do not think a perfect leaf would have worked).
I was tempted to burn (mid range) the snow and shadow a little, the former for texture and the latter for emphasis. |
Mar 17th |
 |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Freddie, I see you are a Monet sort of guy, the impression of an image rendered in soft, broad patches of color. The ICM makes for a great starting point - and you then evolve in digital processing feeling your way with sliders towards your personal harmony.
It a fascinating way to work - and the outcome are generally appealing to all, perhaps in part because they are so personal to you and your vision.
I wonder if this could become a form of psychological profiling tool - and I fear what it might mean for me since I come to so much more stark an endpoint than you :-) |
Mar 17th |
 |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
This seems to me to be a unique way to frame, with light and dark, a simple still subject giving it interest and also the opportunity for interpretation.
I agree with Karl that the selected image is more interesting that the reflected one - which I see as tricky rather than intriguing.
Having ported the image into photoshop, I could see the boundary of your image and I suggest that there is too much black on the right side - I would cut off a sixth so that the grass is then, in my view, better placed within its framing. |
Mar 17th |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Peter, I see this as a means to paint with color - to splash color on the canvas and so enjoy the blending. For me the just recognizable origin is interesting but not the main objective. I wonder if you see it the same way? I think the use of distortion to create these patches/pools is very inventive and effective, and has achieved a striking image.
Two suggestions if I may. The white fish is oddly bland compared to the others. I might have sent them back and asked for tamago (egg) instead - so the yellow would complement the flower - as your leaf already complements the red/orange of the salmon. And for balance, I would have flipped the second image horizontally so that the same colors are not lined-up vertically (my image below illustrates this)
|
Mar 17th |
 |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Yes - to both you and Peter
The lighting was a compromise - between the total black and the well lit. I can make it darker with a slider :-)
Frankly I like the light on the "crown" because it seems to show more hair than is really left - but that is vanity rather than art.
|
Mar 13th |
| 79 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
I think the large print might scare the cats - but thank you for the thought |
Mar 13th |
5 comments - 2 replies for Group 79
|
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Barbara - I also very much like your "original": the HDR work came out with a sharp image. I like the slight slant in the composition which accentuates the asymmetry of the base. A think it is a great starting point for B&W conversion.
Yet despite my normal preference of high contrast - I think the conversion here is too harsh, and this may be because your original already has strong features. May I suggest you dive back in to Nik silver and use a more gentle preset: perhaps start with the "Fine Art Process" and then drop the dynamic brightness and the shadows (to smooth out the background, but perhaps not to full black to preserve the stalk) and slide down the soft contrast, see if that appeals.
|
Mar 10th |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Peter - I support the crop - how could I not? And the eyes are lovely.
I do want to raise a slightly difficult question though, and that is "freckles" -specifically and limited to the question of B&W conversion. As we are all aware, when we convert from color, different colors assume a different tonal strength (if that is the right word) so I think that freckles run the risk of being accentuated during the conversion so that they appear perhaps darker ... and there comes I point I think when beauty may turn to blemish, or to use less florid language: one risks turning a freckle into acne by making the reds/yellows too dark.
One suggestion is to create two conversions: one for the face and one for the hair and then to try merge these two layers to show them both to advantage. Not sure if this makes the change I was trying to illustrate ... but here goes. |
Mar 10th |
 |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
just to clarify - I mean vertical still but left swapped for right. |
Mar 10th |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Linda, it looks like a spacecraft - Picard back from the future, so yes I really like the juxtaposition between the building and the landscape, and for me the tonal treatment of the sky (from your conversion) brings an ominous resonance to the light in the building, like energy escaping.
I have tried to crop your image many ways especially following some to the comments above, and I keep coming back to your cut because for me the brighter foreground effects a demarkation between my world and the sci-fantasy world beyond. Perhaps a bit off the right - but I do like it as is. |
Mar 10th |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Thank you all for the feedback. I agree that the clouds are hot (and not in a good way :-) ). I fear that was in the shooting and not the processing - and though I have returned to the memory card to try other darker images I cannot regain the buildings as I have here. Even HDR failed me as the clouds moved too much.
To answer the perspective questions ... the building behind me has a wide stone staircase up to the entrance on the second floor; I shot this from high on these steps. |
Mar 10th |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Michael, timing is everything. What I really like in this image is the glow behind the trees that defines their structure so. I think that the reflections in the water give a detail on this canvas that contrast beautifully with the blank sky beyond.
For me the foreground is a little soft, or perhaps I find it cluttered compared to the remainder. I would cut and then add a little more light to the bottom corner so that the trunk is elevated a little since it is so well placed to act as a pointer to the tree. |
Mar 10th |
 |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Kathleen, for me the strength of this image is in the so-many contrasts: the bare wall beside the trellis, the trees against the building, the sharp triangle attached to rigid rectangles, stone vs glass, road beside sidewalk If I drawn a diagonal from bottom left. to top right, I find one side of holds most of the diversity while the other is practically empty except for the therefore-highlighted rider. It all comes together.
While I know it is not "real", you could consider flipping the image horizontally - a different picture, but you might like it too. |
Mar 10th |
| 99 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Tom, welcome to the group
I am a fan of narrow depth of field - particularly here where I think it adds to the distress of the scene with sharp details contrasting with blur signifying to me a movement or transience. I appreciate the gentle tones you have retained |
Mar 10th |
7 comments - 1 reply for Group 99
|
12 comments - 3 replies Total
|
