|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 16 |
Jul 22 |
Comment |
An interesting place and an interesting composition. But Joan, I agree with Bud's recommendation to crop off the bottom third of the photo. And though it could be my tired old eyes, I also think the exposure has a strangely murky quality that doesn't jibe with the obviously sharp delineation between bright sunlight and the shadow area at upper left. Accordingly, a bit more contrast might be appropriate. Unlike the others, I'm not troubled by the man's presence atop the dam. At upper left, at least, it appears to be at least as wide as the man is tall. Barring signs which prohibit walking on the dam, and unless he's intoxicated, I think he could walk there in complete safety. |
Jul 13th |
| 16 |
Jul 22 |
Comment |
Bogdan, my comment is based on an assumption that the primary point of interest in your photo is the lovely church across the lake, and that the cherry blossoms, equally beautiful, should serve mostly to frame the church and therefore shouldn't dominate the scene. Accordingly, I suggest a crop to remove much of the cherry blossoms, including the area at lower left where the water shows between the branches. |
Jul 13th |
 |
| 16 |
Jul 22 |
Comment |
That's a wonderful pose, but by golly, I can't think of a more difficult background against which to discern the Toadfish than an exposed oyster bed. All things considered, you did a great job with composition, exposure, and sharpness.
Hank |
Jul 10th |
| 16 |
Jul 22 |
Comment |
Birds in flight can be tough subjects to frame and expose properly. As regards the latter, a dark bird against a bright sky is particularly problematic. Your original image is dark, perhaps because the camera was metering the sky rather than the bird, and the sense I have is that you've tried to compensate for that by lightening exposure, opening shadows, and fussing with contrast a bit too much in post-processing. As a consequence, detail on the bird's white pate is washed out and the underside of the bird is unnaturally light. The lack of contrast also affects the perception of sharpness. You don't mention in your narrative what metering mode you employed for this shot. Was it spot, center-weighted, or matrix?
I never shoot BIF in burst mode because I've found that, due to my lens's built-in vibration or motion reduction mechanism, there's sometimes enough unpredictable image displacement to change the location of the focus/exposure cursor relative to the subject. |
Jul 10th |
| 16 |
Jul 22 |
Comment |
That's a lovely image, softly lighted and with the flower's style and stigma framed and embraced just so by the petals. I like your background treatment, as well. It results in a very painterly look. I do notice, however, that the focus on the nearest petals is a bit soft, perhaps because you shot at f/7.1. Even hand-held, you might have selected an aperture two stops smaller and a shutter speed of about 160th or 150th of a second to achieve a greater depth-of-focus.
Hank |
Jul 10th |
| 16 |
Jul 22 |
Comment |
I like the color and energy of this image and your edits to lighten under-roof shadows and accentuate the distant mountains, but I question your choice of framing. I have no way of knowing what your intent was when you framed your shot, but to me, the retreating figure at lower right apears to be the primary subject, since he or she seems to have attracted the attention of the lady on the steps. Why, I wonder, did you not include all of that person? Was there some unsightly element in the foreground that you didn't want to intrude on the scene? Wouldn't the path he or she was walking on have provided a useful leading line to draw the observer's eye?
I think it would have been a stronger image if you had included all of that person at the expense of some of the colorful fabrics at the top of the frame.
Hank |
Jul 10th |
6 comments - 0 replies for Group 16
|
6 comments - 0 replies Total
|
