|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
i tried the mono in an International and the judges all gave it the rejection vote. So nothing new there. |
Apr 26th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
OK, I still like mine! |
Apr 13th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
Mine or Kym's? |
Apr 13th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
That's a great shame. They really need arranging to show them off better. Have you tried the internet -you can get most things there, even if they aren't the real thing. I like the stuffed bird too. I used to have one but threw it away because my husband was horrified by it. Now I wish I'd kept it for a prop, but I wasn't thinking along those lines when I was younger. There are so many old items which make good props. |
Apr 13th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
Wow, thanks Stephen. It's nice to be trusted sometimes! I know I'm always increasing the contrast in mono images but that's often because people convert from colour and forget that the colour creates the variety and the mono needs something else to highlight the tonal range. That's not explained very well but for me tonal range is the most important thing in a mono image unless you are going for an effect like high or low key. |
Apr 12th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
Gosh! The colours are beautiful. I would never have thought about turning it to mono with this wealth of colour but actually it looks really good as black and white. I like both but maybe prefer the mono because the road is too dominant in the colour version. |
Apr 12th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
I actually hadn't thought about the fact that the green and black one was a mono image because I was focused on the black and white mono effect. However, I think the green and black would also be OK as a mono, though you are right that some judges would not accept it. One has to read the rules very carefully. Most mono competitions specify black and white or greyscale so my green and black could not be used. |
Apr 11th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
I actually liked the negative space on the left and the more 'unbalanced' effect it gave on my version, but I did wonder about the straight line on the right and debated whether to try to take it out or make it a gradation like the left side. |
Apr 11th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
Yes I have an Olympus. I wrote the wrong words in my explanation. It is Livecomp and that is what lets you see what is happening. It is very very useful. I don't walk very well so wandering round a landscape at night would be decidedly dodgy for me. I have done a couple a few years ago but someone else did the lighting and I just took the photos-of Mono Lake. |
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
Light painting is interesting but jolly difficult! You don't need much gear. I had bought the crystal ball very cheaply online some time back and before I got the concert stick I'd used cheap finger lights and a torch with coloured gels stuck to it. Apart from that all you need is a room you can black out reasonably well and a black bit of fabric. The ball is sitting on a bent paperclip so it doesn't roll away. You could use a mirror or a piece of reflective perspex or a black floor tile. Brian found the black shelf in the craft shop and it was not expensive. Anyway, have a go -you'll find your evenings will disappear rapidly! |
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I'm not sure what effect you were after. I looked up chiaroscuro and wasn't much more informed. I thought it meant the light was more important than anything else? I can't see much difference between your original and your final image so I'm clearly missing something. What did you do to alter the original? I assume this was from a negative or from a mono print which you copied in some way and then processed in Nik. The border does fit the image as does the slight vignette. I'm sure this was an interesting place to visit. Have you been back recently? |
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I was about to say it was a pity the chair was in the way and then I read Stephen's comment. The model is superb and the rendition is so good as well. The lighting must have been difficult to get right. was it simply lit from the windows or did you use additional flash to light this side? Is there a reason that there is such a large model? was it made to show the typical houses or was it made for a child? It is really interesting to see these gracious houses although they would have needed a large Staff to run them. Good photo
|
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I like the slight vignette which your mini camera produced because it emphasises the viewpoint-looking up and seeing the arch of the partial building- the same sort of curve reflected. I would have left the chap with his arms akimbo but tried to remove or darken down the rest, especially the two in lighter Tshirts facing away from the arch and the hats on the others in the group. I really like the sun caught behind the arch as it makes it glow. I am again happy with the perspective curve produced by looking up and the camera because again it emphasises the arch shape. The exposure has been well handled overall. When you go again, try for the same viewpoint with your newer camera and see what happens.
|
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I'm amazed at how good this is considering it is such a small part of the whole. I think I like Stephen's suggestion that the right side would be good because you'd get a couple of cars though it might end up dividing your interest as your eyes would go from one to the other. I would never have thought of turning this into mono or going for such a small area. There is a sort of triangle between the car, the wheel and the bright lights of the bottom -your eye slides down the curve of the wheel. However, I do like the brightness and colour of the original. Would it have worked if you'd been there earlier to get a bit of texture in the sky rather than the deep black of the night sky? |
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I also like it as it is. The road provides a proper leadin to the hills and the snow has created form as it outlines the valley floors. It doesn't look as if it was taken in Autumn at all. For the first time ever, I prefer your slightly less contrasty image to the one Stephen produced! Was the polariser needed when you took it? I don't think you can chop it in half as neither seemed to work for me when I tried it. Neither part ended up with a focus for the eye. Stay with what you've got. |
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I think I prefer the square shape of the colour because the image is constrained within the picture frame. On the mono, we see part of the frame on all four sides and it looks a little odd. I felt the mono lacked depth of tonal range, whereas the colour seemed to have the depth. perhaps the mono needs an increase in contrast to help the items other than the skull stand out better. I can't read the book titles and I'm not sure I understand how one can be upside down when they are both lying flat? This is an interesting idea and I certainly think you should carry on with similar concepts to create a sequence though I'm not sure what you will end up calling them all. |
Apr 10th |
| 32 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
I think the fuzzy edge of the reflection gives away the fact that it is a reflection and not a second ball. The reflective surface isn't as clear as a mirror or a black tile would be. It always produces a slightly fuzzzy reflection. I had simply forgotten the Christmas lights would show up because they were switched on all the time, but because they were small, I hadn't seen them on the camera back. They were also providing a hint about where the camera and tripod were when I switched all the lights off and didn't want to trip over the legs! Great fun! |
Apr 8th |
7 comments - 10 replies for Group 32
|
7 comments - 10 replies Total
|
