|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 19 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
I agree with both Marcela and Norm, but then it will not be a nature shot anymore. This image is great quality and an excellent nature story. I keep toying with the idea of cropping the bottom to get rid of most or all the reflection to make some people happy with "fill the frame" Now it feels centered both horizontal and vertical and some are going to object to that. You could crop from the right which really fills the frame. Somehow I don't think that is a good idea. If that branch is firmly attached this looks like just before we have a wet bird. Gives the image a sense of excitement. After all that great capture. |
Oct 11th |
| 19 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
The f/5.6 did wonders for the background. I really like the soft background that has only the details of color, no structure. I am not a fan of out of focus foregrounds and I know some photographers love them, but I would crop the bottom just up to the reflection of the bird itself. Removes most of the out of focus rim of the pool. You have the bird 1/3 in from the left and the body is positioned to look to the right, but the head is positioned to look to the left. This just might encourage you to go ahead and crop the right a bit. It is fine however where it is. Details in the bird look good. This may stand up well with a bit tighter crops which help to provide more focus on the bird. |
Oct 11th |
| 19 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
It seems to me that there are blue highlights in the water that are excessive. I wonder if playing with the white balance would make this better. It is tough to crop off any of that beautiful color, but still somehow I think it is worth a try to crop down from the top to focus attention on the creek and wet rocks. Easy to try, just pull the picture up a bit and see if you like it. A very nice capture. The color of the leaves nestled in the rocks add a great deal. |
Oct 11th |
| 19 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
I think I would crop the bootom to eliminate the sawing from removing a branch, that also can get rid of the hot spot in the lower right. I think I would also crop in from the right to put the bird about 1/3 in from the right. That gets rid of most of the hot spots on the upper right. There seems to be a blue or purple fringe in some of the light areas of the sky. This does not show in the original. I suspect it came from processing to improve the bird. If this is the case, perhaps some of the processing should of been done on just a selected area instead of globally. |
Oct 11th |
| 19 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
I looked at this and thought you are going to get a lot of comments. It all depends on your story. This boat does not make a great picture on its own, but the story of this poor lonely boat stuck in the mud does. With that story you use a very loose crop or no crop. Lots of sky, lots of vegetation and a good share of mud. This story probably justifies the decision to not bring out the colors in the boat. This is the story I see you telling here. |
Oct 11th |
| 19 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
You are correct. I did that in the image, but not in the reflection. I should of done both. |
Oct 11th |
5 comments - 1 reply for Group 19
|
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Because the shadow is so soft, I think it is a plus. The entire composition is very pleasing. Thanks for explaining how it was created. The curves, textures, and smooth sculpture make a very pleasing abstract which I know reflects your style. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
Shooting down you can rotate this any way you wish. I think you just need to keep these strong lines diagonals. If there is a rule about keeping good representation of all tonal ranges, this is an example of properly breaking the rule. Lots of black or near black in his image. This is an example of rather extreme contrast or texture working well. Whoever secured that boat did a great job. Reminds me of in 2012 our family chartered a canal boat in France. We had a four year old granddaughter and one of her jobs was coiling the lines on the boat. She did a great job. Thanks for the memory. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
I think the stones in the lower right provide a needed foreground object. The amount of sky provides a pleasing aspect ratio to the image. The noise is not a problem, but if you tried to make a large print you may wish to address it, then again it might be a plus. I think I would keep this just the way it is, but I think there is another image in this capture that would be very nice also. Considering the taller building near the center as the center of interest, I think a significant crop from both ends preserving that part of the image would be excellent. On this smaller image, you could crop the sky down some. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
I think this is a great capture and the processing seems just right. Yes, it would be nice if there was some detail in the eye, but this is still an exceptional image. The tones provide sort of a peaceful feel to an image that is inherently one of what you might call violent. Is that part of the story? The square crop serves the image very well in my opinion. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
The monochrome conversion resulted in pretty extreme contrast. Notice the heavy texture in the short hair that is barely visible in the color version. That is OK if that is what you want, but it tends to cause other problems such as the halos. If you are happy with less texture, you might try processing that is less contrasty, You might also try some of your processing with a selection that does not include the sky. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Generally this can be rather easy to fix. If you set the clone tool to "darken" and clone from the surrounding area into the halo area it will not damage the animal or its hair at all, but the halo will be gone. If this seems to be leaving some artifact or something you can play with where you make the selection, or flow or opacity to soften whatever the problem is. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Comment |
I think I like this image just the way you have it. Jerry's comment made me look back, but this image is inherently not symmetric so I think keeping what you have of the surrounding windows is a plus. Just goes to show, everything we say is just our opinion. The monochrome conversion results in very strong lines with lots of contrast. In my opinion, this makes a very strong monochrome. |
Oct 11th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
I would really like to take this shot in summer when the sun is farther north. The shadows would not be as significant on the cathedral then. Perhaps taking the image with some overcast in the sky would help if you could find a day like that in Sedona. I did lighten up the shadows in the brush, perhaps not enough. It is common to take the shadows down on the rocks more than I did, but I guess I thought people who shoot this, know they are there. Your comments are all well taken. |
Oct 10th |
| 64 |
Oct 20 |
Reply |
Stuart's comments are well taken. I considered the same thought. At the same time, I like the prairie look and this is not the usual Cathedral Rock image. I think perhaps if I had used a longer lens, backed off farther, perhaps held the camera higher, I could draw the rocks in more and retain the foreground which I like. |
Oct 10th |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 64
|
11 comments - 4 replies Total
|
