|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Your words are most kind, thank you. I do put effort into my photography and appreciate
the feedback -
Best, |
Jan 24th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
First of all, thank you for your kind words and yes, the St. Augustine Alligator Farm is where I shot it - the rookery there is really interesting and one of the better places for shooting birds. Thanks again for your kind words.
|
Jan 23rd |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Reply |
Lori - glad to hear your image did well although it's not surprising, I mean, you took an excellent shot :-)
Best |
Jan 17th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
I don't want to sound like a no-it-all, however, what I've learned thru trial and error (mostly error in competitions) is that while abstracts don't follow strict photographic guidelines or "rules" per se, there are helpful criteria, ie., abstracts that score well in competitions are usually simple, balanced, proportional, cohesive and have a clear structural design and the best ones present a sense of mystery and wonder. Would love to see your work :-)
|
Jan 10th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Reply |
Lori - fyi - don't look at my modifications as corrections but rather an option or alternative -
Best, |
Jan 10th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Zina - what a terrific idea to zoom in like that. I like the simplicity and the cohesiveness of the image, something we don't always find in abstracts. The image also has clear structural design. At the same time, I feel the image lacks any type of dramatic light to help it pop or direct the viewer's eye - abstracts are not easy to create and they were never my forte, which is one reason why I was so impressed with your idea - thanks, you got me to thinking :-) |
Jan 10th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Thank you Zina - also as an fyi - I learned something in the process of blending the images - there are two ways that I use to substitute a sky 1) "Replace Sky" in PS (if it's been added to the PS replacement sky library) or 2) by exporting both images from LR into PS and using "Edit in PS > Open in layers in PS" - the first time I tried "Replace Sky" but the sky between the subject's right wing's tip feathers was distorted so I went back and blended the second way with a much better result. In any event, I appreciate your comments |
Jan 9th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Matt - lovely image, lovely young woman - excellent job of capturing the moment. In my VF, I straightened the image, added a touch of Clarity in LR and added a very slight vignette in Color Efex Pro (Nik Suite) - LMK if you like my modifications |
Jan 9th |
 |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Thank you for your comments Pauline -
|
Jan 8th |
| 55 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Lori - perhaps the light didn't fully accomodate but this is a dynamite image - it tells a story, it's interesting and simply well done - in my VF I added contrast, vibrancy and a vert slight vignette in LR (14) - I wouldn't hesitate to submit this image in an appropriate venue - nice job. |
Jan 7th |
 |
8 comments - 2 replies for Group 55
|
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Thank you Peter |
Jan 28th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Dhananjay - I'm hesitant to comment because the image was taken at a place that's "very close to your heart," and when there's an emotional attachment to an image, sometimes it's best just to enjoy the image for what it is.
Having said that, I feel the image needs more contrast but then that wouldn't take the fog into account. But regardless of the treatment, the image is soft (I'm sure the fog didn't help your focusing) and it just appears "messy." But it's obviously important to you, so just enjoy it. |
Jan 22nd |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
I fully understand and no need to apologize - before we moved from Vail to Tucson we visited Florida every spring and good foregrounds in "dark sky" areas are getting harder and harder to find in the US - lucky for me, the desert surrounding Tucson is in a dark sky area, but I appreciate you taking the time - thank you
|
Jan 16th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Thanks Gary - I really appreciate getting input from a variety of sources on this topic and I'll certainly consider your suggestion, but as I'm sure you've surmised, LP is very subjective - my goal was impact and visual interest - if I accomplished that, then I'm a happy camper - thank you again
Best, |
Jan 16th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Reply |
Dave - I've done two workshops with Dave Black, I think he's the best. Appreciate your comments about going vertical but as you know, light painting is surreal and will give some more thought to a vertical next time I shoot with a low angle shooting up at a saguaro - again, appreciate your input. |
Jan 16th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Thank you Dhananjay, your comments are appreciated and thanks for taking the time to respond |
Jan 14th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Gary - I'm a mentor at one of my photo clubs and what I continually try to get across is Good weather = OK images but Bad weather = dramatic and interesting images - good for you that you got out and "got down low" to take the shot - look forward to seeing more of your work |
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
My apologies to everyone - I may have to leave the group if PSA DD groups cannot figure out why my uploading isn't working - sometimes an upload appears in a different group, other times like now someone else's image appears - I'm waiting for the secretaries of the two DD groups I belong to get back to me. Sorry for any inconvenience or misunderstandings
|
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
|
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
|
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
David - Arches is a great place to shoot and your perspective works well here. I notice you shot this at f5 - so I'm curious as to why you chose that aperture. In my VF I added contrast/texture to everything but the sky, darkened the foreground a bit and cropped into a pano - not better but an option - your histogram is spot on and the appears sharp throughout, which is why I asked about your Av - I really enjoyed reviewing this image, thank you |
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Sherry - I just realized my mistake - I did not see the title of your image - duh! My apologies
|
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Peter - you captured the moment! This is beautiful and certainly worthy of a wall. The lone comment I have is that in many (most?) cases when we place something in the center of a frame, as you white pelican is, the eye tends to wander. It seems no matter how much I want to look at the spectacular landscape scene, my eye consistently travels back to the pelican, whereas if it were positioned to the left a bit the image might have a better flow. Still dynamite image - kudos! |
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
This is a beautiful image Gary and I hope you took dozens of shots with all the "wet, sticky snow" and that fantastic sky. I am curious about your settings and whether or not you used a tripod. I could imagine several different compositions here. I will admit the ice features prominently in this image and it does fight for attention a bit or perhaps even blocking the flow of image - it's almost as though the image draws me in, but I reach a stopping point with the ice. Nonetheless, good for you that you got out and took advantage of what I call "atmospherics," i.e., ice, snow, rain, clouds, etc., etc. Nice job! |
Jan 8th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Sherry - first let me say this is one beautiful image and glad to hear it was a pleasant getaway for you.
Comments: What is the title of your image. I ask that because titles should reflect the image because titles present a window into the creator's vision & ideas while providing context for the viewer. And in this case, if the title is "New Year's Eve Sunset on Captiva Island, Fl." what about the image tells me it's NYE? Had there been a fireworks burst or something that tells me it was 12/31/23 then it's a great title. Perhaps that wasn't the title and that was just information about the image, then "Sunset Cruise" or any variation of that would be fine.
As noted, the shot is gorgeous and you handled the colors very well but I question why you included the shoreline - I'm not sure how that enhances the image.
I'm including visual feedback as I feel the subject is the silhouetted catamaran with a spectacular sky as its backdrop so, that's what I included - in my opinion, the shoreline does not help to tell the story. |
Jan 5th |
 |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Reply |
My apologies, I did not explain my format comment - I agree with you, it's all subjective, and while there are no 'truths' per se, in photography there are criteria. And I too use panos - a lot, I also use square crops, what I should have said was that I'm partial to 4x6 and 5x7 versus those odd shapes where it's 4.5x6 or 7.1x5. I hope that's clearer. Regarding the peak - if you like the peak, then by all means you should keep the peak, however, my opinion and that's what I think we're doing this for - to get other opinions, is that the clouds that "went along for the ride" pull the eye from the scene |
Jan 5th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Ian - a lovely photo of a beautiful scene. I thought you illustrated the scale of the scene very well and added a touch of drama with the speedboat moving directly into the camera's lens - nice job, you took an otherwise mundane image and added some energy. I feel this would do well in a photo club competition and in my VF I cropped from a 4x6 to a 5x7 format (I'm partial to "standard" formats) because I thought there was a bit too much of the bright clouds in the upper third of the frame that drew the eye. I also straightened the horizon line just a touch and added contrast & texture to help the image pop a bit more. BTW - hand-held at 1/160 second aboard a moving ship - nice job, candidly I wouldn't even attempt it at that Tv, but you nailed both the sharpness and exposure, again, nice job. |
Jan 4th |
| 73 |
Jan 24 |
Comment |
Ian, thank you so much for your comments. Like you, I've used the 600, 500, and 400 "rules," but regardless of which one I used the amount of acceptable blur depended upon two factors, my personal tolerance for blurs and the application, i.e., a small file for an Internet posting or a 36"x 24" blow up the image?
I would like to enter this image into a photo club competition knowing full well the amount of acceptable blur (and there will always be blur) is a subjective determination. And Ian, you are absolutely correct, it's very difficult to find material (rules) about high megapixel cameras and star blurs, which is why I asked the question - I still haven't found any.
Also, as you know light painting is absolutely trial and error while star elongation is a bit more scientific, i.e., it's a function of exposure time, the direction the photographer is shooting, focal length, type of sensor (full-frame, APS-C, etc.) lens quality, and number of megapixels, so I was unclear about your comment "at the camera's highest ISO."
Meanwhile, to answer your question let me begin with the fact that this is NOT what the scene looked like to the naked eye. The desert can be very dark at night, and I couldn't see more than 10 feet in front of me. What I try to do with night photography is to create dramatic, striking, and visually interesting images - in other words, when I light paint, I'm trying to create art - so of course the lighting doesn't look natural, it's not supposed to, but then neither does the Milky Way look like that to the naked eye - that takes longer exposure times.
In the past when shooting the MW, I've done so as close to a new moon as possible, while "painting" a dramatic foreground subject, i.e., the Moulton Barn in Jackson Hole or geological features such as Balance Rock or the Delicate Arch in Arches NP. But this region of the desert doesn't offer a single center of interest, ergo I thought to light the desert floor, including some of the Saguaro cacti, which I did.
Light painting, at least in my opinion, is really an art form where the photographer takes an otherwise recognizable dark scene that would be impossible to see with the naked eye and through artificial lighting creates drama, color & shadows to accent 'the star of the image' (no pun intended) the Milky Way.
|
Jan 4th |
16 comments - 2 replies for Group 73
|
24 comments - 4 replies Total
|
