|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
OK. Gotcha. Now I know what you mean. Thanks for the explanation Emmy. Make it a good new year! |
Dec 29th |
| 60 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Good input Emmy. Tell me more about the adjusting hi lights with double exposure. Never heard of it. Re: the feeder on the left, that was a real teeth grinder. When I cropped out the feeder entirely, it was just a bird floating in space with no context, which I didn't like. When I had more of the feeder, I got comments that it was distracting, so I included just enough to provide a little context regarding what the bird was doing. And your take is that less is distracting. This stuff is challenging.
Oh, and re: RAW v.s. JPEG, remember; I'm suggesting BOTH, not one or the other. The in-camera capabilities of all our rigs is pretty awesome...if we learn how to use it. |
Dec 27th |
| 60 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
I've been doing freelance photography (sports and studio portraits) for the largest photo studio in my area for about...five months now, and so have become pretty comfortable with using strobes. They use Paul C. Buff stuff (Alien Bees 800s) because they're relatively inexpensive, rugged, can be repaired, and are simple. They use Pocket Wizards to trigger them, which again, are simple. So, I think you have some pretty decent equipment to start working on your artificial light skills. Try some still life stuff and go from there. |
Dec 20th |
| 60 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
That's pretty powerful Brother. I think you still nailed the galactic center, right (I have a friend who's into astro so know just the barest about it)? I think the structure gives it context, and I think you were wise to bring the foreground down. Stars are razor sharp which must make you feel good.
You know, when looking at this from a critiquer's point of view, my first thought was that it would be nice to have some dramatic lighting of the structure, or something else fancy going on between the camera and the ridgeline (more detail, some artificial lighting, or who-knows-what). But, thinking about it a bit more, it all depends on what the intent of the shot was. If you're trying to create a mind-blowing image, you could do that stuff. But, if you're trying to capture the essence of a place and a moment, I don't know if any of that showy stuff is helpful. This is a historic structure, out in the woods, on a starry night. I think you may have captured it as well as it needs to be. |
Dec 12th |
| 60 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
John, whoa, this is a real step up IMHO Brother. I think you've used the compositional elements of the point of land (on the right) and the chains and pillars (on the left) to really good effect. Exposure looks spot on to me and gives excellent contrast and texture, which you've contrasted well with the flat water and textured sky. Things look sharp all around, as far as I can tell.
I think Richard's right about losing a bit to overexposure which is always a risk when shooting at a sunset, but it isn't fatal. The only other suggestion I would make, is to crop down from the top. There's a lot of sky up there, which is cool, but I just think that there's more than you need. Crops are free in my book. Try it and see what you think.
|
Dec 12th |
| 60 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Hey Emmy,
I have something like this too...but not really. Actually, I think the distortion you introduced is actually pretty interesting, and if you hadn't mentioned it, I don't think I would've recognized it as a digital effect. I enjoy the boost in the oranges and yellows, which really say "autumn" to me. Exposure works for me.
I wish this were of just a bit higher resolution, in which case it would be an excellent screen saver. It seems sharp enough in the center, but I just don't think it has the detail that really would lend itself to that kind of use. Know what I mean? |
Dec 12th |
4 comments - 2 replies for Group 60
|
4 comments - 2 replies Total
|
