|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Comment |
I absolutely love the colors and the composition. However, to me, the gold areas look over-sharpened. The drama in the clouds and the way the foliage frames them add a lot of visual interest in my opinion. I might have been tempted to take out the shadows in the forefront of the walk, but that is just "nit picking". I think this is a very pleasing image. |
May 18th |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Comment |
To me this is a lovely "S" curve which gives the image a peaceful, meandering feel. I like the human figure in the background, walking into the scene as, for me, it adds interest. I think the others are correct with their cropping suggestions. |
May 18th |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Comment |
I really like the way you have captured multiple leading lines that all converge near the bottom left power point. The color does not bother me one bit - but then i am the lady who likes color, so it figures. I also like the way you have framed the building between the trees. |
May 18th |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Comment |
I am working on a presentation on IR and in preparation I happened to stumble on an IR image of cheetahs online. I think you have done a good job of mimicking the IR, which was possible because you know what IR is supposed to look like. The cats are sharp and stand out from the background nicely in my opinion. The composition also works well for me. |
May 18th |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Comment |
The first thing I notice when I open this image is the lines of the walkway which are nearly straight verticals within the frame and, for me, they almost cut the image in half. So, I think, at least to my eye, moving one way or the other to get a more diagonal line, if possible beginning near the corner and leading into the image would have strengthened the image. Also, I have found that one of the first steps I need to do with IR images is to run a noise reduction program. Technically, I don't know why they always seem to have a good bit of noise - maybe one of the others can enlighten me. |
May 18th |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Reply |
Wow! That is new learning for me! Thank you. i did convert it to get better B&W, so this was a surprise to me. I really like this conversion a lot. It is my third one. The first was standard B&W which I was not happy with, but I still like the super color and don't want to give it up. |
May 11th |
| 35 |
May 17 |
Reply |
I am not exactly sure what you are asking with regard to standing further to the left. If you mean physically moving to the left, it would not be possible as I shot this through a very narrow opening in the gate and it is the only possible place to get a clear shot of the building. I did try it in black and white, but for some reason those blues a purples resonated with me. Thanks for your input. |
May 10th |
5 comments - 2 replies for Group 35
|
| 52 |
May 17 |
Comment |
To me this is a dramatic and visually appealing image of a bird that I personally think is quite unattractive in most cases. I love the sense of motion created by the wing spread and the extended talons. As always, I think your capture is tack sharp and you have done a masterful job with color management. I would not change anything about this image. Wish it was mine. |
May 18th |
| 52 |
May 17 |
Comment |
I think this is a good use of backlighting and I love the colors. It is actually, in my opinion, a nature abstract. The leading lines bring my eye to the "X" which I believe you have placed exactly at the right spot in the frame. I see quite a bit of chromatic aberration which could be minimized in the Lens Correction panel of LightRoom. |
May 18th |
| 52 |
May 17 |
Comment |
This is one of my favorite birds to shoot, mostly because of their behavior. I have never seen them in this color phase and actually did not realize they changed that much. I like the soft diagonal of the wing span and the sense of forward motion. You might want to try targeted noise reduction in the background using the brush tool in LR. |
May 18th |
| 52 |
May 17 |
Comment |
The last time I was there is was 112 degrees, so I feel heat just looking at this image. In landscapes I like to see a path for the viewer's eye to enter the scene and you have accomplished this quite well. Shadows are always an issue here and I think you have minimized them so that there is good detail throughout. Also, I like that you have kept the sky out of it. In my opinion you have done a nice job on a difficult to shoot location. |
May 18th |
| 52 |
May 17 |
Comment |
For me, the leaves on the left detract from the subject, especially as some parts are in focus and some are out of focus. I know these things grow in nasty places where there are all kinds of sharp, jaggy things we don't like to get into, but going to the left, if possible, and perhaps shooting from a slightly lower perspective might have given you more of that lovely bokeh you have on the right. The diagonal line really appeals to me visually. I would try to increase the saturation and luminosity of the magenta color to make it pop some more. |
May 18th |
| 52 |
May 17 |
Comment |
To me, this is a good example of when placing the horizon in the middle works. I also am attracted to the scudding clouds and the drama they provide. When I read your description I had a couple of ideas including targeted desaturation, debasing and cloning for that blue spot but I see that those have all been suggested. It looks like Mike has done the job, at least for a digital image.
Like John, I avoid shooting landscapes at f/stops as high as 11 - in fact when possible, I stay at 14 or below - because of the refraction. Another thing you might want to think about when shooting these landscapes is shooting even more wide open to get the max sharpness your lens can accomplish and then focus stacking several images. I have created panos for which each individual image that is stitched into the pano is composed of three merged images. Of course that results in an enormous file. But since you are into stitching panos you might want to try that as well. I hope to get to Yosemite one of these days. |
May 18th |
| 52 |
May 17 |
Reply |
Thanks for your comments, Judith. I don't know how I missed adding the shooting information. This was shot at a rookery and, while I am not a particularly good judge of distance, I would say I was 50-60 feet away. It was shot at a focal length of about 300mm, so I was fairly close. ISO 800; f/6.3; 1/3200 sec. |
May 8th |
6 comments - 1 reply for Group 52
|
11 comments - 3 replies Total
|
