|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Thanks for all the nice comments. It's amazing how a simple subject can be so interesting. Kitchen implements do turn up in close-up shots sometimes I see, perhaps I need to experiment more with them too.
Interesting idea, Tom, but the only photo I've ever sold was taken 48 years ago! It appeared on the fromt page of The Scotsman, a Scottish daily newpaper, more by good luck than good judgment. Maybe selling pictures would be more interesting than entering competitions, but I suspect selling is a big competition in its own right. |
Feb 17th |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
|
Feb 4th |
 |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Well I'm all for breaking the "rules" so I'll read deep meaning onto your crop, Tom! I think we (the community of photographers) get a bit too hung up on these things, I'm just enjoying a really nice picture.
So, you asked for suggestions - crop a bit more off! |
Feb 4th |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Yes, indeed, I agree. I'm wondering why I prefer the portrait mode, and think maybe because being upright it looks to me like it's thriving, hopeful, growing, whereas landscape it reminds me of a cut flower or one blown over (or in our garden, nobbled by rabbits!) |
Feb 4th |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
Wow, f32. Still I suppose my micro 4/3 at f22 gives a DoF similar to this, it's just not a number I'm used to seeing. The pundits would cry "diffraction!" but it looks good and sharp to me.
Did you deliberately lose a little of the petal tips at the top and bottom? I might make the same comment as I did on Dick's.. |
Feb 4th |
 |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
I think the texture and gentle colour is very pleasant.
Without seeing something that they are laid on, would it be better in portrait? I did this, flipped it to get the flow from the left, lightened the shadows a tad. What do you think? |
Feb 4th |
 |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
That's an interesting comment, Dick, the reds do seem to lack detail, I thought it was just a characteristic of the seeds. I usually judge whether to flip or not based on flow, so I'm wondering if perhaps you are right handed and like a fork in your left hand, so like to see more handle on the left?
As you say, Janet, not entirely original - I had an egg on my intertwined forks quite recently! But who cares, this is an interesting version. I didn't have the reflection, which I think adds to the photo. |
Feb 4th |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
Hi Sandra, I'm a comparitive newbie here, so all I say is to be taken with pinch of salt! I love texture shots like this, I'm not one for bugs and beasties.
It's a very interesting picture. I'm a bit confused about the "background" - I mean the U-shaped area, top middle. Pity it wasn't more contrasting with what I take is the edge of the plant, the U-shape. I think Dick has made an improvement to the colour etc, but personally I'd not have cropped as much off the top. Maybe take off the yellow area on the left? |
Feb 4th |
| 6 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Maybe, but I did put a mono layer on during processing, and I really couldn't see any difference when I flipped it on and off. My eyes are not renowned for colour perception, however. Maybe I should have left it in!
As for its purpose, you could well be right. I took it at a club indoor evening and someone else had brought it in, I just borrowed it for my shot. I thought that's what it probably was, but I've never used a drink strainer so I wouldn't know one if it stared down my lens..... |
Feb 4th |
3 comments - 6 replies for Group 6
|
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
That's an interesting excuse for me to remember! No, it's just a goof, Jerry, I was too engrossed in the picture I guess. I see the "previous" photos are the same. Another item to go on my mental check list. |
Feb 17th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Yes, you and Stan are right, it's wonky. I wonder why I didn't notice, I'm normally quite particular on that.
It's interesting to note that the camera used was a very simple auto-only compact, taken when I was just dabbling a toe into digital. Perhaps I should carry a modern one with me rather than my M5 which, whilst small and light by DSLR standards, is big and heavy compared to that Canon. I do have an even smaller little Nikon now (the Canon died) which I bought for air to ground photos but found it lacking for that task. I leave in a car now and usually forget about it! I often don't have my phone with me, which many seem to use nowadays, and with quite good results.
What do others do for a carry-it-everywhere camera? |
Feb 12th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
We had a series of programmes here on Yellowstone through the seasons of a year. It was great, I can see why you'd need lots of visits. |
Feb 11th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Yeah, tourists, who'd have them?! There's always the clone brush though - I use it a lot. I've only done vertical panoramas a couple of times - yours came out really well. |
Feb 11th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
We certainly wouldn't want you to disappear into the gunk, Jerry! I've not been to Yellowstone (but it is on my bucket list), but I've been to New Zealand where there are similar-looking sights, and I would have hated to take a dip there. |
Feb 11th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
I suppose it all depends on what purpose we see for our photographs. I can see you had fun and it's interesting to others, and a good memory for you, and that to me is 90% about why I do photography. I suspect we all tend to look at the photos here and ask ourselves "Would it do well in a competition, and if not, why not?" I'd suggest respectfully that I don't think this one is competition material. But that's irrelevant, you had fun and it's interesting, so ignore what I said. We have plenty of science-based museums aimed more at children here, I haven't been to one for years; perhaps I should, I like fun too. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
I'm sorry, but I don't find that the silhouette works here, it just gives a lot of mainly black areas where I wish I could see detail. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
I'm on a mission to make my pictures "pop", and I guess the others are saying there's room for more here. To some extent I'd agree with that, but I also like the tranquil version. The fabulous leading lines give it depth and excitement despite the tranquillity, in my view. I'm a big fan of the haze filter at the moment - perhaps that would add a bit of drama? But regardless, I like it, well done. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
Fabulous building, bags of interesting detail (pity about the scaffolding!) and the mono sky has such smooth gradation. But I agree with Jerry, the colour version is even better due to the sky and building colour in my view. There seem to be artefacts at the edges of the buildings with the sky which seem odd as I don't imagine it's been masked at some stage. Maybe just too vigourous sharpening? |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
Yes, whilst I like the leading lines, what they lead to is a bit disappointing to me. More space above the lake would also help I think, and a little more at its edges. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
Old blokes with long beards and wrinkly skin are a guaranteed interesting subject. Ideal for mono. I'll be one soon, my beard is now longer than in my PSA photo! But I've got a way to go on the wrinkles I hope. ;-)
Anyway, yes, the loss of eyes is a shame. Could you do a bit of retouching and/or burning in or do you consider that cheating? I agree, the bright spots round the edges should go.
I like the line of the zip and the contrast in the stripey edge of the hat. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Comment |
Yes, an interesting subject. I suppose you weren't in control of the light, so the shadows don't seem to complement it to me, and as Jerry also said, the background highlight seems to detract also.
It took me a while to realise that it's a plug in the top left, but having twigged that I still don't understand the 3 legs nearby looking like a miniature tripod!
Looks like a good place for a project. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 19 |
Reply |
Good idea, it gets them a bit more off-centre too,and improves the leading line of the bikes and pavement blocks. I'd flip it then, but for the writing! |
Feb 8th |
6 comments - 7 replies for Group 64
|
9 comments - 13 replies Total
|
