|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Hey Lance, thanks for the invitation. That's very magnanimous. Sorry to take so long to respond. I'll take you up on the invite, but have just been a bit busy lately. Looking forward to more ranting on our BB. I got a million of them. ;) |
Aug 26th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Comment |
Hi Indraneel. I appreciate the stark yellow, in a sea of otherwise muted colors. good work there. I think you did good job of putting the subject (the car) at one of the 1/3 points, and giving it space to travel across the frame. Was this Kolkata?
Personally, I'd like to see less of everything else, and more of the car. Maybe something like F5.6-F8 would keep the car in focus, speed up your shutter speed, and put the background (all the other vehicles) in a soft, out-of-focus state. |
Aug 26th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Uh, yeah. this is what I expected...and hoped for. I mean, a camera is a machine. Photography is an art, which like most art, has a technical and a creative component. That art is created inside a society, and unless you're a hermit, will be viewed by others. If you don't care what anyone else think about your images, what're you doing here? If you do, then you kind of have to know how to communicate what it is you want to communicate. You're no longer an island, and you are now subject (to some extent) to the interpretation of others. Near as I can figure, these DDs are about more than just getting your ego stroked about your images. They're really a way to look at your own images, and your image making process from another person's perspective...IMHO... |
Aug 18th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Good input. Richard made many of the comments you make re: cleaning the image up, and ending the merger of two vessels. I agree with you both.
I gotta tell ya, the degree to which I edit my images is a journey I'm still in the middle of. For a long time, I was a purist, and wouldn't do anything but crop. Then I started messing with exposure (the gateway drug). Then I wound up editing images to look like big-eyed clowns on black velvet (just joking). The point being the post production editing can be a slippery slope and I'm still figuring out how far I'll go with an image before I just say to myself "dammit, not quite, I missed that one, try again." |
Aug 18th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the input Lance. I don't think you can ever go wrong by moving around a bit (up down left right whatever) when trying to capture a scene. In this particular shot, the vessels were too far away to really get any parallax by moving my feet. But, such is life.
Uh, tell me more what it is about the boat grouping that just doesn't do it for you? What would (if that's possible to say)? |
Aug 12th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Comment |
OK. How do you feel about 6? ;) What comes to mind is a lily.
Oh, BTW, where do you live? Can I guess Yachats? I lived in North Bend from 98-'02. Made the drive form NB to Newport about a million times for work. I know the coast (or knew) from the CA border up to Pacific City like the back of my hand. |
Aug 10th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the input Emmy. I agree with you and Jane re: cloning out the buoy (or boat or whatever) merging with vessel #3. I was able to do that pretty effectively.
I'm not sure what you agree with my buddy about, since he didn't have anything to say. Can you clarify?
I think I understand what you mean with your suggestion on cropping. This is already cropped from the bottom pretty well, But I think cropping in would put the boats (at least the left-most boat), closer to the 1/3 point.
Re: the number of boats, I'd love to start a group-wide discussion on this convention. Do we really find that this makes images more appealing? What is the origin of this convention? I think that the use of odds may be an oversimplification of a mandate to make things appear natural, not regular, and so the use of odd numbers of things kind of helps you do that (after all, making arrangements look "not arranged" is one of the toughest things you can do). Why doesn't this rule not seem to apply to eyes, arms, and the rest of the bilaterally symmetrical natural world. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic, is at the heart of what makes a good image, and this is a good group to chew on it with. Thanks for mentioning it.
|
Aug 5th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the input Emmy. I agree with you and Jane re: cloning out the buoy (or boat or whatever) merging with vessel #3. I was able to do that pretty effectively.
I'm not sure what you agree with my buddy about, since he didn't have anything to say. Can you clarify?
I think I understand what you mean with your suggestion on cropping. This is already cropped from the bottom pretty well, But I think cropping in would put the boats (at least the left-most boat), closer to the 1/3 point.
Re: the number of boats, I'd love to start a group-wide discussion on this convention. Do we really find that this makes images more appealing? What is the origin of this convention? I think that the use of odds may be an oversimplification of a mandate to make things appear natural, not regular, and so the use of odd numbers of things kind of helps you do that (after all, making arrangements look "not arranged" is one of the toughest things you can do). Why doesn't this rule not seem to apply to eyes, arms, and the rest of the bilaterally symmetrical natural world. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic, is at the heart of what makes a good image, and this is a good group to chew on it with. Thanks for mentioning it.
|
Aug 5th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for weighing in Richard. I have to admit, I think your version is an improvement. You, Jane and Emmy all seemed to think that a closer crop, while retaining the ripples would work, and it did.
I think the removal of the wake, and the little spots (I got to these myself) were improvements too.
Re: the boat modification, I took Janes advice and removed whatever was merging with boat #3. But just like I mentioned to Emmy, I'd like to have a chat about the odd numbers thing. Does this really make a difference, or is it just a convention we've adopted as a community?
I have to tell ya, I'm always in a bit of consternation on how much change to make. At some point, it stops being the photo I took, and becomes a fabricated image. Is that wrong? No...but...It's not what I'm trying to do. But, I do develop images in ways that would have been impossible a couple of decades ago, and I guess it's a slippery slope.
|
Aug 4th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Thanks for the input Emmy. I agree with you and Jane re: cloning out the buoy (or boat or whatever) merging with vessel #3. I was able to do that pretty effectively.
I'm not sure what you agree with my buddy about, since he didn't have anything to say. Can you clarify?
I think I understand what you mean with your suggestion on cropping. This is already cropped from the bottom pretty well, But I think cropping in would put the boats (at least the left-most boat), closer to the 1/3 point.
Re: the number of boats, I'd love to start a group-wide discussion on this convention. Do we really find that this makes images more appealing? What is the origin of this convention? I think that the use of odds may be an oversimplification of a mandate to make things appear natural, not regular, and so the use of odd numbers of things kind of helps you do that (after all, making arrangements look "not arranged" is one of the toughest things you can do). Why doesn't this rule not seem to apply to eyes, arms, and the rest of the bilaterally symmetrical natural world. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic, is at the heart of what makes a good image, and this is a good group to chew on it with. Thanks for mentioning it.
|
Aug 4th |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Weird. I wonder if rectangle of light might be a lens artifact. |
Aug 3rd |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Comment |
Jane, this is an intense image to me. Is this Heceta Head Light by any chance? I see you were able to get the keep the stars razor sharp, while getting an amorphous feeling to the tops of the marine layer. The gold of the light, and the deep blue of the sky complement each other well.
Uh, but here's a weird one, I can' stop seeing a rectangular area that is lighter than the surrounding, kind of bordered by the left edge of the frame, by the cloud tops, bordered on the right by a line straight up from the lighthouse, and pretty much centered on Neowise. Is that just me? |
Aug 3rd |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Jane. Good point re: the number of boats. Lemme take a look at that. |
Aug 2nd |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Comment |
I support your decision to place the primary interest area where you did in the frame. It brings the eye right to your interest area. Focus is crisp. I too am nervous about overdoing colors, and you did a good job of moderating your impulses because to my eye, the colors look vivid (for dirt) but natural. I think you have a great story and impact here too, which is just as if not more important. I mean, this really conveys the vastness of the scene, and the insignificance of the humans. No?
|
Aug 1st |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Comment |
I like what you have going here. Exposure is good. DoF is good. Colors look very natural. You have a charismatic subject and an exciting pose. I tried to get some of swallows last year and had a heck of a time getting enough light to get a fast enough shutter speed with a low enough ISO. I think even 1/1000s is a slower than you'd like, given the lightning speed these animals move at (in doing some stuff with hummingbirds this spring, even 1/4K or 1/5K was not enough to freeze motion). But, that's very challenging and takes broad daylight (unless you want to use several depowered, off-camera flashes). This type of subject will keep you busy for a long time.
|
Aug 1st |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Reply |
You Sir, are my new best friend. ;) Thanks for the positive response. So, how do you think I could improve this? |
Aug 1st |
| 60 |
Aug 20 |
Comment |
This is a helluva shot Richard. I didn't know we had a ringer in our group. ;) I originally thought that the tree needed more light, but that's not true. It looks great, and I love the angle you shot it from. I only have one picky, insignificant thought about how it could be improved, which would be to separate the tree from the Milky Way by moving to the left about 2'. The tree just has the faintest tendency to merge with the galaxy. But, like I said, this image is so strong it probably doesn't matter. Great job. |
Aug 1st |
6 comments - 11 replies for Group 60
|
6 comments - 11 replies Total
|
