|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thanks for your words. You had mentioned Yuri to me some time ago and he's amazing. Unfortunately the last time I checked he seems to have ceased doing his video tutorials. I will have to go back again and revisit the video you reference. Since there has been more than a 35 year gap in my photography journey, I realize I have a lot of catching up to do with regard to creative vision, composition, technical, editing and printing. One of the main ways (if not THE main way) I got really good at dentistry was the fact I was always open to being mentored and I learned early on never to fe defensive when receiving feedback. I'm approaching photography with the same attitude. |
Dec 9th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Good observation about the light balance. Lance mentioned the same thing in his comments in Group 99. This is someplace I'd love to return to and photograph under different lighting conditions and times of day. Unfortunately, it's a five hour drive to get to the location from my house and the weather down there is notoriously difficult to predict. Curious if you see the monochrome version any differently from the color version? Thanks for your comments. |
Dec 9th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Hi Lisa. What a fun image! The perspective makes the statue appear almost as tall as the Tower! Nice edit and it makes me want to visit Paris. |
Dec 6th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Hi Lisa. What a fun image! The perspective makes the statue appear almost as tall as the Tower! Nice edit and it makes me want to visit Paris. |
Dec 6th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Mary Ann, you have captured a lovely seascape. It's nicely exposed and all elements are placed well in the frame. The whisky clouds add interest and a touch of drama. On my screen, the lighthouse looks a little soft…but I'm chalking that up to the darn low resolution of these images. There is nothing I would change. Nicely done. |
Dec 6th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Kieu-Hanh, Merry Christmas to you too! Nicely done and I particularly like your sophisticated "light box" LOL! You've really got the iPhone photography figured out. Good on you! |
Dec 4th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Ruth, a very nice capture of a stunning scene. Great leading lines and textural variation in the image. Including the hikers in the frame gives a sense of scale and your panoramic crop further emphasizes the vastness of the area. Nicely done. It would be interesting to see a monochrome version, given the relative lack of color in the original. |
Dec 4th |
| 3 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
LuAnn, another successful and beautiful still-life image. I love the detail and color of the subject and the simplicity and minimalism of the composition. In this case the thin white stroke defines the space. It's a well done image that I like very much. |
Dec 4th |
6 comments - 2 replies for Group 3
|
| 62 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
LuAnn, I am only just now learning fine art printing. I just bought a Canon Prograff 1000 and I took Robert Rodriguez Jr's printing mastery course. As I've learned, the problem with most matte papers is the relatively lower dmax when compared to gloss papers. Red River makes some Matte fine art paper with really excellent tonal range and contrast for B& W. |
Dec 12th |
| 62 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Hi LuAnn. I've been enjoying your still life images both in color and mono. This is a lovely compositional arrangement - I particularly like pears as a subject - such exquisite shapes. It's clear that you continue to improve on your compositional and lighting skill. The play of light and shadow in your image makes for a lot of interest. As much as I like your lighting of the scene, I'm not sure your edit fully takes advantage of it. To my eye, the image looks a bit flat. That said, I think Oliver's tweaks give the image greater depth and tonal variety. All in all, very nicely done. |
Dec 9th |
1 comment - 1 reply for Group 62
|
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Gerard, this is one of those images with so many possibilities. I made at least three different versions, including a high key and a high contrast version pretty much exactly as you did. In the end I thought the dramatic sky competed with the main subject of the sea stacks. Additionally, I wanted to create a feeling that these rocks were floating in the water and fog. Thanks for your comments. |
Dec 16th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Linda, thanks for your suggestion. I will often flip my images to lead the viewer's eye differently from the original scene. In this case, my eye wants to go to the largest sea stack first and I find the left-to-right movement through the scene more comfortable than the reverse direction. |
Dec 16th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
I have mixed feelings about this question. Personally, I think one's art piece should be judged on the overall presentation. That said, I can see it might be difficult to draw the line - If sky replacement (using some other photographer's sky) is allowed, then would it be okay to take multiple public domain images and combine them into a composite image and use that for competition? ...probably not. Had you not told us it was a Photoshop supplied sky, probably no one would have been the wiser. What I have been doing is taking my own sky images and then importing them into the Photoshop sky module....and truth to tell, I do prefer to use my own skies and find myself feeling a twinge of guilt if I fall back on a Photoshop stock sky. So, I guess my compromise is this: For competition, the resulting image should be 100% the maker's own work. For all other non-judged situations, the sky's the limit! (pun intended). |
Dec 5th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thank you for your comments, Barbara. I was going for more of an other-worldly feel to my image. It was not meant to be a depiction of reality. But, if you do look carefully, there is a hint of a horizon line as if the far shore was shrouded in fog. I'm becoming a real fan of long exposure photography and have been getting inspiration from NDMagazine.net. |
Dec 5th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Randy, by the way, congrats on having your image of Woody in the grass featured this month! Really fun image! |
Dec 4th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Barbara & Peter - everyone else too!…. Are we "just photographers" or are we "photographic artists"? Therein lies the crux of the matter. It seems to me there is a bit of a continuum depending on the context: Medical or scientific documentation vs conceptual or fine art genres. I think it also depends upon how any given photographer thinks of him or herself. As a dentist I had to depict reality with no option for creativity in my photographic documentations. As a photographic artist, I don't feel there should be any constraints with, of course, the exception of plagiarism. Artists that work in other media take, borrow, manipulate, rearrange the public domain all the time to create something new and original. Why is it so many photographers have such a narrow view of themselves and the art/craft that is photography? What difference does it make if one uses a sky from Photoshop vs one personally photographed, other than the risk of a viewer (or judge) recognizing "Hey! That's Photoshop sky #3"? Is it "cheating" to use a stock sky photo to create an otherwise unique piece of photographic art? What's the answer to that question if the maker takes that stock sky image and manipulates it to where it is now something different? Perhaps you've seen images that when viewed as a whole depict a person or object, but upon closer inspection, you see the whole is composed of thousands and thousands of tiny individual photographs that the artist arranged as a mosaic to create his/her final result. You can bet s/he didn't personally take those thousands of photographs. Does this fact make the artist's creation any less legitimate? I don't think so. Barbara, you took a "just another picture of a building" and transformed it into a dramatic piece of art with your sky replacement and the fact that it's a "Photoshop Sky" doesn't bother me in the least. |
Dec 4th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Thank you, Peter. I agree that on screen and at this low resolution, the color version does look a bit flat. I made a large print of it on some slightly textured Fine Art paper and the difference is night and day. I have not yet printed the monochrome version, but it will be an interesting comparison. |
Dec 4th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Lance, thank you for your additional comments. My confusion comes from a concept I've heard over and over again that is: One cannot make a bad photograph into a good one simply by converting it to monochrome. But I also understand that for some images, color can be a distraction from other more important compositional aspects of the scene… and that seems to be your message here? In other words, you feel my post-processing choices in the color version don't "work" as well, since all other factors (weather, lighting, etc) are the same in both versions. These are subtle, but important points you make and have given me much to think about. Since you are a PSA mentor, how might we engage outside of DD? I'd very much appreciate sharing some other images with you for review. Again, my thanks for your perspective. |
Dec 4th |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Hi Linda. Great capture of an interesting and expressive model. He's well placed in the frame and I really like what you did with the background. Nice detail and sharp focus. My only wish is that there was a little more brightness in his face and eyes. |
Dec 3rd |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Hi Randy. First off, I love the composition. Placing the horizon dead center works for this image. You achieved a nice, soft effect with your edit. I'm wondering, however, if it isn't a little too soft - especially in the clouds. I find myself wanting to see a little more definition and contrast in the sky as well as a bit more brightness in the overall scene. As is,I think it is a little flat. Perhaps some selective dodging and burning would add some depth? With regard to your chosen composition vs Original 2... I feel it is completely up to the artist to choose what s/he wants the viewer to focus on. I don't think there is a right or wrong. I can easily see this image presenting well if printed on some fine art matt paper for display. |
Dec 3rd |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Gerard, what a nice study in shape, tone and texture. Nicely done. ...and there's just something about natural light that seems to make a difference. I think both your version and Linda's warmer version work equally well and I'm tending to like the warmer tones over the neutral/cooler ones. |
Dec 3rd |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Peter....only one word: CREEPY! A very well done composite in my opinion! Strong emotional response. I would've saved it for Halloween, however LOL. The only thing I might suggest is to figure out some way to add some selective luminance or eery glow to the nun. Just for fun I took your image into Color EFX Pro to brighten and add glow to the nun, then into Topaz Studio 2 and added its version of glow and radiance. So many options with this cool image! |
Dec 3rd |
 |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
What do you think? (I did two radial gradients in PS to reduce the brightness - one for the puffy cloud and one for the left side bright cloud streak. The brightness reduction worked for the puffy cloud but for some reason it didn't work for the streak) |
Dec 2nd |
 |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Comment |
Barbara, I like what you've done here. The sky replacement really works well for the image and I do think Linda has a valid point about the puffy cloud. The details and textures give your photo a lot of interest for me. I happen to disagree with Stephen's comment about the image flip. I think the flip improves the image, given that our Western eyes tend to want to move from left to right, and your flipped diagonal, in my opinion, makes for an easier and more natural progressive eye movement in the frame. The reversed N is a non issue - the letter N would naturally appear backwards when shot from the rear. One additional comment, is that I'd like to see the luminance of the light parts of the building to be higher. It would broaden the dynamic range of the image. |
Dec 2nd |
| 99 |
Dec 21 |
Reply |
Lance, thank you for your comments. I admit I'm a bit confused by your drastically different opinions between the mono and color versions of the photograph given that the monochrome version was made directly from the edited color version. Describing it as "almost a snapshot" is perplexing. Perhaps you could elaborate? It is definitely a location I would like to visit and photograph again under different lighting and weather conditions.
Each version clearly has a distinctly different mood / feeling to it - with the mono version emphasizing shape over all else and the color version projecting more of a fantasy that draws the viewer to the details and color variations in the sea stacks. I would love to continue the dialog. I'm always fascinated in how others view my work. Thanks again. |
Dec 2nd |
8 comments - 7 replies for Group 99
|
15 comments - 10 replies Total
|
