Activity for User 792 - Stuart Ord - stuart@CEDCS.com

avatar
Avatar

Close this Tab when done

1111 Comments / 770 Replies Posted

  = Current Round   = Previous Round
Group Round C/R Comment Date Image
64 Mar 18 Comment Well done for getting that sharpness from hand held 1/3 sec on 52mm! Remind me to lean on you someday when I'm being similarly ambitious!

Umbrella or not to umbrella? I'm between opinions, it does draw the eye but can be seen as part of the picture as it points inwards. But the face looking out of the picture is a pity... could you reverse him?

I agree, more of the top to show the top of the fire would be nicer for me.

I had a trailer tent years ago, stored on a farm over the winter in a barn, where they had a fire! Fortunately they got it out with only holes in the cover.



Mar 15th
64 Mar 18 Comment Another super image following what I think is Abhijeet's favourite style. I think it's wonderful.

Perhaps the halo has come from too much sharpening? I've been looking at classical images more than usual recently, and it is very noticeable to me that pictures that invoke lasting tributes to great story telling and emotion are frequently not technically up to modern day scratch. Are they still great, or are we just making allowances for their old equipment? I'd say they are still great, and this image reminds me of some of those.

Might I suggest a 2 pixel white border, as the bottom merges into the frame? If that then shows that the elephant is a bit too close to the bottom, just clone in a bit more black below.		 Mar 14th
64 Mar 18 Comment Great image, Stan. Full of punch and drama. My only comment would be, would it be better to crop off a little more so that the arch is removed? To me it looks a bit like only a little has been omitted, a bit like a picture of a person with the feet cut off. But I'm being picky, I like it. Mar 14th
64 Mar 18 Comment I'd go for that too, Jerry. I know that astracts are often exceptions, but usually I like to look at what is the centre of attention of the picture, and then consider what all the other bits are doing to simplify and concentrate the impact of that centre. I like square format for images like this too, so I'd take a little off the bottom and more off the top to get to this shape. Mar 14th
64 Mar 18 Comment I think it's a very interesting image. Lots of detail, fascinating. I'd agree with the comments above.

I'm wondering though whether the detail towards the edges of the image are more than necessary and so ultimately distracting from the thrust of the machine. I've wondered about vignetting, and a sharpish transition outside the ellipse of the machine itself, to black corners it might be appealing? I'd try to keep the staircases in though as they are nice lead-ins. Or perhaps a blur vignette?		 Mar 14th
64 Mar 18 Comment Yes, I also think it's a pleasant mono with nice detail, gradation, sharpness and composition. Whilst I like the second version with much darker "background", I like the original also and would suggest that the darker one is too dark; perhaps somewhere in between would be optimal?

But I harp back to the quotation in my bio - "If colour is important to an image, shoot in colour......" Here I think colour is important, and so I prefer the colour version.		 Mar 14th
64 Mar 18 Reply Thanks, Stan, I hadn't thought of DoF. Micro 4/3 has a bigger depth of field than larger formats of course when similar focal lengths are compared, but at the distance involved I never gave it a second thought. I have a friend who does a lot of aerial photography so I'll ask for his comment.

Now you've pointed it out, I do agree, it's too dark. I'm unsure now - we normally look for a little black and a little white in our normal monochromes, so should we look for a little very dark brown in our sepias? I need to get out some of my mum and dad's old photos! But irrespective, I think a little less brown would be better. Thanks!		 Mar 9th
64 Mar 18 Comment Hi Jerry,
I'm sure Olympus would be unhappy to hear that, it being taken on their £1500 PRO lens! You are right, though, the detail is weak, as it is on the original I've posted, so I can't blame the sepia processing. I've examined the RAW file and found that whilst still weak, there is detail there - see attached. So I think it's probably the low resolution on this forum that's mainly to blame. 		Mar 9th
7 comments - 1 reply for Group 64
7 comments - 1 reply Total

197 Images Posted

  = Current Round   = Previous Round
Group 06

Feb 20
Jan 20
Dec 19
Nov 19
Oct 19
Sep 19
Aug 19
Jul 19
Jun 19
May 19
Mar 19
Apr 19

Jan 19
Feb 19
Dec 18
Nov 18
Group 64

Apr 26
Mar 26
Feb 26
Jan 26
Dec 25
Nov 25
Oct 25
Sep 25
Aug 25
Jul 25
Jun 25
May 25

Apr 25
Mar 25
Feb 25
Jan 25
Dec 24
Nov 24
Oct 24
Sep 24
Aug 24
Jul 24
Jun 24
May 24

Apr 24
Mar 24
Feb 24
Jan 24
Dec 23
Nov 23
Oct 23
Sep 23
Aug 23
Jul 23
May 23
Apr 23

Mar 23
Feb 23
Jan 23
Dec 22
Nov 22
Oct 22
Sep 22
Aug 22
Jul 22
Jun 22
Apr 22
Mar 22

Feb 22
Jan 22
Dec 21
Nov 21
Oct 21
Sep 21
Aug 21
Jul 21
Jun 21
May 21
Apr 21
Mar 21

Feb 21
Jan 21
Dec 20
Nov 20
Oct 20
Sep 20
Aug 20
Jul 20
Jun 20
May 20
Apr 20
Mar 20

Feb 20
Jan 20
Dec 19
Nov 19
Oct 19
Sep 19
Aug 19
Jul 19
Jun 19
May 19
Apr 19
Mar 19

Feb 19
Jan 19
Dec 18
Nov 18
Oct 18
Sep 18
Aug 18
Jul 18
Jun 18
May 18
Apr 18
Mar 18

Feb 18
Jan 18
Dec 17
Nov 17
Oct 17
Sep 17
Aug 17
Jul 17
Jun 17
May 17
Apr 17
Mar 17
Group 95

Apr 26
Mar 26
Feb 26
Jan 26
Dec 25
Nov 25
Oct 25
Sep 25
Aug 25
Jul 25
Jun 25
May 25

Apr 25
Mar 25
Feb 25
Jan 25
Dec 24
Nov 24
Oct 24
Sep 24
Aug 24
Jul 24
Jun 24
May 24

Apr 24
Mar 24
Feb 24
Jan 24
Dec 23
Nov 23
Oct 23
Sep 23
Aug 23
Jul 23
Jun 23
May 23

Apr 23
Mar 23
Feb 23
Jan 23
Dec 22
Nov 22
Oct 22
Sep 22
Aug 22
Jul 22
Jun 22
May 22

Apr 22
Mar 22
Feb 22
Jan 22
Dec 21
Oct 21
Sep 21
Aug 21
Jul 21
Jun 21
May 21
Apr 21

Mar 21
Feb 21
Jan 21
Dec 20
Nov 20
Oct 20
Sep 20
Aug 20
Jul 20
Jun 20
May 20
Apr 20

Mar 20

Close this Tab when done