|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
What do you mean by "grounded" Jane? |
Nov 26th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
I thank both of you ladies. Worth submitting to PJ? |
Nov 26th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
This is a compelling image for me Richard. Focus works all around for me. Exposure is well done, IMHO, and the top and bottom of the frame are well balanced, in that the rock in the lake seems to me to have similar visual weight to the rock in the background (despite the background being illuminated). I think the decision to extend the ss to smooth the water was a good one, as it helps isolate teh foreground interest. I even think that you achieve some color complementarity between the foreground rock and the background pinnacle.
This is just me, but I think that longer ss may have also taken some of the sharpness and detail out of the sky, which I'd rather have.
You know, your story about how you planned and created this image is a major lesson I think, which is the importance of foresight and preparation. I think when folks get into photography initially they feel like the secret is mastery of the camera itself, and the camera's settings. It's become plain to me over the course of the last 2 years though that the camera is only a small fraction of the equation. Control of the subject, the other objects in the frame, the light affecting the objects in the frame, and having the foresight to put the camera in the right place, at the right time, with the right settings, is what it's really all about, or at least a larger part of it. You clearly brought all your experience AND diligence to bear to make sure you made that happen. It shows. |
Nov 22nd |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hey Dianne, I'd love to hear your overall thoughts on winter in Yellowstone. I think I'd much rather see it then than in summer, if for no other reason than to avoid the crowds...but there are other reasons.
Anyway, I think this is a pretty strong image. Focus and sharpness are cherry IMHO. Colors appear natural and true to me. And speaking of colors, I have to give you kudos on the white balance, which is made tricky by the snow (although maybe ther's not enough of it to matter). Exposure seems to be about as good as it gets to me, with lots of tonality and texture, despite having to worry about snow, and lighting from a less than perfect angle (and you succeededi n capturing the mist).
I think this is competition worthy really. I do however wish there were a little stronger foreground interest (Is the pool the foreground?) and a more prominent and singular background interest. But hey, if those things were available, I'm sure you would've included them. Regardless, I think it's well-conceived and executed. |
Nov 22nd |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Check out my edited image. |
Nov 7th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
Check out my edited image. |
Nov 7th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hey Ladies, here's my rework based on your advice. Thoughts? Lemme tell you, that shadow was a bugger. |
Nov 7th |
 |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Thanks for the compliments John. What did you determine was the main subject? That's a quiz really. Because if I think it's one thing, and you think it's another, then I failed. Anyway, I'll discuss more once I get your answer. Thanks for leaning in Brother. |
Nov 6th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hey Ladies, here's my rework based on your advice. Thoughts? Lemme tell you, that shadow was a bugger. |
Nov 6th |
 |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hey John, I think there's a lot of good stuff here. Actually, when I read your settings, I think you probably made all the right decisions technically. You used the fastest aperture you had, and the slowest shutter speed you were comfortable with (I've heard 1/60 used as a rule of thumb for lowest handheld ss), and then relied on ISO to get you the exposure you wanted. This resulted in an acceptably sharp image, with a DoF that encompasses the subject, and no noticeable noise. You win. It's almost an abstract, and I can see that you were trying to get as much of the wall in the frame as possible (I assume to emphasize the chaos of the scene).
Images like this are kind of tough for me to critique for composition. On the one hand, it's difficult to ID a subject. On the other hand, I don't think you could find the subject in a Jackson Pollock piece. So, I guess it's all about what you're trying to convey. However, the bottom and bottom-right of the image don't seem to have the same amount of chaos to me, mostly because they don't have the same variety of colors. Could/should the image be cropped to get the less busy areas out of the frame, and emphasize the theme of chaos and the swirl of shapes and colors?
Something I feel a little more comfortable opining about though is the cast of the image, which to me is really yellow. Now, it may really have been yellow, due to any number of things, but in this particular case, I think I'd like to know what white is, given that the backing on most of these pieces probably really is white. Fortunately, that's very easily remedied in the WB panel of any editor.
|
Nov 6th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Reply |
No contest on doing something to the ring. Will work on that. Truth be told, I had not noticed the shadow on her till you mentioned it, but I see it now. Thanks. Will look at that. I'll look into them being of different brightnesses, like you and Emmy mention, which is weird because they're obviously under the same lights, and obviously she's in his shadow to some extent. But hey, it is what it is. I appreciate the considered comments and will examine this. |
Nov 6th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Thanks Emmy. I think you're right about the ring not standing out. Circular gradient with a little exposure and saturation up? Also, I'm a Lightroom user, are you? If not, and even if you are too, when you say "filters", what do you mean? And are there any you'd suggest? I don't see the girl being particularly bright on my screen, but I'll experiment. Thanks for the input. That's what this is about. |
Nov 6th |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Hey Emmy, I kind of like this actually. Good instinct, IMHO, to get an interesting foreground, with the footprints, which serve as a leading line into the mid ground. Color, exposure, and focus/DoF seem good to me. I gotta tell ya, phone cameras are not to be underestimated, since they can do a lot, have algorithms that take a lot of the burden off the photographer, and software tricks that are truly amazing...oh, and fit in your pocket so you can keep them with you at all times. Several years ago some buddies and I spent about three months ONLY using phones which, as you mention, really make you focus on composition.
So I mention that you have what I thought were good fore and mid-grounds, but I'm not really seeing anything in the background to which to direct the viewer's eyes. I think even a blurry surf line, or the horizon might be enough to sort of contain the image. As it stands, I just don't see that background interest. But, you know, now that I look at it a little more, maybe cropping down so that the rough patch at the top goes away, and you just have the image trailing off into sand, would change the overall impression. Anyway, think about it.
|
Nov 3rd |
| 60 |
Nov 21 |
Comment |
Great Capture Jane, of what I guess is a male Anna's hummingbird. I like the framing, which puts the subject off center and gives him living space in the direction he's looking. Exposure looks good to me. The body and head are quite sharp and you even have catchlights in the eyes. That shocking crimson is a real winner (too bad there's not more of it) and it complements that vibrant green of the background. Speaking of background, I really like the creamy, non-distracting background, which for me, is half the battle.
It's a good thing you were looking for motion in the wings, since it's a REAL challenge actually freezing it. I have several similar photos and even at 1/4000 or 1/5000 I couldn't really freeze wing motion (unless you catch it at the point in the sweep at which it's reversing, which is just blind luck). The way the pros who really freeze these things in space do it is to use several depowered speed lights, which at low power settings have a T1 time of above 1/15000 or higher). Recently I've been trying to shoot songbirds arriving at or departing from a perch, and even using a 400w/s strobe depowered to about 1/4, I got blurry wings (but razor sharp heads and bodies). This tells me that I need a second strobe, and to go to 1/8 or lower. And, this is just me, but I feel like the twig kind of merges with the feet, though the bird appears to be airborne on closer inspection.
You could make an entire career out of shooting these guys. They're fascinating animals and a challenging subject. |
Nov 3rd |
10 comments - 4 replies for Group 60
|
10 comments - 4 replies Total
|
