|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Reply |
I like the idea of the silhouette, it looks good on the thumbnail. However, on the large view, it looks a bit false to me. It's grey, but in that situation I think darker would be correct. Also it seems to be leaning to our right, and has no arms (perhaps they are behind the person's back?) but the legs look like it's walking.
|
May 30th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Reply |
I take your point, Helen (and others). Perhaps had the foam been closer to, and maybe underneath the bridge, it would have been less disjoined. The foam had found its way into a little backwater and accumulated there, so it would have flowed away elsewhere. Perhaps I should have got the camera low down, reducing the amount of space occuped by the water between the two, to improve it. |
May 23rd |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, Chris. Patterns of foam in water have long interested me, maybe due to my interest in hydraulics. I liked the patterns, but pattern photos are not often compelling, so I thought it went well with the scene and bridge. I like your description of it - not an effect I was aiming for, but once pointed out, it's true I think. |
May 22nd |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Reply |
That's a good idea, Jerry, the foam also wouldn't look so grotty then, although it wasn't moving much. I would have needed a big stopper or similar, which I don't usually carry with me. Maybe I should. |
May 20th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I find it an interesting comparison between the two mono conversions. I think that John is right, your conversion has lost some sharpness, Don. Notice the clarity of the foreground plants, especially over the house.
The colour version does have its own charm, despite the colour being slight, but the blue haze has come out well as grey distance haze, so I like the mono equally.
I like John's crop better than yours, your left edge just cuts off the house edge which jars a little for me.
But with a little reworking along these lines, I think it's an enjoyable picture with a good story. |
May 16th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
An interesting contrast to Stan's image! Yor phone has done a good job, I think.
I would agree with John and Don's comments (althoughI think mono is probably better, but I've aired my mono vs colour "rule" before).
I would also rotate it a few degrees anticlockwise, and maybe crop 10% off the bottom to avoid the close details drawing my eye. |
May 16th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
It's certainly an image that grabs your attention, I think. More leading diagonals than you can shake an iphone at!
The downside for me is that the subject people, to which the diagonals lead our eyes, are rather small. I zoomed in, but the detail is not there. I guess I can look at the picture as it is, enjoying the symmetry and patterns, a picture of the church rather than the ceremony, and it is very attractive in that light. |
May 16th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Super image, I have a similar one taken in Liverpool a couple of years ago. Scenes like this scream for mono.
I think I'm with Don here. It's not that I don't like the number of steps shown, it's more that the figure is small. I guess you could say the figure is secondary, there just to give scale and explanation, but I'd like to a see a bit more of him. So a bit of cropping or initially a longer focal length would improve it a little, I think. |
May 16th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I had thought that the white (foam, scum??) on the water contrasted well with the white on the stone on the bridge, but it is a weak association, I understand your comments.
I'm in the process of revising my computer system and don't have access to the Affinity file at the moment, so sorry I can't tell you how I did the conversion. Nothing unusual was done.
|
May 13th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I like this too. Steam locos are always dirty, so to me the dark tone is appropriate. The sky also - very dramatic and appropriate. But erhaps a little lighter overall would be better, as John suggests.
I like the composition with the strong diagonal. Perhaps darkening the bottom right triangle would make it even more dramatic? |
May 9th |
| 64 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I think this is a nice macro, and whlst the original is enjoyable with its lush colour, the mono verson is equally interesting. The contours are much more pronounced in the mono.
It's amazing how, when you study your macro shots, something you hadn't seen in the viewfinder is very obvious! In this case, it's a fine strand of something across the centre. It was there, bu should it be (or have been) removed?
I like the water drops and overall tone.
I wonder if it's a bit too tight in the frame?
The nearmost petal is a bit out of focus due to the depth of field available, but I find it quite acceptable. |
May 9th |
7 comments - 4 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
May 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, Pat. I think you are liking Tom's modification too.
No problem, I hope your leg is recovering. |
May 30th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Reply |
That also is a good improvementin my view, Tom.
Clarity surprises me. I've always used clarity to improve detail, and I find that unsharp mask gives me better overall sharpening (I know that many disagree with this). I also find that the clarity control in Affinity (I'm still on 1) is stronger and better in the RAW persona than in the photo persona.
So I've tried it on one of my flower pics and indeed the increased sharpness does increase the apparent DoF enough to be noticeable. You might think this is obvious, but it's a useful insight for me! |
May 28th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Reply |
I think that's a good improvement, Tom. As usual, I can over-do things! |
May 28th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Reply |
I'm starting to realise that my "crop it tight" approach is out of fashion!
I was talking to a very experienced judge last weekend who also said to me that smaller prints (smaller than A3 in a 500x400 mount, down to A4) are becoming more popular in salons and competitions now, to "increase the apparent detail refinement".
I used to say "fashion is a dirty word", but it seems I've got to follow it in photography! |
May 24th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I love revealing detail like the hairs on the leaves. Some say I over-sharpen, but I don't agree such is possible unless artefacts appear.
Anyway, the way I do it is in Affinity Photo. I only take RAW files, so it opens in Affinity's RAW persona. In there, as well as adjusting brightness and contrast, I pull back the highlights and perhaps lift the shadows to avoid blown highlights and too dark shadows. I then increase the clarity to anything from 20% to 100%, depending on what looks best.
Then I go to the Details tab where I open Details Refinement and increase both Radius and Amount to about 50% (again basedon results). Sometimes this blows some more highlights and I need to decrease the highlights again in the Basic tab to remove them. Then click Develop to get to the Photo persona.
Then I remove any distractions, crop, dodge and burn as needed, add a live Unsharp Mask layer (many prefer other sharpening methods, but this seems to work best for me. If I see no improvement I delete the layer again) and I'm done. Export for sending to DD etc, save.
Quite easy! |
May 24th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Lots of processing, but a successful outcome I think. All your work has improved the result. You've even got a nice catchlight in its eye. Super. |
May 16th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Yes, dead insects can be quite fragile. They also take on unnatural shapes I find even when whole, but a dead wasp is usually better than a live one in my books.
You have had to crop in a lot, I would suggest getting closer next time.
There are lots of specular highlights on the wings. This is a common problem with winged insects. I've found that using a polarising filter helps but doesn't resolve it fully. I can see that you didn't have time to retouch it to remove these.
I hope you're having a good trip! |
May 16th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Well, the tree had "paid" you in kind, Tom! I like this, I'd not have guessed what it was. I've no suggestions, it has come out well. |
May 16th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Well done, Pat. The mundane isn't mundane when put into a good photo :-)
|
May 16th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
Great shot, Gloria. A brave combination of 2.5 seconds and ISO 100 - I'd have been scuttling up the ISO and shutter speed. However it's nice and sharp where in focus, so well done.
I'm surprised the depth of field is so small for f9. Going to smaller apertures would not have given a strikingly greater DoF I suspect here. As it is, you got the focus bang on, well done.
The surface it's on isn't very attractive for a wildlife photo, but I guess it wouldn't have taken well to being moved onto a stick. |
May 16th |
| 95 |
May 23 |
Comment |
I like this picture. The subject and colours are interesting. There's limited depth of field, but you've got the focus right on the closest edge which is great. The simplicity of the colours and the little area of red work well for me.
I think I would crop off say 10% of the height from the top and maybe 20% of the width from the right as those parts add little for me. |
May 16th |
7 comments - 4 replies for Group 95
|
14 comments - 8 replies Total
|
