|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Reply |
Indeed you are! |
Jan 21st |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Reply |
Oh I understand about footprints. I've spend hours, on occasion, cleaning them up ... and sometimes they've been MINE! |
Jan 21st |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Reply |
You could, if you wish, post an original here as a comment or reply ... would be interested in the image after the HDR merge ... |
Jan 20th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Reply |
Good insight. Useful info. Thanks. |
Jan 20th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Reply |
Thank you, Neil.
Your observation about the difference between the near edge and the far one is interesting. This is actually a consequence of fact that the direction of movement is (approximately) perpendicular to the line from the viewer to the two areas in question. A one-foot movement at the near edge of a foot up close will traverse a great apparent distance, whereas a similar one-foot movement at the far edge will be barely perceptible.
This is why one sometimes needs to take multiple exposures, especially when trying to slow down motion in the water, in order to get the desired effect both up close and at distance. I really should have tried to get an even faster exposure for the distance, and blended the two in post, but I would have had to crank the ISO up even higher for the distance shot, and I have to admit I simply hoped for the best.
All-in-all, I'd like to tell myself that the result is an "interesting effect" rather than a flaw in the image. I like it that you noticed it, and I'm guessing you don't find it problematic. |
Jan 19th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
This image evokes for me a sense of calm, a relaxed end of a vacation or leisure day.
My eye is pulled to the brightly lit clouds in the sky, then travels down the mast to the main body of the boat, wanders out across the water, and then explores the darker area ashore.
I find that my eye is somewhat frustrated by the difficulty seeing details in the wooded hill in the distance, where it's apparent that there is some color variation. You might want to experiment with pulling up the shadows in that area. I also "fiddled" (as I so often do) with darkening slightly the top and bottom edge. I also experimented with brightening slightly the hull of the boat, so as to give it more visual weight and hold the eye better.
|
Jan 17th |
 |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
That is indeed a beautiful mountain range.
The image evokes for me a sense of the calm one can sometimes experience in the wilderness - sort of a quiet awe and a sense of one's own right size in the vastness of the place.
I like your tonal and hue adjustments. Good job bringing out the structure in the sky and managing to keep the snow-capped mountains distinct.
I was, at first, surprised at your decision to crop up fdrom the bottom as far as you did. However, I experimented on the original, and I came to the conclusion that your crop is the ideal one. Keeping any more of the foreground would have shifted the attention to it and off the mountains; cropping down allowed you to keep some interesting structure in the sky, but not waste a lot of "real estate" there; coming in from the right made the range fill the frame from left edge to right.
It's the conventional "wisdom" that one should avoid placing a strong horizontal element across the frame dead-center vertically, but I think it works here. Perhaps that's because the mountain range serves to "stitch" the bottom half of the image to the upper.
Note that I didn't "tinker" with it. Didn't feel that I could offer a different take on it or improve on it. Well done.
|
Jan 17th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
I really like this. I wonder if this is from the same location (maybe even the same shoot) as another image you posted a few rounds back. (Reminder: I haven't read the narrativeĆ¢ā¬¦)
I'm guessing that this is a medium to long focal length, judging by the compression. I like the way the detail quickly falls off into the distance. So often, folks tend to try to get some back by sharpening and/or dehazing, and I find that the result doesn't feel right to me. Is there also some fog rolling through?
I really like the warm / cool color contrast, and the accents of green and oranges in the vegetation and rocks in the foreground.
If I may nitpick? I'd wish for a tiny bit more separation between the large rock up front (that works well to anchor a sense of place) and the smaller rocks beyond. If raising the point of view would have had an undesirable effect further into the scene, then perhaps stepping forward just a tiny bit?
Also, once I became aware of the man gazing out of the frame at the right, I found it difficult to pull my eyes off him.
Nice treatment of the sky and clouds.
|
Jan 17th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
Welcome to the group. Glad to have you with us, and looking forward to seeing your images.
A "heads-up" about my approach: I write my comment on the image as posted, with title, but without reading the maker's narrative, or the other members' comments. After posting my comment, I'll go back and read the narrative and other comments; I might then go back and add a reply to my comment if warranted given the additional information.
Also, I'm one of the rare birds who really enjoys post-processing, so I often find that I like to take a spin at "fiddling" with the posted image, just to see if I can see ways that I could suggest might help. I hope that doesn't offend, and if you'd rather I not do that with your images, feel free to say so, and I won't mind a bit.
I confess I can't correlate the "original" with the "final" so I'm not going to try. So here goes, looking at the "final" image. I like the feeling it evokes. To me, it suggests late afternoon on a hot summer day, possibly somewhere in the Southwest of the USA, though the road, the rolling hills, and neat vegetation tell me otherwise; maybe farmland further north than that. I like the field of flowers in the foreground; I feel like I can almost smell them. I don't mind the little bit of wind-induced motion blur, here and there.
The panoramic format emphasizes the "big sky" feel and made it possible for you to showcase the length of the exposed cliff, which I image is quite impressive. I'm guessing this is several frames stitched together, and not a wide angle shot cropped down. A real challenge when putting together a multi-frame image like this is in the stitching phase. Sometimes I find it works best to actually take two, or even three, rows of frames; I'll then experiment with different stitching modes to try to reduce the distortion, and then crop in from the top and bottom.
The light feels a bit flat to me, which is surprising given the time of day. Perhaps once I read your narrative I'll have a better understanding.
|
Jan 17th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
Good job on the technical merge! |
Jan 17th |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
I really like the B&W treatment. Good distribution of tonal values, and a nice falling-off of texture and contrast into the distance.
The image seems to me to attempt to capture so many things about Death Valley: the ripples in the sand, the undulating dunes, the expanse of the flats, and the mountains in the distance. I wonder, though, whether it's perhaps too much. Something like three-quarters of the frame is filled with the interesting, but uniform, ripples on the right and the relatively featureless left side of the dune that is in shadow. The result is that the remaining areas (dunes, flats, mountains, and sky) are squeezed into a very narrow space. Perhaps that would make sense if they didn't carry as much intrinsic interest, each of them, on their own, but I find it troubling here.
If it's the case that you're trying to depict in one image all four of those aspects of Death Valley, I suspect you'd have fared better with a horizontal format and including much less of the dune in the foreground.
|
Jan 17th |
 |
| 93 |
Jan 23 |
Comment |
I find this image perplexing, as I'm unable to guess at what you are trying to achieve. (Reminder: I haven't read your narrative.) Judging from your title, I suspect that the scene held subject matter (rather than visual) interest for you, specifically in the rocks. I'm a big sucker for rock and rock formations, so I can go there with you.
If, in fact, that's the case, then I think there are a couple of things that would have helped when capturing this image. I don't think the bluebird sky is contributing to that subject matter interest, and it draws the eye. Given the very shallow depth of field, the only area that's sharp is the rock face with all the fractures and jumbled rocks. Again, as that's the area with the greatest subject matter interest, that make sense, but then I wonder whether you'd have fared better cropping in to a narrow field of view, simply eliminating the boulders foreground and the sky beyond, and allowing the interspersed ocotillos and shrubs establish both the scale and tell a story of the harsh environment.
|
Jan 17th |
7 comments - 5 replies for Group 93
|
7 comments - 5 replies Total
|
