|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Reply |
Yes, I like Wes's all white background--it works very well with this subject matter. (I often use all black.) |
Aug 19th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Reply |
Yes, very much so. This version really nails it. High drama now, undistracted by detail. |
Aug 15th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Reply |
Time to give credit where it is due. We have been running this group since 2009, and I have learned a lot from the others. All my comments about your image I learned from them in the last eight years. |
Aug 15th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Reply |
Those are good suggestions, Diana. Thank you. The image is grainy because it is an extremely small portion of my original shot. In looking over my images, I found that I had a "picture within a picture" on this one--the original was uninteresting as a whole, full of uneven light, and only these two women's faces were interesting--so I closed in on them. |
Aug 14th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Comment |
What fun! Nicely done. How about a Linhof 8x10 with some extreme bellows action? |
Aug 11th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Comment |
I like the "first crop" color image the best. I do like seeing the bull's legs, and I find the color helps me decode the action more easily. Although we all usually like as much detail as possible, I find the variegated neck and chest detail of the bull in your final version adds too much visual activity for my eye. I would prefer that area to be in shadow. |
Aug 11th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Comment |
Yes, lighter on the swan's bill, and overall as well, except for that very bright area on the wing. Consider a square composition, cropping in on both sides to intensify the effect of the lifted wings.
Having nothing to do with photography, white swans are an invasive species to North America, taking the habitat away from smaller waterfowl, and because of their size easily driving them off. Many park services are trying to remove them, but meet with public opposition because the public loves their brilliant white plumage. |
Aug 11th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Comment |
I like very much the viewpoint you chose, with two diagonal lines. First the bridge bed, receding from left to right, and then the far shore line receding from right to left. Compositionally, I would suggest, if physically possible, to shoot from about 20-30 feet higher, so that the bridge bed line does not cover up the shore line. That would also place more of the support cables against the buildings and make them show up more. |
Aug 11th |
| 32 |
Aug 17 |
Comment |
Is this the same library you showed us last year? The angles and patterns in this shot are great subject matter, and your viewpoint is very creative. I have to look at it a bit to decode what I am seeing, but that may be a positive, as it holds my interest. As to holding the camera steady on the barrier ("railing" on this side of the pond--I think your word is more accurate), it looks like you had no trouble with that. I hardly ever use a tripod, so steadying the camera against whatever is available is a common practice for me. Now that it's easy to straighten out a tilt in PS, it doesn't even matter if the camera is steadied against a tilted object. |
Aug 11th |
5 comments - 4 replies for Group 32
|
5 comments - 4 replies Total
|