|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Thank you for your reply.
That is a seabird (probably a gull) on the water. There was a second one, but much closer to the edge, so I did remove that one when the photo was cropped. I considered removing the remaining one, because it is so small that it is hard to identify (especially on a small screen, and at 1080p resolution). It is a little more obvious on an 8x10 print; but I agree that it really adds nothing to the picture, and it is likely to be a distraction for some, if not most, viewers. It will be gone in future versions of the photo, unless it is in Photo Travel, in which case the more orange cast will have to go away, as well. |
Mar 27th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Yes, how many images, and what focal length and what increment to use! I had a talk with the Olympus/OM rep at the CNPA Conference recently. There is a simpler way. After all, it is just physics and math. You should just be able to tell the camera what SIZE DOF you want (4", 10", 10', 100', whatever). Then focus at the front of the scene. The camera knows everything else it needs to figure out how many images and how to space them (what lens is mounted, characteristics of that lens, the distance to the initial point, the aperture). A simple program should be able to calculate what increment and how many images will be needed. It isn't as hard as launching a satellite to Pluto! |
Mar 7th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
|
Mar 7th |
 |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
Hi, Robert,
For a shot from a coach, you did a remarkable job. Nice focus and darn good composition for such a quick shot on a day with marginal lighting. I also like the way that you highlighted the bridge with your luminosity work. It stands out much better now.
Since the bridge is your main interest, what would you think about cropping some of the foreground river out? If the photo is about the bridge, crop either the river or the sky? (But, since the sky is more interesting to me, I tried the river) See my simple screenshot crop. Another thing. Looks like you added a vignette. But, again, because you want to emphasize the bridge, maybe rather than a modest vignette, you might try a very oval mask centered on the bridge and the adjacent buildings, invert it, and darken a bigger part of the image than the vignette normally covers? Keep the buildings to the right bright, and some of the hillside behind them. MAYBE, if you want to have something to lead the eye through the photo, you could also brush some sunlight along buildings and meadow that leads to the upper left of the image. But, that would minimize the bridge, of course. |
Mar 7th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Wow, that is a lot of stacking. What f-stop were you using, and focal length? What lens?
I have never used Helicon Focus. Usually just stack in Photoshop or "in Camera". My Olympus M-1X will stack 99 images. But, it only gives a jpeg output. So, if it is a tricky subject for exposure or white balance, I just pick a few of the images and manually stack them. Several of my local buddies say Helicon Focus is far superior to Photoshop, but I probably don't do enough stacking to justify the cost of another program, or the time to learn it. Do you agree that HF is far better? Should I change my mind? |
Mar 7th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
See the reply I added to David's comments. No need to repeat it. |
Mar 6th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Thanks, both David and Cindy. It is amazing how much time I will put into something I want to hang in the house, as opposed to just enter in a contest. A lot more masking was used on this one than I normally would do. If I would ever learn Photoshop, it probably wouldn't take so long!
But, in looking at the photo, I realize that when I TOOK the picture, I missed it. If I had moved the camera perhaps 6 inches more to the right, the two pilings in the foreground would have lined up perfectly with the bridge supports, and it would have created one of those optical illusions that tease at our brain, because we KNOW it can't be right. |
Mar 6th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
Orchid show? Were you able to pick a few and sneak out the back door? Around here, there is a big iris show. White ones are so hard to photograph, but you did a nice job here. I especially like how you removed the distractions (which are usually many at flower shows). On my monitor, I am losing some of the detail in the brighter sections of the white petals, but I know it is there. Three is always a charm, and you found the right plant to get that magic number.
I am not sure if you have enough space, but I would like to see it rotated just a little bit more. I did a very quick attempt at what I am suggesting.
|
Mar 6th |
 |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
I like the powerful colors and the interplay of the three dominant colors in the image. Striking. I also like the ripples in the water, and how the gradual brightening of the light into the mist layer brings the eye straight to the woman. I would have been interested to see a bit more at the top of the image, since the tree in the upper left looks quite interesting. |
Mar 6th |
| 45 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
David, I also like the black background the best. You used excellent positioning and lighting on both images, and the focus is indeed spot on.
I understand the comments for a Nature contest. Neither photo is really a NATURAL setting. To me, to come across as snow, the white would need some grain/texture, and maybe a few snowflakes on the leaves. Perhaps the white could indicate it was shot from below with a very bright sky, possibly with the leaf having been somewhat in shadow, requiring a highly overexposed sky to properly expose the underneath side of the leaf. And even then, it is not nature as you found it.
BUT, hey, TOO MANY RULES. I love the artistry. I would just submit it in PID or PPD (as a print) in the open color sections! Or else shoot it against a monotone dark shade or a green background which is far away, and can be thrown completely into a soft focus...IF you still have such a beautiful and fragile specimen. |
Mar 6th |
5 comments - 5 replies for Group 45
|
5 comments - 5 replies Total
|
