|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 19 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Norm, this image was taken with a cellphone. f/2.4 has enough depth of field with this camera. Notice the the camera used a 4.3mm lens. Lots of depth of field. |
Jan 15th |
| 19 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
It is difficult to have a good shot of birds when you need to crop in a lot. This seems to show with the eye not as sharp as we might like. The big plus of this image is the environment the bird is in. He is probably enjoying chomping on those berries and having a great meal. The berries make the shot a good nature story and unique, I even like his head in a group of berries, rather than the traditional standing out. I am not a fan of vignettes and like them to be barely noticeable if they are used. |
Jan 8th |
| 19 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I think your presentation of this flower is creative and interesting. I find most closeups of flowers to be a little boring, we have all seen many of them. Unless there is something unique it is just one of many, this is not. Monochrome makes the lines and textures stand out and the partial color works well. |
Jan 8th |
| 19 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
With f/2.8 at just 60mm you have limited depth of field, this is a good choice and you used it well. The eyes look sharp, and yes, the nose a little soft, but acceptable. The point is to get the background soft which you accomplished. As a portrait you would probably want the background even less distracting, but you are giving a hint of his domain and it is part of your story. I think this image is very well done. There are other presentations of this image. You could crop even tighter, you probably don't need as much of his neck as an example. |
Jan 8th |
| 19 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Did he sit down to see if he got the splat where he wanted it? This naturally monochrome bird with the red beak and legs is a dramatic addition to an otherwise uninteresting image. You could crop in closer, but the center of interest is so clear that I think a little extra space is a plus showing that it is an old, maybe even historic building. Well done. |
Jan 8th |
4 comments - 1 reply for Group 19
|
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
I take a lot of loon pictures from my boat during the loon chick season. Usually with a 300 to 400 mm lens and at maybe f/8 or so. Depending on light you are often in the ISO, aperture, speed tradeoff and you are not shooting with all three where you would like them. If you are down low which is where you get the best compositions, you are at danger of focusing on a wave in front of the loons. If it is a single loon and you focus on it even f/5.6 works well, but if it is a family group, f/8 might not be enough. I think you are focused on the water and the one duck was ok not perfect, but the other two were not. There wasn't much chance to have the back duck in focus in any case. |
Jan 9th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
I fully agree, and after I posted it I was wondering if I had another one that didn't have that issue. Funny how you can not even notice things like that. I think I decided that after seeing it on G19. |
Jan 9th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I think the buildings are very interesting, even more so when you know the story about what they were. To me the building with the steeple is the most interesting one and I might try to strengthen it in the composition. Moving a step or two forward might allow more of it to show. Just a little to show the left side of the large door might help. That building doesn't seem sharp to me. It would seem that the image could be taken at f/8 or even f/11 for more depth of field and still allow 1/160 to 1/80th of a second which should be enough. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I think the buildings are very interesting, even more so when you know the story about what they were. To me the building with the steeple is the most interesting one and I might try to strengthen it in the composition. Moving a step or two forward might allow more of it to show. Just a little to show the left side of the large door might help. That building doesn't seem sharp to me. It would seem that the image could be taken at f/8 or even f/11 for more depth of field and still allow 1/160 to 1/80th of a second which should be enough. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I agree, the third duck is a distraction. It is hard to get a camera to focus on the ducks when it might want to focus on the waves just in front of the ducks. The result is that the duck on the right is pretty close to in focus, but the other duck is slightly farther away and not in focus. At f/5.6, even a micro 4/3 camera might not have enough depth of field when the birds are not on the same plane. If you went to f/11 you would be at about 1/250 sec and have a lot more depth of field and 1/250 second should be fast enough even at 150mm for slowly swimming ducks. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
An interesting creative expression with simplicity. I understand Stuart's comment about cutting off the top corner, and Helen's reply. Both are good comments. Sometimes when we cut off just a little it looks like a mistake however. Perhaps it would be better to cut off even more of it. Kind of like the classic of a cowboy hat, get it all in the frame or get rid of most of it. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I don't see that the railings are soft focus. The light burst right next to them seem sharp as a tack. The water is moving and seems soft, but that doesn't bother me. Regardless, I agree the image becomes stronger with a crop from the bottom. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
An interesting image. Another Jerry Funk abstract that you naturally analyze. I think I would do one thing however. I think the mortar hanging out in the light area through the shadows makes an interesting spot, but the place with the chip out of the corner of the brick on the lower right becomes a distraction. I think a crop from the bottom should be considered to remove this. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
An interesting image. Another Jerry Funk abstract kthat you naturally analyze. I think I would do one thing however. I think the mortar hanging out in the light area through the shadows makes an interesting spot, but the place with the chip out of the corner of the brick on the lower right becomes a distraction. I think a crop from the bottom should be considered to remove this. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I tend to like to not delete things in a great image unless they are really significant. I would keep the image the way it was taken. This image has a huge amount of true black or near it. Lots of zone 0 and 1. In this case it works wonders. I would leave this great image just the way it is. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I tend to like to not delete things in a great image unless they are really significant. I would keep the image the way it was taken. This image has a huge amount of true black or near it. Lots of zone 0 and 1. In this case it works wonders. I would leave this great image just the way it is. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I tend to like to not delete things in a great image unless they are really significant. I would keep the image the way it was taken. This image has a huge amount of true black or near it. Lots of zone 0 and 1. In this case it works wonders. I would leave this great image just the way it is. |
Jan 8th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
My first reactions to this were that it was an excellent mono with a good range of tones, excellent contrast, sharp, a nice true black. I like dark skies, but it is more important that they contrast well with anything that interfaces with the sky and this does that well. I was not sure where I should look or something however. I think I like what Jerry suggested. Crop the left a little so the peak on the left is lower and the peak on the right becomes the clear center of interest and is also near the 1/3 from the right line. |
Jan 8th |
11 comments - 2 replies for Group 64
|
15 comments - 3 replies Total
|
