|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Reply |
Hi Don. Yes, I thought the light being on was important to the picture. I had several shots I could have used for the top one in the pano, but I didn't catch the light turned on in all of them. When shooting lighthouses after they come on in the evening or at night, one must count out the pattern and snap the shot when it is flashing. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, Janos. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, Alex. My first thought was to take some off the sky too. I did and found that it lost some of the impact, mainly because I lost the deep blue at the top. I tried coloring it that same color lower, but it just didn't work. I concluded that this was one time that I needed to throw out the rule of thirds and just go with what I thought worked better. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, Pete. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Hi Alex. Beautiful scenery! The river providing a meandering leading line back to the mountains makes for a beautiful image. Although the horizon and the mountains might be naturally tilted to the right, I would straighten it a bit so the line below the mountains is somewhat horizontal.
Also, think about where you are leading the viewer's eye through the picture. Lightening the center of the picture while keeping a darker vignette will help draw attention there. Although increased contrast in both tone and color attracts a viewer's eye, I think the contrast is a little overdone in this image. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Nice location for shooting, with a nice view of the ocean in the background. I like what you did with increasing the contrast and saturation, but I would recommend trying to tone down the greens a bit. It brings out the tracks in the grass and that probably isn't the main thing you want your viewer's eye to see. (For me, green is always the hardest color to work with, so I'm not sure what to tell you... perhaps lighten the green a little bit.) |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
The composition is good. I would also like to see a view closer up to the arches, but I believe you when you said you tried different views but this one was the best.
Quite a lot of noise in the image at full zoom. It looks like you tried to take some of the noise out of the blue sky but you can see the edges with the artifacts. I would recommend trying to run it through one of the new noise reduction products, Like Topaz DeNoise or Lightroom's new Denoise algorithm, although Lightroom Denoise will not yet process the raw DNG files from a drone. (I'm going to try to see if it works as well to convert it to a tiff file before using Lightroom's Denoise). |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
I like the composition (perhaps a little more of the sky like a couple of people have mentioned. The top of the treeline shouldn't be touching the edge of the picture). I also think it might have been better with better light, although I know you wanted the cold wintery look. Ripples in the water add some nice detail. Beware of oversharpening, I think it did need some sharpening, but comparing it to the original, I'd say cut it back by about half. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Hi Pete. Once I saw that it was a crater I would say it is another beautiful image. But, maybe it's just me, but I had difficulty determining what I was looking at in the bottom half of the picture. I had trouble figuring out what went up and what went down.... if it was a hill or a hole. There was nothing to anchor my eye to make sense of the scene. The rim of the crater on the left side of the image helped. Perhaps a little more of the rim, especially in the immediate foreground, would have helped to anchor the eye. |
Jul 18th |
| 85 |
Jul 23 |
Comment |
Certainly an interesting photo! My first impression before I read anything was that it looked like a potato masher, then I read the title and found out that's exactly what it was, ha ha! And then to find out it was taken just 2 1/2 hours up the road! |
Jul 18th |
6 comments - 4 replies for Group 85
|
6 comments - 4 replies Total
|
