|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Reply |
I like the addition at the top. You might want to try to lightly add a little tree texture in that area, but don't overdo it. As far as the sidewalks, I don't think the yellow works as well... it causes a distraction. Sometimes, when one thinks something will work and when it's done, it doesn't. Sometimes you just have to try something and see whether or not it works. |
Sep 29th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Reply |
Thank you, Mike. |
Sep 29th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Patrick. I rather like the more vertical aspect ratio! |
Sep 29th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Lou. Yes, I agree the trees at the bottom are a little too dark. I left them dark so as not to draw the eye there, but there is too many solid black shadow areas. |
Sep 29th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Reply |
Well, after looking it up, the Mavic 2 Pro has a variable aperture that is supposed to be between f/2.8 and f/11, so I don't know why the metadata had f/45. Guess it was just making things up :) |
Sep 29th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Reply |
Thank you! Wow, I'm surprised by your comment. I get a lot of sunstars in my images when I shoot into the sun, and I didn't know it was a difficult thing to do. It made me go back and look at what aperture was used for this photo (I've been setting my drone to automatic exposure lately, probably more than I should. On my real cameras ;) I use the histogram, but the histogram on the drone is so tiny, it is difficult to read. I have a new drone on its way to me... I hope it has a better histogram).
The metadata for this image says the aperture was set to f/45. Whew! I didn't even know there was an f/45 of that camera!
You think the sun should have been located more towards the upper right corner? I have other shots taken that day... I'll take a look to see if I have one with the sun further to the right after I stitch the panels together. |
Sep 13th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Comment |
Nice sky replacement! Great addition, well done!
The first thing my eye went to when I looked at this image, though, was not the waves but the bright yellowish hills on the right. It made me feel like the image was unbalanced. I would suggest to darken down this area, and try to drive the viewer's eye more toward the rocks and the passageway in the left half of the picture (which will likely lead their eye down to the waves next). Try saturating and lightening that area. Then remove or desaturate the orange fence areas. I like the leading line of the while fence/railing, and I really like the trees at the top of the rocks.
As far as the waves, I personally think they are overdone, and you did not need to have all of them combined into the picture. The patterns in the water behind the one with the waves hitting the cliff are beautiful, and you have sacrificed that area with the next wave coming in. The area behind that wave in the lower left is quite beautiful, but I would suggest getting rid of some of the wave in the center bottom and putting the backwash from the first wave there.
But don't take my criticism harshly. This is an amazing photo, and with a little work, I think it could be even better... very much a "Wow" image (I wish I had areas like this nearby to photograph!!) |
Sep 13th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Comment |
Hi Alex. Parts of this image are so pretty! The rocks, the hills in the background. But yes, the odds and ends detract from the picture. You could go to work with the remove tool and try to take many of them out, but it would certainly change it if you are shooting for a realistic scene. I wonder what it would have looked like if you had lowered the drone until the rocks blocked out some of that busy area.
The sky... for me, it looks overprocessed. Just like the sky in Lou's image, I think you have used the Temperature slider that colored the clouds as well as the sky. I think there is a little too much color there, and not enough separation between the clouds and the blue of the sky. |
Sep 13th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Comment |
Hi Mike. It is a very interesting building, and I love Spanish architecture. I like the idea of having a visual line from the gate to the building, but with both being so close to the margins, I don't think it works. I didn't even notice the gate until I read Pete's review, and I was thinking of cropping off some of the trees at the bottom and adding more to the top. Also, you might want to try to lead the viewer's eye up one or more of the paths to the building by lightening them a little, and then to lighten the building to draw their eye there. |
Sep 13th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Comment |
Hi Richard. I agree with Pete about the corner-to-corner diagonal. What impressed me the most when I first looked at this image was the feeling of depth around the flat-topped mesas and ridges. I like it! |
Sep 13th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Comment |
Hi Lou. I really like this image. I like the soft tones. But I agree with Pete about the dehaze... but only in the bottom half of the picture. I think the haze in the background gives the image depth (but only up near the horizon). Also, the sky looks a little too cyan, and I think there needs to be more color separation between the clouds and the blue sky. Sometimes, when you use the temperature slider in Lightroom, it colors everything the same (the entire image or the entire mask).
Looking at the original, I think it was a mistake to crop it as you did. I like that composition better. I rather like the butte on the left, and it balances out the photo. It shows the wide valley, which is not as evident in the crop. It also makes the field in the lower left wider, which doesn't seem to be quite as overwhelming. |
Sep 13th |
| 85 |
Sep 25 |
Comment |
Hi Pete. I think this is a nice abstract. My first thought was that the figure should not be there at all. But I have been looking at it, and I go back and forth on it. I see the value in having the tiny figure in the picture as a "surprise" if someone realizes it is not just an abstract image. I'm not sure what it would look like with greater saturation. Does it bounce right out at the viewer? |
Sep 13th |
6 comments - 6 replies for Group 85
|
6 comments - 6 replies Total
|
