|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
You are being very strong, Wes. Good man. |
Oct 21st |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thank you for the extra information. It is almost like traveling there with this extra detail. My wife has made four trips to India, and I went with her on three of them. Our daughter-in-law's parents are from Sri Lanka. My wife is a philosophy professor, emerita, and has taught religious philosophy, both eastern and western. |
Oct 21st |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thank you. Yes, all agree this is a color photograph. |
Oct 11th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Yes, it was a delight to see on my evening walk. Best in color. |
Oct 11th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Thank you. I did the best I could with contrast. |
Oct 11th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
Hello Som,
Following up after Diana, I prefer the color version for the reasons she said. But also because this man's shirt, head wrapping, and beads are so colorful.
Would you mind telling us more, if you know, about this man's dress and accoutrements? The orange garment, the red head wrapping, the beads? Is he a Sikh? I presume the head wrapping contains his long hair. What about the marking on his forehead?
Thank you. |
Oct 10th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
You have given yourself an interesting challenge here, dealing with the situation that the models presented, and then deciding how to use that for your final composition.
I see that you used the two models with shoulders showing to bound the composition, keeping that part as presented by the models. But the rest looks re-composed for your final image. On the whole, I can see how you have balanced the masses of the bodies left to right. You got rid of skin blemishes, which I think was a good idea.
But I don't think the final image has a coherent light source anymore, possibly from your moving around parts. I don't think a black background, as the original, was a good idea, but neither do I think your clouds work well. I admit I have no idea what to do about the background. |
Oct 6th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is a very successful instance of seeing the essential photo in a larger scene. The monochrome is much better for this subject. Perfect idea to use the brightly lit house at the end for the eye to focus on.
I am not sure about the cropping, although your choices are excellent. For my taste, I would have cropped a tiny bit less on the right, so that the greenery to the right of the house would have bounded the house, but not included the boat to its right. I would have been tempted to include the two tree tops on the left, as they are full and attractive. But I suspect my cropping choice might have lost the concentration you have placed on the row of boats.
I don't mind the dull sky at all, I hardly notice it because the subject matter is so active. |
Oct 6th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Strange how we in the DC area experienced nothing other than a 10 days of moderately rainy weather, after a drought period. I am not even sure any of our rain was from the hurricane periphery. We had no winds at all.
You are not the only friend we know who passed through the south recently. We have heard lots of stories. Such devastation. |
Oct 4th |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
Hi Tom,
The moment I saw your mono image, I thought, how I wish he had a few more links in the image. Then I saw your original and discussion about the bottom crop. In all, I think I would prefer to see the extra links. But yes, it's a bit of a toss-up. |
Oct 3rd |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
Wes, this is an interesting comparison with mine this month. Your image has good separation of subject and background in mono due to the textures of the feathers running one way and the grasses running another way. Very successful.
Maybe the grasses are a bit too bright? |
Oct 3rd |
| 32 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Wes,
Yes, I totally agree. This one is just not destined to be in mono. |
Oct 3rd |
5 comments - 7 replies for Group 32
|
| 37 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is an excellent situation. I see why that small tree in the distance caught your attention.
I think you needed to be closer to the big tree, and if you had used a longer lens, you would have made the small tree seem closer.
When I first glanced at this, I thought tree within tree referred to the big tree with its side branch touching the ground. I think that is the most effective composition here. |
Oct 8th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 37
|
| 42 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
This is a great subject and a good view. I suspect there was limited space for taking a larger view. In cases like this, you can copy, flip, and combine images to construct a larger view, assuming there was symmetry in the original scene. |
Oct 8th |
 |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 42
|
| 49 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
That is interesting. What is the scale? How big are the pans and how big are the rocks? Is this an industry tended by individuals, families, employees of a larger concern? Did you see any workers there? |
Oct 8th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 49
|
| 62 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
There is more connection with the Dali painting, as I see it. The Holy Spirt is often symbolized by a dove, not unlike your seabird. Also Noah sent a dove out over the waters to seek land, and your image has the water in the background. I like to connect our photographs to paintings, as I think we photographers owe a lot of composition and lighting to the painters. |
Oct 8th |
| 62 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
You did very well with this image, catching the sea bird in an interesting position. Shooting between the framework of the beach furniture works very well. I much prefer the full frame you took because it shows more of the interesting framework. It may only be my strange sense of connections, but this image strongly reminds me of Salvador Dali's painting, The Sacrament of the Last Supper, hanging here in DC in the National Gallery of Art. |
Oct 7th |
1 comment - 1 reply for Group 62
|
| 64 |
Oct 24 |
Reply |
Of course I understand your preference for this long view.
Did you visit the Hillside Houses? |
Oct 7th |
| 64 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
John, it is very impressive that the software can remove so many people and still render what remains. Did it work by itself or was it a joint effort between you and the software?
Compositionally, I would have preferred a shot a little closer to the Library of Celcus, showing the entire façade. It is, after all, perhaps the prime feature of the ruin. |
Oct 7th |
1 comment - 1 reply for Group 64
|
| 71 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
What great fortune to get two shooting stars in 20 seconds. And this is a great composition to boot. |
Oct 6th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 71
|
| 78 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
What a pleasant photograph, telling a story of a wonderful place. I looked up the Orient Land Trust and I think I might now understand why that woman is wearing what looks like a bathrobe ;) |
Oct 6th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 78
|
| 81 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
I like the moon. I don't think it hurts the composition.
Good job removing other distractions, and lightening the trees.
You should always mention the architect's name. Obviously a Frank Gehry building. |
Oct 6th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 81
|
| 83 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
Very instructive discussion, especially about the highlights. My test is satisfied, I want to keep looking at this photograph again and again. |
Oct 6th |
| 83 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
The person in the image is just great. Absolutely keep it.
But I am not sure what your concern is about the perspective. It also looks just great. Tilting the camera up to capture verticals will always result in converging parallels. Is that what you are concerned about? That is normal perspective and gives a sense of soaring to the vertical structures. The vertical convergence is no different that horizontal convergences of parallels, like train tracks. Such convergence is not distortion. Your eye sees the same thing, but your brain tends to think parallels. Some photographers like to reduce or eliminate the parallel convergence, but I counsel against it. Also, don't use a lens distortion filter. That is used when a lens tends to bow parallel line inward or outward, called barrel distortion or pincushion distortion. You don't have that problem showing here. |
Oct 6th |
2 comments - 0 replies for Group 83
|
| 86 |
Oct 24 |
Comment |
You have a very challenging picture you are trying to take here. The subject ranges from a few inches to 15 feet away from the camera. Steven is correct that a conventional camera would have done better with its generally greater depth of field.
Another approach would have been to stand to one side so that the grapes in the bin were about three feet away and the working tossing the grapes about eight feet away. Hopefully that would still give you the range of views you wanted.
Another exploration would be shutter speed. At a slower shutter speed, the tossed grapes would have blurred, showing their motion.
Lastly, and this is antithetical to using a phone camera, a tilt/shift lens on a convention camera would have allowed you to adjust the plane of sharp focus to include the near grapes all the way out to the worker tossing their bin of grapes. |
Oct 6th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 86
|
16 comments - 9 replies Total
|
