|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Reply |
Hey Emmy. Thanks for the input. I'm looking at your crop here. Tell me what you like about this version, and what your thoughts were for trying it this way. I have some immediate thoughts, but want to understand what your eyes saw. |
Mar 25th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Reply |
Thanks John. I was aiming for the partial motion blur of the waiving grass stems. In theory, the ground should be sharp and motionless, the tops should show the most motion blur, and the stems should be somewhere in between. Getting the timing right is kind of a mystery...to me anyway. I'd like to practice this more. Thanks for the encouragement. |
Mar 15th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Comment |
Hey Rita,
I agree. Interesting subject. Black and white treatment works well IMHO. Exposure works well. Lighting is nice and soft, which serves the image well, to me. Focus is well done too. She's engaged with the camera, which is generally a bonus too. I agree with Jane that the Select Subject > Invert would be perfect for selecting the background and lightening it. But, I have to ask, why do you want to lighten the background.
This is just me, but I'd be interested in seeing the original image prior to cutting her out and putting her on a studio background. Before I read your write up, I could tell this wasn't really a studio portrait (the background was just a little...too creamy) and she lacks catchlights which you'd expect. So I guess that's why it felt just a touch off to me, which is why I wonder if the original background might be made to work too. In a candid, or street shot, I don't think there's that same sort of expectation of perfection in the model either. You know, what you see is what you get. Anyway, just a thought.
|
Mar 11th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Reply |
How's the focus on the sand? The grass IS moving, so isn't tack sharp, and wasn't what I was going for...but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be sharper. There's some spectrum between the-grass-is-just-a-blur on one end, and the-grass-is-tack-sharp on the other. I was trying to thread this line somewhere between the two in which the sand is sharp, but the grass reflects SOME of the movement due to wind, but is still...solid, not fuzzy. Where you need to be on that spectrum to create the sense of windblown, while still being recognizable is...tricky. I'm not sure if I made it or not. That's why I brought it here to you guys. |
Mar 11th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Reply |
Wow. Weird. I still see them, faintly, at the cloud/sky margins in front of the bird. I suppose it could be an artifact of my screen...except it's happening on three different screens. Huh. Well, I'm stumped. If I come across anything relevant I'll bring it up. |
Mar 10th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Comment |
You know Richard, I sat down to my computer this morning, and your image was still up. I hadn't noticed it before but, do you see some grid pattern stuff going on near the edges of the clouds. I think I read about this somewhere...but I just can't remember where now. Do you see it? Does it ring a bell with you? |
Mar 10th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Comment |
Beautiful background. Deliciously crisp, detailed image. Nice posture on the bird. Colors are vibrant and EYECATCHING. Bird is well-placed in the frame I think. I can understand why you'd spend your time bird-stalking.
If I had a magic wand, I'd ask the bird to raise his right wing a bit just to get a nicer display. And, just to make sure your place in National Geographic is undisputed, I'd illuminate the wings from below with the golden hour sun. But hey, I don't have a crystal ball. It happened when it happened and you were there and worked your camera the right way. Kudos. |
Mar 9th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Comment |
You were right Jane, that tree is a winner, and I think your timing was spot on too. Sun star was a good idea too. I think your general treatment of the exposure works really well, so good on you for being able to get the sky/see exposure right, and still bring the detail in the tree out. I think it's well spaced vertically, and am glad that none of the leaves merge with the rocks: bonus.
I really wish there was a little breathing room for the tree on the left, but it's just fine on the right.
Now, this is just my opinion, but I don't think the people are doing anything for you here. The couple on the left is too small and their posture is cramped, IMHO. And the fact that the couple on the right is bisected compromises their impact too, I think. Fortunately, you CAN get'em out of there and see how it looks. Good work. |
Mar 9th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Comment |
I think this is a great catch John. Focus on the animal looks cherry to me, so detail is great which really adds impact (there's even catchlights in the eye). Your DoF works really well IMHO because you get falloff both in front and behind the subject, helping bring focus to it. It's well placed in the frame, to my eye, so good composition. The background itself REALLY works for me, since it's really kind of homogenous, especially given that it's blurry due to DoF. Good work.
You know, this is just me talkin', but I think this might be a bit flat, as in lacking contrast. I mean, the snow should look white white white, yeah? Of course, having said that, this treatment is a thing (LrC Develop Preset B&W Flat) so if that's what you're going for, then cool. Otherwise, my gut is to add contrast, but that's just me.
The only thing here that's keeping you out of National Geographic, is the fact that the right foreleg is obscured. Now, I realize that you weren't in a position to get him to pose, so I'm not saying you dorked up. But I'll bet you'd change that if you could. (I saw a presentation of a photographer who was IN National Geographic, and he was REALLY talking about things as nitpicky as the bend in the knee and stuff. This biz is tough!). Regardless, you should feel pretty good about this. |
Mar 9th |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Comment |
Hey Richard, Here's Take Two. See what you think |
Mar 9th |
 |
| 60 |
Mar 22 |
Reply |
This is not nit picking. I appreciate the deep look.
"Natureshop?" Never heard it before. What's it mean? And I now see that branch in a way I didn't before. Good call.
Uh, as I wrote, a tripod would've made this capture easier, but do you think there would've been a qualitative difference? If so, how?
You're right about that cloud on the right. Trying to get it to match the rest of the sky was tough, and I guess I didn't pull it off. I think I can take another whack at it. Thanks.
|
Mar 8th |
6 comments - 5 replies for Group 60
|
6 comments - 5 replies Total
|
