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 Sep 18 Reply OK, thanks. Sep 14th
64 Sep 18 Reply Thanks, Stan. I'm not sure which line you mean - at the very bottom below her right foot toes? I think that's a bit of a root, but it is lighter. Or on the left edge, level with her shins? Or something else? Sep 13th
64 Sep 18 Reply That's a good idea, Jerry, to move slightly when taking several shots of one pose as the "waterfall pouring onto her knees" aspect was something I'd not noticed, so a few slight variations in the bag could be useful. I must remember that. No doubt some would say that with these close together the viewer isn't divided between two points of interest..... Sep 13th
64 Sep 18 Comment I went to a birds of prey workshop in March and like you was frozen - my hands spent more time in my pockets than out. The things we do for photography!

Actually I like the blurred trees at the bottom, although maybe only the larger one, to give contrast and pictorial interest.

However I agree with Jerry, the blurred branches are not giving me the punch they would if they were sharp, which the ones at the front do.

I'm interested in using focus stacking in these situations. I'll try to take one to show you what I mean in a future month. As we stop down, distant objects are rapidly pulled into focus, (or rather, the falloff in sharpness into the distance gets such that distant objects can't be separated from mid distance ones by differential focus) and if we don't want that, how about isolating the foreground by stacking? I'm sure others must have thought of this but I've not seen it described anywhere. (Do tell me if I'm wrong!) Here the stack would only cover the branches from their front to their rear, using a larger aperture to make sure that the bottom one of the stack still has the blurred background. Alas not a post processing activity.

Alternatively, you could take it with small aperture to get it all sharp and then blur the trees in post. I usually find the result of that is a bit obvious, though, but maybe I haven't got that technique right yet.
Sep 10th
64 Sep 18 Comment This seems to be a month when I say "I prefer the colour version"! Although in this case, I really like them both. I think the mono is very attractive, but the colour is "wow".

Would it improve from removing the building on the left to help lead the viewer from foreground to background?

Whatever, another lovely picture from you. The technical quality, composition and detailed interest are super.
Sep 10th
64 Sep 18 Comment I've got to agree with Gerry, I prefer the full colour version. I often do like "reduced colour" such as "original 2", but I don't think it works here. My personal experience is that judges don't like this style, so I don't do it often now.

The complimentary, simple colours of the colour version are very pleasing to me. I agree, the stem will improve from being lightened to make it stand out a little more. Hmm, maybe I should try some "less reduced colour", ie mono with 2 key colours.....would that be worth a try here?		 Sep 10th
64 Sep 18 Comment I think this also ticks my criterion when looking at photos of other people's art - does it bring a new perspective and improve on a simple record of it? Definitely yes here. I love the lines and symmetry and block shapes.

Ah, but the bricks spoil that for me a little. I'd persist with removing them, then it will be perfectly symmetrical. I'd then leave the frame in!

Personally I don't mind the slightly blown highlights in the "lines" (I'm seeing this as a sort of inverted brush with the "lines" being like floppy bristles) as there are highlights on the floor which could be criticised for this more. Personally I don't go with the ritual condemnation of 0 and 255 in a picture. In wet picture mono days we were always told (and I still believe) that most good monos have "solid black and pure white with and all shades of grey in between".

Well spotted and a lovely image.
Sep 10th
64 Sep 18 Comment Yes, really odd. I still don't really understand what I'm seeing. So it mut be an abstract! The right hand "half" looks like it has several small Philips screws underneath the construction which makes it look even more odd to me.

I agree with Jerry's suggestion for the bright area, and yes I think you could have a great wild time throwing Affinity (or Photoshop) at this.		 Sep 10th
64 Sep 18 Comment Well, I think they are both attractive pictures, but for me the mono wins hands down ;-) So I'm just commenting about my view of the mono, which I really like.

I like the way the composition draws my eye into the picture. At first I thought the title referred to the photographer's view of the river, but having read your narrative and noticed the building I realise you were probably referring to their view of the river. I think that the building isn't prominent enough to be credited with the title of the picture. Perhaps if you lightened the building, cropped the picture (not that there's anything that needs cropping out, just to make the building more prominent) left and bottom, then this would improve it? Pity that removes the front rocks as I do like them. Although it looks OK to me if you only remove say half those rocks.

The water movement is just enough to make it nice and smooth without going too milky.

The sky is bland without any clouds, but I think there's enough detail in the main picture that anything more than a touch of texture in the sky would detract rather than enhance.		 Sep 10th
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 64
6 comments - 3 replies 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