|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Reply |
Thanks!
L. |
Sep 25th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Reply |
"Exposure blending" I think would be an apt description. Thanks!
L. |
Sep 25th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Reply |
The post processing and merging were in Photoshop CS 6. Thanks!
L. |
Sep 25th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Reply |
Thanks! That is certainly a reasonable choice of compositions.
L. |
Sep 25th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Comment |
The forest is bright and its details open to view as a result of your bracketed exposures and is a good approach to the subject. While the tree trunks look reasonably sharp, the ferns in the foreground are noticeably blurred, especially on the left. Perhaps this comes from some breeze on the ground, or from misregistration of the exposures. |
Sep 25th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Comment |
Beautiful sky and mountain range! Light was favorable yielding both highlights and shadows over the various parts of the mountains. Merging seems very smooth and seamless! |
Sep 19th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Comment |
Great vantage point! Pilot must be a daredevil flying ( VFR? ) in heavy clouds so close to the top of the bridge support! Unusual green color in the water under such blud skies. |
Sep 19th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Comment |
Very well composed wetlands scene with excellent reflections. The all-natural scenery has what might be a dwelling over at the left edge which could be obscured by burning the highlights in that area.
The image as a whole seems a bit flat. Checking the luminosity in a histogram shows that both dark and very bright tones are missing. I ventured a try at some adjustments: levels, and mid-tone contrast boost, as well as burning in of the "dwelling" highlights. The result has a bit more punch , but might not be the mood you were after. |
Sep 19th |
 |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Comment |
Very nice foreground field of wildflowers to capture attention. Nice job of composing the flora with minimal edge distractions, always a challenge when dealing with wildflower fields.
Clouds and light in the sky are spectacular! |
Sep 19th |
| 70 |
Sep 18 |
Comment |
The panoramic waterfalls and dynamic foreground rapids combine for a vibrant and captivating image!
Composition. The portion of the wharf at the left edge does not destroy the image , but does receive a disproportionate amount of my eye's attention in surveying the image. I will say that it does not add positively to the image and is better omitted.
Sharpness: My sense in viewing the foreground rapids is that the water motion is very sharply rendered. Water movement seems more detailed and chaotic than I recall seeing. Why would that be? The human eye is said by researchers, to have a visual response time of about 0.10 seconds [viz. "Noise & Fluctuations" by Macdonald, though some recent research places it a bit faster for young eyes ]. Your shutter for this shot was open 0.0025 seconds, or forty times faster than one's (old) eyes can respond to. That means, I think, that in viewing this scene my eyes would have provided an averaging process of approximately that measure - 40 images - to arrive at the perceived roughness of the water. In photography we are not so constrained in presenting such natural events; BUT we usually do consider how the photo will compare to the scene as you actually saw it during the photographic process. As Charles points out, provoking a very slow shutter speed produces an optical illusion as well ( a "visual cliche" ). From that standpoint a shutter speed of 1/10 second would have reproduced more accurately what the eye sees. |
Sep 19th |
6 comments - 4 replies for Group 70
|
6 comments - 4 replies Total
|
