|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
|
Feb 2nd |
 |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Reply |
Thanks Sunil - I like it! |
Feb 1st |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Welcome Robert - agree, beautiful shot of an unusual flower. Might consider desaturating the background green a little to make the subject 'pop' even more! I really like your use of the 2.8 lens and focus stacking. |
Feb 1st |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Nothing to add, an amazing image! As aways, thanks for sharing! |
Feb 1st |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
What a beautiful location. I like your processing of the bottom 2/3 of the image, and agree iwth sunil re: removing the sign on the left side of the road. Though I appreciate the effort to replace the sky, to me it doesn't fit - looks still a bit artificial, and I think in contrast with the vibrant fall colors in the rest of the picture, it may be a detractor on the whole. How about cropping it out? I'm on a plane and can't upload my edit here right now, but will later. I would place a horizonal crop across the top, positioned so that the mountain ridge intersects directly at the right upper corner of the cropped image. This removes the sky, leaves some of the background mountains. Will try to upload it tomororw. Curious what others think. Thanks! |
Feb 1st |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Interesting shot, love the subject matter. Agree, would be better with wider lens. The focus (to me) is the soles of the feet and the amazing colors. There are a lot of bits of scattered colors elsewhere that are perhaps a little distracting. How do you feel about selectively converting background to B&W, keeping the feet soles in color? Did a demo, but am on plane - can't upload right now - sorry! |
Feb 1st |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
LOL. I LOVE your demonstration of "taking out the trash!" Nice optimization of the original image. Agree, quite fortunate that you shot in RAW. Just for clarification and my education (please correct me if I'm wrong!) - The main advantage of RAW isn't that there are more pixels, it's that it stores more data (all that the camera acquired) per pixel. Total pixel count of the image is same, no? |
Feb 1st |
| 78 |
Feb 23 |
Comment |
Not a lot to add - I like your processing a lot. to me, I'm drawn to the tree being 'not straight' - I wanted initailly to straighten it, but I think (?) you've straightened for the macacque, which makes sense. maybe split the difference though to make the tree's angle less prominent? |
Feb 1st |
7 comments - 1 reply for Group 78
|
7 comments - 1 reply Total
|
