|
Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
18 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
I feel it needs something extra like a small black ship near the horizon. |
Jul 15th |
18 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
Nice effect, but as Mike points out it is a little grainy. Perhaps also lighten the shadow areas. |
Jul 10th |
18 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
I find the background especially the whoosh of white coming out of his hair very distracting. The added smoke is fine though. |
Jul 10th |
18 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
Very Dali-esque. This is such a creative and attractive image. |
Jul 10th |
18 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
I feel the sunset could be more red and vibrant; I also had difficulty reading the text with that font. |
Jul 10th |
18 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
Yes, my eye just wanders around. The white fence isn't white any more. |
Jul 10th |
6 comments - 0 replies for Group 18
|
40 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
A good start and at least you are making the attempt.
I don't do portraits so I am not expert at this.
I find the highlights in the background a distraction; also the left arm, because it is close to the lens is over-prominent. The white lead from the ear catches the eye - perhaps better to route it differently. The suggestions about toning down the highlights sound right to me. Overall, is it a little underexposed?
A lot of people find using a simple reflector (even a newspaper) next to the camera helpful. |
Jul 22nd |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Reply |
Has this been accepted anywhere? I am sure judges will either love it or hate it. |
Jul 22nd |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Reply |
One of the problems with a 420mm lens is the narrow depth of field (focus?). Actually, I haven't found problems with autofocus with this one. At the price I paid for it, I am thankful.
Best of luck with photographing Mercury. A lot of people seem to use a astronomy telescope hooked up to their DSLR but I have no experience in this area. |
Jul 22nd |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Reply |
Sorry Alison to come across all negative. You have a good eye and I really appreciate your criticisms, which are always good, to the point and constructive. I am always grateful that you take the time to write these comments.
I am still learning to use this 300mm lens + 1.4 converter (and the camera) properly and I have discovered that setting the camera to "auto-ISO" doesn't necessarily give a sensible ISO. So, lesson learned.
I haven't had the time to investigate Topaz AI (the reviews all seem positive) but will have a go, probably in the autumn when the really bad weather starts here. |
Jul 14th |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
This history narrative here is fascinating. Thank you for sharing.
A nice spread of flowers with the mountains in the background - well seen. It is always good to grab a photo opportunity when it arises - carpe diem as the poet said.
Alison is right, the flowers are a bit soft. You shot at 1/15s at f22 so that might be slight camera shake or the petals moving in the wind or even optical diffraction due to small aperture. I would really be tempted to wack the ISO up to 1000+ next time and deal with "grain" in PS.
I might have been tempted to take the shot from slightly higher up slightly tilting the camera down so the flowers didn't run across the bottom of the mountains but that's a matter of taste. |
Jul 13th |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
I can see why you took the shot, an interesting bridge and nice sunset. But to me this looks underexposed. Being underexposed enhances the sunset, turns the bridge into a silhouette but the foreground looks muddy and although the purple water is nice, it's not a natural colour (not that it matters in the grand scheme of things) but some judges are not keen!
Another attempt using HDR would definitely be worthwhile. What I have done on occasion (it is a bit awkward) is to use a fill in flashgun either off-camera or on the camera held upside down to lighten the rocks/grasses in the foreground. Of course you have to experiment with exposure but it's worth a try.
Hope this helps |
Jul 13th |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
You shot this at f11, perhaps if you used a wider aperture the background would be less distinct. I don't mind the background, it is interesting and provides a context to the vase on the woodwork. And I don't feel the background necessarily needs to be blurred.
There is an interesting rippled area of light through the vase on the left hand side which I think you could have made more of. I feel that the picture is perhaps cropped a bit tight and the vase might be better on a table so that we can see the nice rippled effect. I think worthwhile revisiting and trying again. |
Jul 10th |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
You have caught the bather in an interesting pose and the colour of the cloth contrasts well against the stone work. Very striking but this doesn't work for me as the figure is right on the margin of the frame and my eye quickly wanders towards the right which is essentially an empty area. I feel it would have worked better if the figure had been closer to the centre of the frame. |
Jul 10th |
40 |
Jul 19 |
Comment |
Thanks, I've heard of AI but as you say it's expensive. I think that part of the trouble is that the shutter speed & ISO was too slow/low so there is blurred movement.
I think in reality it is one of the times where better to learn the lesson, go back and re-shoot. |
Jul 2nd |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 40
|
12 comments - 3 replies Total
|