|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Kieu-Hanh, the purpose of my message to you was not to say I that I don't value your critique - quite the opposite! There have been numerous times where you have pointed out things in my images that I missed altogether. And for that, I am grateful. I most certainly do NOT wish for you to stop commenting on my images!
I know it was not your intention to offend. My request of you is that you just be a bit more careful in how you word your critiques. When you used the words " There is a shadow of a long string running from the boy's head down to his face that makes like a red scar that I wish it were not there! ", it comes across to me as "The red scar is ugly and I disapprove of your image". Rephrasing it to "I notice there is a long shadow on the boy's face. Did you consider trying to remove it?", gives an entirely different, more neutral meaning to my ears.
I don't wish to belabor the issue, but I did feel the need to let you know how I was feeling. I look forward to your continued commentary on my images.
|
Jun 16th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Kieu-Hanh, I have hesitated to bring this up, but after reading your commentary on my images and those of the other group members over the course of several years, I feel I need to say something. This is my observation: You frequently will praise an image only to then immediately negate that praise by inserting a statement of personal preference of something you wish were or were not present or something you do or do not like. While I don't believe it is your intent to offend, it feels offensive to me.
With regards to my image, in candid street photography, where the goal is to capture a decisive moment, the photographer doesn't have the luxury of preplanning the shot as would be the case in, say, the landscape genre. The situation presents itself in a moment and, if you're lucky and paying attention, you get the shot.
Another generally accepted guideline in street photography is this: You capture what the lens sees and save for cropping, removing unwanted elements of a scene is frowned upon. The "string" you mention is actually the shadow of the edge of the open window falling on his face and hair. It's part of the scene and IMO, it is not a distraction, but rather an important story element. (In other genres, it may be valid and appropriate to call out distracting elements that the photographer may have overlooked).
There are guidelines for constructive image commentary and one of the main ones is that the commentator should not interject their personal opinion as to whether they dislike the image or subject matter. For example, I really, really hate pictures of cutesy cats. In my camera club I am one of the regular commentators. If I'm presented with a cat image, it is only appropriate for me to comment on things such as composition, exposure, technical aspects and post production (and yes, distracting elements). It is not appropriate for me to tell the maker they did everything right only to follow it with "but I wish it were a picture of a dog".
If you feel my criticism is valid, you might consider something that helped me a great deal. Our camera club participated in a course on image commentary from one of our local PSA representatives. You might consider seeking out such a course. The big take-away: The way in which you say something can mean the difference between the recipient feeling educated and enlightened vs. feeling defeated and dejected.
|
Jun 15th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, Andres. Yes, I played around quite a bit with the crop before deciding on this one. |
Jun 11th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Thank you, Joan. Appreciate the comments. |
Jun 7th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks for the "WOW", Robert. Sometimes one word says it better than many. Much appreciated. |
Jun 6th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, Mary Ann. I appreciate the comments. |
Jun 6th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thank you! I have quite a few of these images taken through the tour bus window (check out my image in Group 83). Our regional camera club council holds an annual competition. One of the categories is a slide show. I've never presented a slide show in competition, but I think my collection might do well. |
Jun 6th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Mary Ann, I do the bulk of my editing in Lightroom which is essentially the same as ACR in Photoshop. Here are the steps I would use - in general.
1. Take the RAW file into a RAW de-noise / pre-sharpener program and check the results. I use Topaz Photo AI. It will do a good job most of the time…BUT, watch out for funky results (artifacts, unnatural appearance, among other oddities). Really depends on the image as to how well it works.
2. Some really basic adjustments such as overall exposure, white & black sliders in LrC or ACR
3. If TPAI doesn't give a good result, I'll revert back to Topaz DeNoise AI and that almost always cleans up noise really well. I like to edit on a clean (de-noised) image.
4. After balancing the overall exposure, I did several local adjustments:
*Foreground linear gradient to bring up exposure and some detail
*Radial gradient along the light beam on the left to accentuate
*I think I used a linear gradient for the sky instead of "select sky". "Select Sky" sometimes has a problem around trees. I brought the gradient feather all the way down over the tree to the light beam on the ground.
*Within the gradient I played around with exposure, white/black, contrast, clarity and especially dehaze. And, of course, saturation.
*The above adjustments also had a negative effect on the light pollution, so to counteract that, I used another radial gradient over that area to minimize it as much as possible.
*Brush on the MW to accentuate and give an extra punch of color
*Final global adjustments
Hope this helps! |
Jun 6th |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Mary Ann
Here is a quick re-edit. Probably could have gotten more out of the original RAW file, but let me know what you think. |
Jun 3rd |
 |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hello Mary Ann
Milky Way shots can be challenging as you discovered. Between the focusing issues with mirrorless cameras and balancing the exposure time with ISO, for me it's mostly trial and error (mostly error!).
These are the things I think you've done well: 1). The composition is pleasing and has a balanced amount of foreground. 2). The tree and the way you lighted it provides really nice foreground interest. 3). Camera angle placing the MW above the tree is perfect. 4). You focused very well and you used an appropriate SS, as the stars appear tack sharp. 5). I like the square crop.
Some things to consider: 1). There isn't much detail in the foreground. Blending two exposures would help with that. 2). There appears to be a lot of noise in the sky. Two things help with that - turn on "long exposure NR" in your camera and use a de-noise app in post. 3). The whole scene - especially the MW - lacks color. Even with the light pollution, I think there could be more color brought out. You might give it another go in post to see if that would be possible.
It sounds like you had a lot of fun capturing and editing the shot - so definitely worth the effort! Thanks for sharing. |
Jun 3rd |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Kieu-Hanh
WOW! What a great capture! Technically excellent on all accounts. Timing of the shot gives a sense of motion/rhythm in the accordion and enhances the composition and the story. Exposure is spot on and the colors are vibrant and rich without looking over-saturated. I have only one tiny suggestion - totally personal preference on my part: I'd like a little more room on the left and right. The man's elbow is almost touching the frame. I enjoyed this image very much. |
Jun 3rd |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Ruth
Death Valley is on my list and I'm planning a detour there on our way back home from Palm Springs in January. Your image inspires me!
I think this is a really pleasing composition with great separation of foreground, mid- and background and the perfect (IMO) amount of sky. Your post processing has emphasized well the detail in the middle (and most interesting) portion of the scene and you have created beautiful color contrast with the hills in the background. The inclusion of the person adds nice scale. Very well done I say. |
Jun 3rd |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hello Robert,
How fortunate to have a second home in such a beautiful setting! It is a well-composed image that gives me a feeling of calm. I like how you brought out the detail in the branches of the trees and their reflections - my eye goes there first because I can see the details. After that, my eye moves to appreciate the vibrant sunset colors. It must have been awe-inspiring to have witnessed it in person!
Other Observations: The original image appears to have been exposed perfectly for the sky. But as such, the shadows are extremely under-exposed. You appear to have brought up the shadows in post as much as possible but the bright sunset light and saturated color overwhelms my eyes and I yearn to see more detail in the shoreline and trees beyond. The situation calls for a more balanced exposure. In difficult lighting such as this, and, if you have the time to set up a tripod, consider taking two shots and exposing one for the sky and one for the shadows. Then in post you can blend the images together which will result in a combined image with greater dynamic range and one that gives you more leeway in your post processing.
Thank you for sharing the beautiful view from your lake house! |
Jun 3rd |
| 3 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Andres,
What strikes me most about your image is how you captured these two young guys in that position and looking straight at you. It's as if you caught them doing some sort of mischief. It made me smile. I also appreciate the framing of the shot with the faces on the third and heir body positions / legs acting as leading lines. The sharpening does help to define the fur and other details.
Other Observations: 1). The top of the frame seems a bit cramped to me -- one antler is almost cut off. 2). It can be challenging when the color of the animals and the background are essentially the same. When one adds to that, a medium aperture with even overall light, it has resulted in insufficient separation of the subjects from the background to my eye.
You might consider: Using a wider aperture in combination with Animal Eye Detection (if you have it available) would yield more background blur while keeping your subjects faces sharp. Alternatively and/or in addition, you might try playing around with the new background blur feature in LrC. Darkening the background slightly would also help make your subjects stand out.
Shooting in the bush can be a challenge (I know...too many of my shots from Africa were crap! LOL). Given the challenging shooting conditions, you have managed a nice, fun portrait with a comical edge. |
Jun 3rd |
8 comments - 6 replies for Group 3
|
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Michel, I appreciate all the suggestions …so many ways to interpret the composition. Your crop does, indeed, work - save for the almost-decapitated bird in the upper right corner. A swift pass of the "remove" brush would be all that was needed. I like it. |
Jun 17th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Michel, Yes, indeed, the perspective is what grabs me and draws me in. The dark-to-light gradient at the top of the image creates a "stop" for my eye while at the same time allows for a halo of light around the top of the building and thus setting it apart from the sky. I think it is a beautiful architectural study. |
Jun 17th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Don, a heartfelt CONGRATULATIONS in having your image selected for the Member's Showcase. GOOD ON YOU! Well deserved. |
Jun 17th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Clark. I had to do a double take on your image. At first glance I thought I was looking at a sea star…but then I saw the stamens. This caused me to look even closer to realize that what looked to me like bumps were really water droplets. The flower is in focus and well exposed.
But I have to say the composition falls flat for me. It looks rather disembodied. That effect is further magnified here on this forum. Your black background presented on a black background gives the illusion of the flower just floating in undefined space. It is always a good idea when presenting an image with a predominantly dark background on this forum, to create a slight border or stroke to frame your subject. |
Jun 6th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Adi. Thanks for sharing your beautiful image from Dolly Sods. I had never heard of it before so I had to look it up. Your composition is spot-on and your patience with the weather really paid off. The atmosphere really makes the image and I think you succeeded in what you were trying to convey. |
Jun 6th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Don, not much to say here except WELL DONE! Excellent composition. Perfect exposure with a beautiful range of tones. Viewing it gives me a feeling of peace and tranquility. I think it would make a lovely print. |
Jun 6th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Elise and welcome to Group 83! Nice to have you with us.
I find this to be an interesting and pleasing composition. The curved lines inside a rectangular frame draw my eye in to appreciate the textures and forms and the play of light and shadow. Definitely a good choice for mono here. The original is devoid of any noteworthy color and your B&W rendering makes the image about shape and light.
Other observations: 1. The original image is over-exposed and there are some blown out highlights that were apparently not recoverable in the mono conversion. 2. In the original image, I particularly like how the platforms have clear visual and tonal separation from the wall and I wish that element had been preserved in the edit. 3. Lastly, kudos to you for a steady hand (1/4 sec hand-held!) and a good DOF with that little Canon camera. |
Jun 6th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Lance, thank you for the comments and visual feedback. That does, indeed work better. As to the grain…BUSTED! I added it…and no, I haven't forgotten how much you dislike it when photographers attempt to give an analog "look" to a digital image. Mea culpa. I promise never to do that again (at least here in Group 83). |
Jun 6th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Hi Elise, and thank you for your comments. To your points: I normally prefer images with greater contrast but when I tried to increase it, it brought out the patterns in the terrace such that it competed with the birds. It was a bright day and managing the brightness was a challenge. My histogram was maybe just a little right of center. Being that this is a "Street" image, what was there is what you get. I was involved for a while in an online street photography community and one of the hard and fast rules was that removal of elements in the scene were not allowed.
I wonder if you would do me the favor of giving me some visual feedback in the form of an alternative edit. I'm a visual learner and always eager to see alternative ways of presentation. Thanks again. |
Jun 6th |
| 83 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Hi Lance,
Your image this month comes with an interesting prestentation - one I haven't seen from you. I haven't yet decided whether I think the border enhances or detracts from the image. The border along with the (flat) lighting, the predominant mid-tones and the lack of "antiseptic detail" give it a decidedly antique look. Did you apply any toning to the image in post?
You're careful. composition seems perfectly balanced to me. I particularly enjoy the stair ruins that create an anchor at the lower left of the frame as if to invite my eye up to appreciate the forms and textures of the ruins. I see a lot of layers and depth in your image. Very nicely conceptualized.
Now, in writing this as I went back and forth studying the presentation, I think now the border AS IS doesn't quite work for me. It gives me the impression of being an off-center contact print that doesn't look finished. I'm not opposed to a border per se... just not this one. The roughness of the border seems appropriate to the subject. Silver EFEX 7 has border options with similar styles that look more intentional than the one as presented. Nevertheless, I am enjoying your image.
One question for you that I don't ever remember us discussing: How often do you use a tripod vs hand-held? |
Jun 4th |
7 comments - 3 replies for Group 83
|
15 comments - 9 replies Total
|
