|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 24 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Sorry, got pulled away so sent half a message there. So, I do appreciate the technical side of the feedback so far, and I am aware that I posted a photo without visible eyes and mouth. This was done with intention. I was hoping that we could discuss what is seen in the image and how the image communicates an emotional state, what narrative do you see existing around this one brief moment, or if you don't see a narrative at all.
Understanding that part would better inform editing decisions in terms of either strengthening a certain emotional impact or trying to soften that a bit. |
Oct 10th |
| 24 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Hi Laura, I also noticed that. Best guess is that the settings weren't changed for B&W. Color edit is the general default. Greyscale gets hints of purple / yellow / orange depending on how the program "sees" the image. I'm not familiar with the software Jim used, but in Lightroom you can choose between color and B&W to alleviate this problem. |
Oct 10th |
| 24 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Now that you ask, maybe that camera had a 35mm prime not a 50. I gave that camera to an artist buddy years ago. But to answer your question, no crop. What you see is the negative.
Outside of eyes and facial expressions, there is a entire realm of gesture that constitutes its own language. |
Oct 10th |
0 comments - 3 replies for Group 24
|
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Hi Matt,
I feel drawn towards the horizon in your photo. Is it because of the rock? I'm beginning to think so. It isn't keeping there. I like the texture of the rock, but maybe not dynamic enough to hold the composition together?
Wide-angle tip; well I'm still working it out myself hahaha. I'm careful with creating distortion. I try to think about how much distortion is comfortable or useful. I would lean towards zero distortion in capturing "grand vistas" because in real life there are no focal distortions when "gazing" across an expansive horizon. |
Oct 20th |
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Hi Sophia, played around with your photo just for fun. Great action shot by the way. So hard to get the timing right. Lens question. Going all out to 600mm, do you see quality and clarity degradation between 600mm and say 550mm or 500mm?
Framing; couldn't ask for much better. Such concentration in the eyes. Such relaxed expressions. There doesn't feel to be aggression in the image, and I think that might the most interesting aspect for me. |
Oct 12th |
 |
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Sorry, got interrupted once again. Anyways, don't enlarge my edit sample hahaha. But, by playing with the greens and blues, I think I was able to deepen the sky and draw the clouds out a bit. But the real purpose was just to play with the aspect ratio and cut out the trees. I kind of like it. I feel that it puts the mountains right there in front of you. The shadows on the right and the bright cliff on the left pull the viewer down the valley. There is a feeling of the sublime like something from the Hudson River School |
Oct 12th |
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Hi Thorro, gave your image a quick try with 16:9 ratio. Did a bit of other work on it. Sadly, I think that much of what I did has grained and pixelated the image. Think most of that comes from our limitations in providing hi-rez originals. But, this is what I did:
Sharpness +75
Green +10, +17, +17
Blue +14, +30, -35
Clarity +30
Vibrance +15
Saturation +15
Contrast +10
|
Oct 12th |
 |
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Hi Stanley, I remember you mentioning in a post last month about trying to capture damselflies. I admire your ambition. That is a whole new level of needle in a hackstack. Near the end of dragon season out here as well. I find myself quite fortunate to have stumbled into this guys flight pattern. Attached is the runner-up for this month. |
Oct 12th |
 |
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Hi Matt, I see that you and Thorro have been quite thorough in your discussion concerning your photo. I like where Thorro went with his edit suggestions. I like contrast, I like pushing the clarity up, as well as luminations and saturations. I am a big fan of how clouds manipulate light. Even when we have to "fight" it, I still like it adds something that we can't always control but should embrace. I personally like the clouds in your photo. They are a graceful and sweeping motion that is the emotional balance to the angular rock.
As for composition, I do feel that is an undecided image. Is it a rock image? Is it a vast landscape and island image? For me, I like it is more about not being able to find a clear focal point or some color / object that grabs my attention. Thorro's edit pulls that orange out of the island, and I think that it helpful in drawing the eyes back and creating that "distance" that moves the view across your landscape. But, you are on to something here. Wide-angle lens landscape hint. Have something solid in the foreground to help anchor the image. Wide-angle can really "push" vistas and horizons back. Something in the foreground grounds the image in a spatial location manner so what the viewer sees falls within their native sense of visual distance. Thus creating a perceptual "comfort" and allowing the viewer to engage in grandeur of the landscape in front of them.
Did I just run off on a tangent??? hahaha |
Oct 10th |
| 97 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Thorro and Matt, sorry for not getting involved and replying earlier. As for the position of the dragonfly in the photo, glad to hear you guys agree. In my mind it made sense to just move it up and to the right, but when you are playing around with it, you are not always sure about what you like.
Face or no face? Well, in this case, I would say I didn't have much choice. I kind of walked into his triangle. The base was in front of me, the peak behind. Anticipating its movement across the base from point to point is far easier, and more consistent, than getting it at the peak. Second, I didn't want to disturb the subject. Third, I already have photos of dragonfly faces. Fourth, it was 8-9 feet in front of me, and at 410mm, just getting it in frame is a win. Outside of all of that, some choices need to be outside of conventions. The ideal "headshot" for flying objects is facing the viewer at roughly 45 degrees for the perfect head-neck-should(wing) approach. This standard convention means that what we see for the most part has created and perpetuated the notion that the most "interesting" parts are in this region. I choose this dragonfly photo from a group of three potentials because it is the "perfect" headshot, except reversed.
Background. What you see is what you get with me. I'll never add background, nor erase things. The background of this photo is millions of years old polished grey exposed bedrock at the bottom of a dried river valley with a highly generous sprinkling of car sized boulders. The dragonfly and I were kind of tucked in this space.
Time? Good question. I would say I spent about 10 minutes trying to capture this guy. I think that is the limit of patience and endurance hahaha. Took somewhere between 120-130 shots. Saved 12 I believe. Track in flight? Not going to happen in that situation. He and I, 8 feet apart. I've got way too much lens for this. Manual focus. The dragonfly is a needle in a blurry grey rocky mess.I've got a second or less to find, focus and shoot. |
Oct 10th |
5 comments - 2 replies for Group 97
|
5 comments - 5 replies Total
|
