|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 80 |
Nov 20 |
Reply |
Thank you so much; I ran around a bit to find the perfect vantage point, LOL. But I think your input captures my intent--the market, including but not limited to the fish throwers. It's a lovely, chaotic, energetic spot, with multiple activities and multiple stories going on simultaneously. And perhaps I should narrow it down to what draws that particular crowd, but it is about Pike Place Market, not the individual catching the fish. I'm glad you were able to pick that out from my kluge! |
Nov 19th |
| 80 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
Hmmm, interesting feedback. I agree that cropping puts the emphasis strongly on the fish-catcher. I am torn by wanting this to be about the Fish Market and its overall crazy activity rather than the fish-throwing alone. It is vintage Seattle/Pacific Northwest. Signs and kitsch included. Taking all of this into account, I think it behooves me to take the original scene but apply all of Victor's excellent suggestions. I think there is a compromise here to be had. |
Nov 19th |
1 comment - 1 reply for Group 80
|
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Reply |
Challenges are good, and a way to stretch our boundaries. Kudos to you! |
Nov 19th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Reply |
Not that large; about the size of two cherry tomatoes.
|
Nov 18th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
I think the exposure, background and sharpness of those water drops all work very well together. I agree with Stuart that the crop should have been enlarged slightly. I find for myself that when one side is all in and another partly out, it doesn't feel good to the viewer. Your other option would be to crop in more so that it only encompasses the center and partial petals? My only other comment is something I found on one I posted for myself last month or the month before: that center feels not-right. Not much help, I know, but it looks sharp but doesn't feel sharp? Does that make any sense? Would more contrast help? I'm genuinely not sure. |
Nov 10th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
Here I was wondering if you were going to introduce us to another bit of body! Cool capture, and the only suggestion I have is that the crop doesn't feel comfortable to me--maybe all of his antennae, or turn vertical and capture his face and antennae? Love the eye and the translucency! |
Nov 10th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
Technically, this is perfect to me. The simplicity works really well for this. It's a wonderful macro image with beautiful capture of the details. |
Nov 10th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
Lovely! At first I thought it was some hideous bug, but then I saw that it was a great macro of something near and dear to my heart! Wonderful texture, and what especially works well for me is the combination of colors while keeping it fairly simple in terms of color scheme. It gives the impression of something other-worldly, while becoming something really quite common! Great job! |
Nov 10th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
Wonderful image--the composition is spot on, the colors are soft but beautiful, I feel good about your focus. For me, the very limited DOF really works as it emphasizes the critter's face and antennae. I wouldn't call this a throwaway at all! Use the suggestions of Stuart, all good ones, but this is a nice image. I think you might be able to carefully sharpen that face, but leave the antennae alone, in my opinion. |
Nov 10th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
I love these pictures within a water drop images! They are so difficult, esp when it comes to focus. I think the capture was brilliant, but the focus is a bit too soft on the leaf. They are basically impossible handheld, unfortunately. A larger DOF might have helped, but really and truly, a beanbag or some other stabilizer for the camera? |
Nov 10th |
| 95 |
Nov 20 |
Comment |
Thank you, Stuart! And yes, any help you can give is so appreciated. I'm not an experienced focus stacker, but had more success with my Canon. Olympus is TERRIBLE when it comes to manuals/instructions. As for the small dark area, I have to admit to not seeing it (?!). It should have been removed!
|
Nov 10th |
7 comments - 2 replies for Group 95
|
8 comments - 3 replies Total
|