|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Reply |
Yes, I could have used a slower shutter speed, but I believe a bit before I was trying to catch a flying bird...so yes, probably just didn't have time to adjust it (or perhaps more likely sufficient brain power to think of it at the time ;-) ). |
Apr 18th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
It was wide open, which is f7.1 at 500mm, so yes not a lot of depth of field. I didn't have a problem with that, although it might have been nice to have more. I could have; it was at 1/2000s at ISO 800, so I did have some room there. |
Apr 17th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
Nice shot of this fellow. I like the framing the leaves give around the subject, although I also like the cropping that Mervyn suggested. Two different interpretations! |
Apr 9th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I really like this image. I like the pattern, and really like the reflection you have in the windows--just enough detail, just the right exposure. Lots of details to look at here. |
Apr 9th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
Can't add much; I agree with Jose and Mervyn on all the points they made. high-key B&W works perfectly here--the background has just a bit of shadow and the rest can be "blown out." |
Apr 9th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
Sounds like I am the only one here that never heard of this building :-). I do like interesting architecture like this--as you point out, it is often hard to get unique photos of places that have been photographed so much. Before I read the other comments I was going to suggest removing the crane as well--I do like the edited version much better. Not only was the crane distracting to me, but it also was "touching" the building--if it had some separation in the original it would have bothered me less. Still, I think it is better for it to not be there. I have been trying to get used to removing things like that myself--in the past I was the "should get it right in the camera and not alter it later" mindset, but I have changed that over the last few years (partly thankful to a local camera club I am with).
I like the angle--I like that the building "follows" the shape of the buildings in the background, but also does not "bump into" them (well, it is close on the left--but fine for me as I like that it just meets the corner perfectly).
I agree about leaving the structure in place, although as you mention perhaps they could be toned down just slightly.
One more thought...this might be interesting in B&W as well. |
Apr 9th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
Great shot, great lighting. The water droplets really add to the image, and as Jose said the other spots do not seem distracting to me. The white seems a bit blue to me--might try adjusting the overall white balance slightly warmer if you have not already. Might not look better...and does look great as-is. |
Apr 9th |
| 26 |
Apr 22 |
Comment |
I agree with the others; great photo, great subject. The "junk" doesn't really bother me--it is part of the scene. I really like the way you included the curved track, and the addition of the clouds is very well-done--it improves the image but looks very natural. |
Apr 9th |
7 comments - 1 reply for Group 26
|
7 comments - 1 reply Total
|
