|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
May Gray and June Gloom! :) Yes, a good documentary picture. |
Mar 12th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
A nice view of Ventura. I like the composition... the way you have the curve of the ocean in the top half of the picture. I agree with Pete about the tall building's location relative to the pier. I also think you could have removed some of the small details next to the bottom edge. That car in the center is cut in half; there is another partial car on the lower left, and there are some light-colored dots near the edge. These things could have easily been removed.
But the biggest issue I have with this image is the lighting. Pete said he liked the mood, but I'm not really fond of it. I think the sky and ocean are ok, but the city looks a bit like a cloudy, dreary day. I think flying this scene at a time when there was some lovely light, perhaps during golden hour, would have made a better picture. It makes a good documentary picture, but not a fine art image. |
Mar 12th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
Hi Richard. I think the processing on this image was well done. Like my January image, it has a wide expanse, lots of summertime trees, and a small building. Your image has the added advantage of some nice late-day sky with some color and even a rainbow.
While shot in a beautiful area, the composition of this image could use some improvement. You have 3 areas of interest in the photo: the field with the building, the steam/clouds with the rainbow on the upper right, and the clouds/steam on the upper left. Although all 3 areas are of interest individually, they don't tie together very well. There isn't really anything connecting them, and they are 3 separate subjects. It is sometimes a good idea to have 3 areas of interest in a photo, but the viewer's eye must be able to move easily and comfortably between them. They can either have leading lines between them, or be large enough and close together enough that the eye doesn't have far to travel as it wanders around the photo. In this image, I believe the 3 areas are too far apart to make a cohesive image.
Pete suggested cropping so the buildings are closer to the lower right, but the problem with that is that the beautiful sky and rainbow color would be cropped out. I think the only answer to this composition problem would have been for you to have flown down closer to the building and have the clouds and rainbow directly behind them. That would have made the distance across the trees to the rainbow narrower and easier for the eye to traverse. I don't know if you could have still included the clouds on the left, but I think it would have been ok without them (as it is, the center of that cloud is very bright and almost blown out, losing most of its detail).
It's not a bad picture at all. In fact, it is quite pretty. I just think it would have a lot more impact with a better composition.
|
Mar 12th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
I agree about the building. I left it there because I was aiming for the same distance from the curve along the water as I had on the right side. I don't think cropping the building down the middle will help much, and cropping it out completely would put that curve too close to the edge. I think this is going to need a re-shoot. I could move the drone to the right and have more of the city skyline in the image, or move it to the left and get the footbridge more towards the center (that lovely little bridge was part of my point, and perhaps having it front and center will work).
It is nearby, so going out again isn't a problem. If I'm lucky, I can catch a day when the water is perfectly calm and has a nicer reflection. This was taken in the fall, but this spring, there will be some lovely flowers at the ends of the bridge. |
Mar 10th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Yes, I see your point about the shadow. I also like the lighting on the mountains on the far right. The light is best there (a little white spot of sand or something there that could be removed). You might want to try decreasing the contrast on that rough terrain and tone it down a bit so it isn't pulling the eye away. That would emphasize the shadow a bit more too. |
Mar 10th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
I love nice foggy day photos. The composition here is good. I would recommend playing with the haze a bit more. Try increasing the contrast in the foreground, on the first couple of boats, and fade it more towards the background. There is a new clarity and dehaze adjustment layer in Photoshop that will help with this, and you can use a gradient to apply it only to the foreground. For the background, try out using a solid white layer with a gradient at the top, and set it to a very low opacity. That will dim down the distractions in the background. I think you could try warming up the haze in the background a little bit, too, although I'd have to see it... it might not work.
It is a very nice photo, and I think you can work on it more to make it really pop! |
Mar 10th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
Another very nice image, and a good job of processing! It's good that you had a day with a nice cloudy sky! When did you take this, in the winter? Summer skies in the socal desert can be so boringly blue!
I can't really add anything other than perhaps you might want to consider cropping a little off the right. The rough ground to the right of the cone is distracting from the cone a bit. It would cause the cone to be centered in the photo, but I wouldn't have a problem with that (I think sometimes the "Rule of Thirds" can be overused because so many judges object to centered subjects) |
Mar 10th |
| 85 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
A lovely location and a great time of day to be shooting! Shots directly into the sun are difficult; the dynamic range on the drones is limited. I see banding around the sun. Did you exposure bracket? It's about the only way to get a sunset with the sun directly in the picture.
(BTW, I've used to sail in that area quite a lot, and to celebrate some of our victories at the Saint Frances, that building by the water up near those palm trees!)
I think the composition would have been a little better if you had flown down beyond the parking lot. Half the picture is taken up by the field, parking lot, and docks. I realize it might have made it more difficult to get both the sun and the bridge in the picture at the same time, but I think it might have worked.
I used to live across the bay in the Berkeley hills and had a view of the bay and the bridge. Twice a year, the sun sets directly behind the bridge. Being there in winter meant that the sun was about as far south as it gets. Perhaps another trip when it is closer to the bridge? (You are inspiring me to make a trip back there! :) |
Mar 10th |
5 comments - 3 replies for Group 85
|
5 comments - 3 replies Total
|
