|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Comment |
Thanks for all the comments, I have reworked the image, hopefully it is looking better now. |
Mar 11th |
 |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Wes
|
Mar 10th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Comment |
I pushed the green channel in ACR to darken his shirt and the yellow channel to darken the spoons and the wood, pushed contrast and added a vignette. See what you think.
|
Mar 7th |
 |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Comment |
Very nice image Steven, it prooves that one only has to look to find interesting things.
I like Ed's rendition, if you have the time and incliniation, maybe just clone out the white gap in the fence, or try content aware fill (not sure whether it will do a good job, or just mess it up though) |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Comment |
Jennifer, Nice image
The right is going to remain a problem. If this is close to home you could try going back with a wider lens, or faced with a similar situation like this again, take two or three overlapping images and stitch them together later.
I like the dark, ominous sky, it adds drama.
There is a halo around the top of the steeple, which is distracting.
Just my thoughts
Regards
Som |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Comment |
Nice play of light and very nice composition from a scene many of us would have just walked past!
You have got the tones and contrast right and thanks for telling us about your workflow. It's interesting, how different people approach the same job differently. Personally, I always restart from the RAW when I want a mono image (rather than from the processed colour version), I find that playing with the colour channels allows me to get separation, which is difficult to do from a processed cour image.
At the end of the day, what works for one's taste is what it is all about.
Nice image |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Comment |
Diana, nice polar bear shot, I love bears!
Two suggestions:
1. If you are using it as a mono (not a reality division like Nature) image, I would remove the black blob (I presume it is a rock) above the bears tail.
2. If you shot raw, you might try a high key edit, polar bears on snow make some very nice high key images.
I was also interested in your comments about the OM system. I appreciate that they are small and light (compared to even crop sensor mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X series), and so I am intermittently attracted towards it as it avoid having to carry haevy systems. But I always thought that the smaller sensor would be noisy at high ISO, and as a lot of wildlife opportunities are in early morning or fading late afternoon light, this would not be good for wildlife. You seem to be happy with the OM for wildlife, how high a ISO, can you go to on the OM, without getting noise which is not manageable in post processing?
Enjoy your skiing, and let us have your thoughts when you are back home from Norway.
Regards
Som |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Reply |
Hi Ed, the latest version of the PSA/FIAP Nature rules do allow for some man made things - the wording in the definition is
"When they are a small but unavoidable part of the scene, such as an unobtrusive footprint or track in the background."
If I were judging I would allow it in nature, but you are correct - some judges may not. Problems with trying to define these things is that there is always room for interpretation. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Reply |
Ed,
Thanks, I shot this at f2.5, trying to keep her isolated, this has caused the leaves and the part of the basket closer to me to be out of focus, perhaps I should have stopped down a bit to get more depth of field. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 25 |
Reply |
Stephen, I did reduce contrast of the background and darkened it, to draw attention to the lady |
Mar 7th |
6 comments - 4 replies for Group 32
|
6 comments - 4 replies Total
|
