|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Thanks Diane. There are three petals in there? I had no chance of affecting it anyway, so I'm glad it worked out.
To tell you the truth, the thing I thought I'd get heat on with this image has not come up at all. I thought the super-saturated red/pink/whatever of the flowers would turn some folks off. I mean, it's SO saturated, it kind of doesn't look real to me, and I took the photo. But, I did no color manipulation on this image. it just came out like that. What are your thoughts on the colors? |
Dec 20th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Thanks Diane. There are three petals in there? If you say so. Frankly, I don't subscribe to that odd-numbers-rule business, but if others do then I'm glad this is pleasing. I had no chance of affecting it anyway, so I'm glad it worked out.
To tell you the truth, the thing I thought I'd get heat on with this image has not come up at all. I thought the super-saturated red/pink/whatever of the flowers would turn some folks off. I mean, it's SO saturated, it kind of doesn't look real to me, and I took the photo. But, I did no color manipulation on this image. it just came out like that. What are your thoughts on the colors? |
Dec 20th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
I got some black and white foam board from Staples. Foam board is nice and stiff, and usually has a very clean surface, which is good. Unfortunately, it's vulnerable to water/moisture. I've used EVA foam too, which is waterproof, but doesn't seem to have as clean a surface. I've been thinking of messing around with chloroplast, which is even stiffer, and invulnerable to water, but may have enough structure to be visible in photos, depending on settings. Anyway, experimentation... |
Dec 16th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
I guess it's called Photography Instruction now (https://psa-photo.org/index.php?education-online-courses) but I just checked my course materials and it used to be Individualized Photography. |
Dec 15th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Good point re: the cardboard Emmy. |
Dec 15th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Yeah, that red is pretty nice, and it'd be a shame to lose it. What about cloning foliage in to cover the sky? Maybe even more red? I don't think you could find a better candidate, given the texture of the leaves and whatnot. |
Dec 15th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Emmy. Good catch on the spots. I think the best technique for these guys is ambush, but you could spend a lot of time staring at one flower while they buzz all around you. I tried to be near a group, and then get them when they were moving from one flower to another.
|
Dec 15th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Hey, guess what. I have been dipping my toe into Ps, and mean to start a YouTube series called 30 Days of Ps by PHLEARN. At this point though, I still need to wrap my head around everything implied by layers.
But, guess what else. LrC has color grading now. It's a new addition. I've been playing with that too, but honestly, have only found one instance in which I was able to improve anything. I can see the power though.
Anyway, thanks for the coaching. Take care and enjoy your holidays. |
Dec 15th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Maybe you're right about the smudge, but it caught my eye and had me scratching my head. As for the lower left corner, I'm cool with it the way it is frankly. It has a nice tonal gradient going into the corner and feels pretty natural to me.
Ah, adding haze. Very interesting. I like the effect really, which to me is a bit ethereal. I've only done something like this once, but I used clarity instead.
As for the settings, I see where you're coming from. I think a complicating factor is the use of your polarizer. They can work magic, and I know people who use they (literally) on every photo. But when deciding to use one, I think you have to at least consider that it will reduce the amount of light that gets to the sensor, although I have no idea whether or not that would be equivalent to a full stop, some fraction of a stop, or who knows. You gotta factor that into your exposure triangle.
Anyway, I like what you did. Keep it up. |
Dec 14th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Hey Diane, I like the shot. You have some nice lines from upper left to lower right. Focus appears sharp (through some haze or softness) from front to back despite the relatively low shutter speed. The sun slick would normally detract a bunch but since you still have detail in there, I like it! I'm assuming this is indeed monochrome. No?
Three questions:
How'd you get that soft look?
I see a dark smudge (at least on my screen) on the left side of the frame, along the foam line. Was this an edit?
I'm sure that F22 helped with the focus, but uh, is there a reason you decided to go with 1/60 and F22 instead of, say 1/240 (which would've assisted your handholding) and F11 (which would've given you the same exposure)? Just asking. It's a nice product, IMHO.
|
Dec 13th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Hey Emmy, excellent complimentary colors. I think you nailed that fall-colors thing. I also really appreciate that crisp foreground detail, which gets you into the image, and the path/ditch/whatever that begins to take you into the frame. I think this is a pretty healthy composition.
I know you like the sky, but it's not for me, and I think it detracts, particularly being on the edge of the frame. In fact, it's distracting enough for me that if it were me, I'd try to remove the reflected sky from the bottom part of the frame as well. But, if that's what you like then so be it. You're aware of it, could have changed it if you wanted, and decided to keep it, so good on you.
Truth be told, part of my opinion was influenced by a YouTube vid I watched by Nigel Danson, or Thomas Heaton (I can't remember which) that specifically addressed woodland photos, and how to treat the sky in flat light conditions. Their philosophy was to simply cut it out, and I thought it was a pretty good discussion anyway.
Anyway, I like your UP shots. Keep'em comin'. |
Dec 13th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Great analogous colors. Nice execution of this technique. Truth be told, I've never used this technique. Interestingly though, my club meeting this month was all about this, and other intentional camera motion (ICM) techniques, especially as they relate to catching the holiday lights. I think it's a creative and interesting genre, so kudos to pulling it off well. |
Dec 13th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Man. That's very kind.
As for your sense of experience, well, looking at photos all day is all the experience you need. Oh, and of course there's the Image Evaluation Course that PSA offers. Have you taken any PSA training? Man, I gotta tell ya, it was definitely worth the price of admission. If you haven't signed up for the Individual Photography course, you've really missing out too. It was the first, real photography training I've ever had, and I couldn't have been more pleased. And, it was HARD...which I think speaks to the value of the training. Do it Brother. |
Dec 8th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Man, if I had a dollar for every time I've tried to catch sunlight streaming through trees and mist, I'd be rich. Nice rays of sun on the right. Nice big DoF, appropriately (IMHO). Crisp all around. I think you really nailed the golden quality of the Golden Hour.
Truth be told, I'm not sure anything to the left of the tree adds to the photo. Now, of course, that's just my opinion, and I wasn't there, but because of that I'm seeing it with fresh eyes. What do you think about that though?
Also, tell me about the color grading work. Truthfully, I've heard the phrase, but couldn't tell you how to use it. |
Dec 6th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
F64 Academy, aye. I'll take that advice Ma'am. Check with me next month and I'll report my progress. |
Dec 6th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Wow! Unusual plant. If you told me this came from another planet, I'd believe you. That's an A for originality.
IMHO, focus is super crisp. Colors are saturated but not overly so. Kudos on your foresight in positioning yourself, so as to frame the image with the most pleasant background possible.
I would like to see a little more detail in the white part of the flower, but as Jane points out, whites are HARD. Do you remember what metering mode you used, because that affects your exposure triangle A LOT (I am as conscious of that as I am the exposure triangle, honestly)? In a situation like this, that could make a big difference, knowing that the whites are critical, and probably need to be underexposed a bit.
Also, because of the tight quarters you were in, it's extra tough to separate your subject from whatever is behind it. You can't move it, so what do you do? I think you can do two things: 1) shrink your depth of field to the bare minimum, in order to blur everything behind the subject, thus bringing the crisp flower forward (perceptually anyway), 2) use some post production technique (Lightroom or whatever) to dim those things you want to recede into the background, and brighten those things you want to bring forward. I saw Lisa Langell do it on a Zoom meeting recently. It works Brother (I think I mentioned that to Evy last month).
Anyway, your creative juices are definitely moving in the right direction. Keep it up Brother. |
Dec 6th |
| 60 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thank you Jane. To be honest, I don't really understand the point of the editing you're suggesting...which only means that I don't understand, not that it's a bad idea. I really don't know zip about photoshop and layers. Frankly, my post-production acumen has taken a giant leap in the last 8 months, with my move to LrC, and just as I resisted moving to LrC, I'm resisting moving into Ps as well. Maybe your nudges will help. But, coincidentally, a buddy who I think is on a similar plane of development as me, just strongly endorsed Topaz, as a way o addressing exactly the issues here. I'm thinking about trying it on their 7-day trial. It's always something isn't it? |
Dec 6th |
7 comments - 10 replies for Group 60
|
7 comments - 10 replies Total
|
