|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Reply |
Thanks Anne. I'm not a "fine art" photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I try. Comments like yours are great encouragement. Thank you. |
Feb 13th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Hey Debby, great shot, IMHO. DoF and focus are appropriate for the subject I think. Colors are natural and attractive to me.
I dig the composition, which is obviously a function of the crop. When I think "wildlife," usually think of some majestic, full-body shot of some magnificent mega-fauna with blazing eyes staring toward the camera and in some peak action. Awesome. But, that could be a once-in-a-lifetime capture. Recently however, I've been apprised of this idea of both Wildlife Environmental shots, in which the animal is not depicted I the same portrait style pose, but as an element in a larger, environmental depiction. And, I learned of the Wildlife Detail shot (imaging just an abstract of plumage, or shell pattern, or a single eye, or...a bill. Given that, I think you have a detail shot, and I like it, but to tell the truth, I think you could go further, by drilling in even closer. Just a suggestion. I mean, look at the detail of how the water droplets are lensing light and causing it to wrap around the animal's neck? Ain't that cool?
I also like the details of all the little things highlighted on the open shaded side of the bird'd head. I think they add tons of presence and visual impact, and you were smart to bring detail into the eye. Even the specular highlights on the bill are a plus, IMHO.
Even though it seems to me like there's a touch of blowout on the left (as we look at it) side of the animal's forehead, I think you did a pretty good job on exposure, given that this is so challenging a subject in this case (could you use the clone tool to shop some texture back in?). Although I shoot RAW + JPG 96% of the time, and only use the JPG, this is one of those times I'd be glad I had the RAW because it might be possible to pull some detail back out of the whites there. Just a thought.
Anyway, good work. Keep it coming.
|
Feb 10th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Reply |
Oh, you're right of course. It's just a matter of time till I can figure out something sufficiently convincing.
Having said that, although I love my Fuji stuff, I'm running into all sorts of ways that they require workarounds, when doing industry-standard stuff in the commercial world. Given that, I've been tossing around the idea of making my next major upgrade a move back to Nikon. It never ends... |
Feb 7th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Right. No color to speak of to start. BUT, I've recently been playing with turning busy images into B&W, which can be nearly miraculous in the way it can simplify them. It won't work with everything, but when it works, it works.
|
Feb 7th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Reply |
Hey Rita, Original posted. I guess you could call it "color," but between the grey of the fog, and the naturally dull colors of the RAW image, it would be hard to identify any colors. But, just out of curiosity, what was your interest in the color image? I think sometimes is illustrative, but not always. What do you glean from this one? It might be helpful and educational for me to know what you're thinking. |
Feb 7th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Reply |
Yeah. That's kind of interesting. More of an abstract? If that's the case, I'd suggest getting all the other stuff out of there. You know, cropping down to avoid distractions. Just a thought. |
Feb 6th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Reply |
I don' think that's it. Actually, the sky looks completely natural to me. I guess I'm just hallucinating. Nevermind me. |
Feb 6th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Hey! Congrats on Ladybug! Just don't forget me when you're rich and famous!
Rita, I love the sea and sky here. Color, exposure, and sharpness are good on both elements. In fact, I love the color of the sea. I like your position of the horizon, the detail in the clouds, and the presence of the sun's rays. All are killer.
You know what though, something is not right to me about this image. Please know that when I say that it's with the best of intentions, and I think you know I respect you as a photographer. But what immediately jumped out at me re: the image, on my end, is that the birds at the far end of the pilings are just as sharp as the birds at the near end of the piling. The focus in the foreground feels natural, and it falls off a bit, into the background, as you would expect it to. But the birds and pilings don't seem to...at least to me. As I look at it more, I also question whether the light on the pilings/birds is the same as on the water. Getting my head around this one is challenging for me. Of course, that's just me.
You know, this is one of those uncanny things that are hard to put your finger on, but in order to write about it I have to try. I really do like so many things about the image, even the composition of the line of pilings as a leading line, but there's something...just...off...to me. Maybe it's just me. That could certainly be the case. Don't take any of this the wrong way. This has many strong qualities. I'm just a little...something by it. Fill me in. What am I missing?
|
Feb 5th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Interesting topic Anne. It's sharp throughout. Exposure looks good I think you did a good job of adding life to the shadows, without overdoing the exposure. I don't think it would ever have occurred to me to capture this image, but seeing it, I think the hoops are good compositional elements, and the plastic does a good job of simplifying the image. I'd like to see a more prominent, and specific "subject", but you had what you had and made the best of it. Perhaps you might want to build upon this to add story, or...I don't know. At any rate, good job putting on your creative hat. |
Feb 5th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Good macro...or at least close up. The entire subject is in focus, which at this distance to subject, requires planning and execution. I can't believe it's still being supported with all that weight of ice. Nice creamy background, which does not detract. Nice use of the light coming through the ice from behind. I think it's a nice capture of what the storm brought. |
Feb 5th |
| 60 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Thanks Dean. Your comments are encouraging.
Why no stabilization? Because the lens I was using just doesn't have any (the Fuji 27mm prime). In fact, there are several go-to lenses in the Fuji range (like the 16-55) that don't have it. Downsides? Yes. you have to make sure your shutter is sky high to just to have a bit of insurance. That's probably the thing I covet most about the latest Fuji X bodies, which is that they have in body image stabilization (IBIS). I have my eyes on the X-T5, but since I would want to have two bodies, that would be a pretty hefty purchase right now. But, I'm looking for ways to justify it. ;) |
Feb 2nd |
6 comments - 5 replies for Group 60
|
6 comments - 5 replies Total
|
