|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
You have been very helpful. I went back and redid it based on your suggestions. I am going to try this image in some competitions, so we shall see. |
Jan 14th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
Thanks, Julie. Will you take a look at the edit above in which I blurred the background and let me know what you think? |
Jan 13th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
Here is a version with the background more blurred. I do think I like it better, but would appreciate your input. Does this image have merit? |
Jan 13th |
 |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
Do you think that adding a blur over the texture would help? Or do I need to go back to the original and rework it? |
Jan 13th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
Helen, Henry posted an additional comment about your image, but it is posted ono my page. You will want to look at that. |
Jan 13th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
I know this is a matter of personal taste, but I find the color version much more dramatic which creates impact! |
Jan 13th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
Yes, they do. I also have OnOne and like it quite a bit. You should definitely take a look at it. I am getting ready to send off another camera for conversion. this time I am going to get the enhanced black and white. |
Jan 13th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
The blur and orange combination always knocks my socks off. I have a friend who like this color juxtaposition so much he has named it "blorange". I would really appreciate know your process for blending in other colors. I like the square crop and the way you have used texture. |
Jan 12th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
This is another interesting place, and I gather is some kind of a fire pit? The image looks sharp all the way through; however, in my opinion, the composition would be improved if it were not so centered. Perhaps that perspective was not possible? Also, this was apparently shot from eye level, so I wonder if it would appear more interesting to me if shot from a low perspective - perhaps even from ground level. You have not indicated what lens you used, but I have found that some interesting effects are created when shooting from a low perspective with a wide angle lens. So I offer that suggestion as a possible way to create more impact. |
Jan 12th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
The first thing I notice is the eyes which are not only lovely on this young model, but they are sharp and bright. I would really like to know if/how you touched them up in post processing to get that look. Also, her skin is flawless - unusual on anyone much less a young person - so did you brush out flaws or use some dynamic skin softener? I am not as experienced in portraiture as you but I am trying to learn more about how these very glamorous looks are created. Any information you can provide would be appreciated. I think this works well in IR. |
Jan 12th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
This is an interesting monument, and you are correct that it appears to belong in Greece or somewhere along the Mediteranean. You have little bit of an S curve in the foreground leading my eye up to the monument, a compositional element that works well. You haven't indicated how you created it in camera, but it looks a little bit soft to me. Also, I immediately noticed the white edge at the upper right, which should be easy to eliminate.
|
Jan 12th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
This may be a familiar scene to those of you in the British Isles, but it is new to me. I reminded me of my trip around the coast of Ireland ten years ago. I would go back in a heartbeat! I love the drama in the sky (which I know you folks see a lot of), and the surrounding area suggests to me that this cottage is very remote. (That may not be the case at all, but I wouldn't know). The only element lacking for me is a few sheep in front of the cottage. For me, I think a little selective dodge and burn on the foliage would help, and perhaps trying to pull just a little more detail out of the shadows on the doorways. I 'll bet those doors are interesting. I like your image and wish I cold go there. |
Jan 12th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
I am always looking for these old garages and filling stations and, as Helen said, they are getting hard to find. I hope while you were there you did some close up work too. Those old fuel pumps look like great subjects in and of themselves. Perhaps you recall that a year or so ago I submitted a similar image which I shot in Oregon. Afterwardm I felt that what I should have done is try to capture the scene from a different angle so as to give it perspective. My image looked very flat and to me that is the way this one appears. Having said that, I am aware that it is not always possible to get a different angle and you may have had obstructions that prevented this. In terms of suggestions, I believe that some selective dodging and burning of the foliage might help to create some depth. Also, I do not know how you feel about jet trails in the sky, but I usually clone them out. |
Jan 12th |
| 35 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
Thank you Helen. Both Henry and I have supercolor conversions which are at 590 nm. These let in a little bit of the visable light spectrum. I believe you and the others have standard conversions at 720 nm which is just beyond the visible light spectrum. That is what accounts for the color you see in our images. I wrote an article that appears in the January 2017 issue of the PSA Journal which explains this a little more.
Lightroom is what I automatically download all my images to. It is also a RAW converter, but it does not have layers so channel swaps cannot be done in LR. There is another product coming on the market now called MacPhun which I understand has a RAW converter. I think it is only in the BETA stage now and there is no version for PCs, but I understand this is coming. A lot of IR photographers use the conversion software that came with their cameras, but I find LR more intuitive and user friendly so that is why I use it. |
Jan 8th |
7 comments - 7 replies for Group 35
|
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
Thanks, John. I went back to the original and added a bit of canvas at the top and I do think that is much better. |
Jan 12th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
I don't know for sure Carol. I zoomed in and it looks pretty darn sharp to me. Since no one else mentioned it, I do not know if I should mess around with it any more. I wish we were in the same room so you could point out to me what you are noticing. |
Jan 11th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
I am impressed that you caught this action. To me, the wings are in perfect position and those out-stretched feet give me the feel of forward motion and something about to happen. My eye moves smoothly down the trunk, through the diagonal branch and right to the subject. I wish the sky wasn't so white and colorless, but if I have to choose between that an "Bluebird Sky", I prefer this. I hope I get something this good next week when I am on your turf. |
Jan 11th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
I always think that if I can get the bird's head turned in this way I have a much more interesting composition. I like that the bird is looking back into the frame. I too would clone out the leaves as it would isolate your subject even more. This is a highly personal opinion, but I think the blue could be desaturated some and maybe the hue adjusted so it is less aqua. In the HSL panel in LR if you click on the circle things that look like buttons and run the cursor over the blue area you may be able to get an idea of what colors are actually present in that area before you adjust. Nice work, Judith. |
Jan 11th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
Low light on a moving boat? WOW! You are good. When I first saw this I immediately thought that the bright white spot in the sky pulled my eye away from the beautiful scene, so I vote for cloning it out. I think the suggestions for cropping a bit from the top as it would get the horizon farther away from the center. |
Jan 11th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
The first time I saw this when you submitted it for posting, I had exactly the same reaction as Mike. The panorama treatment is, in my opinion, more appealing. There is a very easy way to get rid of the halo effect above the mountains. In PS choose your clone tool. Set it on darken. Select a small, soft brush and use pixels just above the mountain tops (if you pick pixels from farther up the color is likely to be different). Just brush along the top of the mountains and the halo should disappear. |
Jan 11th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
What a dilemma! For me, the duck going uphill definitely does not work. I am thinking that a wider angle, letting us see more of the context might help and it would also add to the story. Since I use different software to accomplish the task (Viveza), I will not comment on the unsharp mask suggestion, but the one area I believe could use some clarity is the eye.
|
Jan 11th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Reply |
No, they were just being geese. I agree with you - for a print presentation I do not like the faux mat look at all. I was thinking that for a digital presentation it needed some borders just to keep the eye in the frame - so they don't look like they are flying off into space. But you point is well taken. |
Jan 9th |
| 52 |
Jan 17 |
Comment |
Thanks to both of you. The reason I decided on monochrome is that the birds are almost monochromatic anyway and I do not like those "Bluebird" skies. I know ARt Morris - who is one of the best bird photographers - likes them, but they do no appeal to me. I think the suggestion about the border is good and will try it. |
Jan 7th |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 52
|
13 comments - 10 replies Total
|
