|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Tom PickeringI would apply to the sky the same edits as you did to the flowers before you add it to the flowers picture. |
Mar 20th |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Beautiful flower portrait. I agree with Bev about the bright areas and the bits of petals in the top right. They are a distraction, but not too much. What distracts me more is the flowers being cut off on the right and left. |
Mar 19th |
 |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Very striking! So precise and sharp and geometric. I very much enjoyed this. |
Mar 19th |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
I like this and think it only needs a minor adjustment: apply the painterly effect to the sky, especially in the lower right-hand corner, as it's too sharp in comparison to the flower. |
Mar 19th |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
It does in normal mode but not in macro mode, or at least I haven't figured out how. |
Mar 17th |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
I wish it were sharper, too. I have a lot of hand shake and thought it was passable. |
Mar 16th |
| 24 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Coming from you, that's high praise. d;¬{D |
Mar 10th |
3 comments - 4 replies for Group 24
|
| 53 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
That is absolutely stunning, Arabella. Looks like you can reach out and touch it. I can't think of a thing to improve it. |
Mar 19th |
| 53 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Lovely flowers, Rick. I agree that there are distractions on the right, so I cropped them out but kept the same ratio as yours. Finally, I rotated the image 180°. Thoughts? |
Mar 19th |
 |
| 53 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Cool capture, Miriam. You did a good job emphasizing the steam, but I don't know if I care for the mono.
I took your original and removed the distracting elements in the crowd, blurred the crowd a little, added a bit of sharpening, and finally cropped it to a panorama format. Thoughts? |
Mar 19th |
 |
| 53 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Love the result - very soothing and pulls the viewer in for a long study. I think Miriam's update took it to the next level. |
Mar 19th |
| 53 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
I agree that, as it was captured, the sky is a distraction from the intended focus, and Miriam did a good job of shifting the focus.
I wanted to somehow keep the sky, so I moved some of it down and blended it into the scene. Thoughts? |
Mar 19th |
 |
5 comments - 0 replies for Group 53
|
| 95 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
For me, your modifications made this an artistic piece and the fact that it isn't sharp all the way through it's body is not a concern for me. My only beef is the rather hard edge between the foreground and background which does distract. I tried to smooth that out in this rendition. Thoughts? |
Mar 19th |
 |
| 95 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
You did a great job with the in-camera focus stack. I see what Carol is talking about regarding the tilt, but it's not really a distraction.
I do agree with Carol about the background color. Here's a rendition where I ran an HSL filter on the background and lowered the saturation and luminance slightly. Thoughts? |
Mar 19th |
 |
| 95 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Here's a look without the distraction in the upper left: |
Mar 19th |
 |
| 95 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
I should have done a stack, but I felt it was sharp enough through most of it to stand.
Yes, I considered a diagonal orientation, but it would necessitate pulling back and leaving 1:1. |
Mar 19th |
2 comments - 2 replies for Group 95
|
10 comments - 6 replies Total
|