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 24 Comment I agree, this is a super photo, I like it. Sep 25th
64 Sep 24 Comment I'd agree with those comments, and also suggest a slight rotation so that the face isn't so horizontal. Sep 12th
64 Sep 24 Comment I don't think there are three tones, Chris. All colours are valid for monos if only one is used, and in all cases 0 is black and 255 is white.

I'm not familiar with this bird, so I'm unsure about the blue. Overall I think it's a nice portrait of it, but I'd have preferred grey mono. 		Sep 12th
64 Sep 24 Comment Great! Skies like this are so dramatic and compelling. The line of the sea wall complements and strengthens the leading lines, too. Lots of detail are present.

Phones are starting to take over! I've just bought a google pixel 9 pro and am getting to know it. I'll post some pictures from it soon. iPhone vs Android! This is a hard act to to follow.		 Sep 12th
64 Sep 24 Comment Nicely spotted! Perfect for a mono conversion. I agree with Chris, a focal point would improve it. Even darkening the rows of supports so that the far wall stands out more might do the trick. Sep 12th
64 Sep 24 Comment I did some work in Austria about 30 years ago, and got a trip into thatCathedral. I think I can see in the photo the windows in the roof, one of which I opened and looked out!

My memory is a bit hazy, but the building looks stretched vertically to me. You seem to have done a perspective adjustment, I wonder if that has caused this effect?

I don't recall the roof and walls being so contrasty, either, but I never saw it in mono, so perhaps it is. At first I thought Keisha's comment wouldn't work, but I've tried itand indeed it makes a very interesting sky. It might not look like Vienna Cathedral now, but it's a striking picture, I think,

Sep 12th
64 Sep 24 Comment That's an interesting idea, Chris, thanks. I'll give it a try. I mustn't lose the texture, and I suspect it will need some patience with masks, but the image in my mind now says it will be worth it. Sep 12th
7 comments - 0 replies for Group 64
95 Sep 24 Reply It was Hobson's choice - the animal was in a vivarium, and only the lights that were there could be used. I was amazed it came out so well considering that.

Yes, perhaps a little brighter on the body would be better. I was, of course, working on the contrast of the eye, but perhaps I over-did the darkening of the body as I wouldn't want to make the background totally black.		 Sep 23rd
95 Sep 24 Comment I'm struggling to imagine what you did, Carol. I don't understand the planes of focus. Did you photograph the flower and background separately and put them together? Then added the black contoured frame?

Whatever, it's an interesting picture. The depth of field needed was well more than a single shot could give you, as can be seen as the flower is almost square on. The texture has gone some way to diguise that, I think. The concept is the most interesting point to me, my dull imagination doesn't think of such things. 		Sep 12th
95 Sep 24 Comment I think this is a delightfully sharp, detailed and colourful picture. Well done!

If it were mine, I'd darken a little the area outside the butterfly and the two flowers it's sitting on, but that's just my taste. 		Sep 4th
95 Sep 24 Comment Your "Original 1" looks completely blurred. Original 2 does show the centre part nice and sharp. The final result seems to meet your aim, so it's a successful photo. It's interesting, too!

There are a couple of small areas that look more blurred than elsewhere, which, I wonder, might be due to the shots in the bracket being a bit too far apart in that region.		 Sep 4th
95 Sep 24 Comment Does your R5 synchonise flash at 1/500 sec? That's impressively fast.
I like your cute spider - the very close ones showing grim mandibles aren't much to my liking. The colour is very restful, almost a yellow mono.
Sharpness-wise, the loss of sharpness towards the far part of the spider is not a problem I think.
I don't think that the amount of blurred yellow at the bottom us helping the picture. I'd crop maybe 20% off the height, and maybe a smaller amount on the right. I think it would still be "in its environment" but a bit more punchy.		 Sep 4th
4 comments - 1 reply for Group 95
11 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