|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Reply |
Albert, thanks for your reply. I've been busy, but glad to help with your question on PSA Nature guidelines. As long as pixels are not deleted or replaced, bringing out colors (blue) that are already there is fine. What Gaetan did looks fine. You can use "spot" healing brush to clean up scratches and dust on your lens. I will send you the PSA Nature guidelines by email. Jim |
Aug 12th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
I thank all of you for your suggestions. Here is my edit taking the best of your ideas and doing some of my own edits.
I darkened the background, brightened the lights, cloned out the very small window at the bottom, leveled the horizontal and vertical. Let me know what you think now. |
Aug 9th |
 |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Reply |
thanks - see below |
Aug 9th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Reply |
thanks - see below |
Aug 9th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Reply |
thanks - see below |
Aug 9th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Reply |
Laura, thanks - see below |
Aug 9th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Tam, this is a good image, sharp focus, good moment of lifting the dancer showing strength and balance. It's good that you left enough space on the left for them to move into.
There's just enough floor to show that they are on stage.
Was there any scenery to give context to this performance or did you blacken it? Jim |
Aug 6th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Albert, thank you for sharing this moment. Your choices of ISO, speed and aperture are spot on. You stopped the action on the flying egret. I don't understand what you mean by "resize at a distance of 500 meters." Did you shoot his at 600mm or was it lower? 600mm would have enlarged it a great deal, unless you were too far away.
For the sake of composing in thirds, and because the grasses are so out of focus, I would crop the top of to make the egrets the subjects. Jim. |
Aug 6th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Laura, I really like what you have done to brighten the model,but didn't like the background and lights being brighter. So, I used the dodge tool on the model's face, arm, hair, leg and kept the rest of the exposure the same, which included your darker corners. Let me know what you think of this version. Jim |
Aug 5th |
 |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Gaetan, Thank you for sharing this with us. Are these flowers found on Mauritius? The are stunning.
I agree with Laura who noticed the bug in the center vertical leaf. The white leaf in the center is almost blown-out (over exposed so details are obscured). I would use the 'burning' tool set on midtones to bring out those details. I used the dodge tool on all of the blurry areas of the leaves and the details popped. Let me know what you think.
I would add 3 pixels of white to all 4 sides of the canvass to give you a boarder for our dark DD#24 page. Jim |
Aug 5th |
 |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Laura, what an amazing place to live. Keep your camera on you at all times. What you did with magnification and resolution worked out fine for us to see on our webpage. I've heard it said that the human eye can not recognize any more dpi on a projected image than 72. If you were printing, you must have 300dpi as a minimum. For DD#24, you don't need more pixels.
Everything else is well done, however I think that the artifact of pink in the surf is unnatural. Jim |
Aug 5th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Sam, you did some amazing post-processing on a brilliant inspiration of what you had in mind. I am impressed with what you did with an unlighted lantern in daylight to make it convincingly lit in the dark.
I agree with Laura that you don't need all that negative space on the right, especially in B&W. |
Aug 5th |
| 24 |
Aug 21 |
Comment |
Steve, for what you have done with a single shot of the flower, you did very well. Some petals are soft, and distinctive feature of cactus needles are out of focus, and that is one kind of artistic presentation that works well.
Other options include an aperture at least f/11 to capture detail of all of the petals. An f/32 or f/64 brings more detail.
I don't know why you need 1/2000 to take a stationary flower, unless this is in the desert wind. Get a greater depth of field than what using f/3.2 gives you.
An entirely different approach is to take a series of photos focused at the tip, focus just on to the petals, get the sharp details on the needles below the petals and then lower down. All photos get put into focus stacking post-processing. Helicon Focus is the one I use. Jim |
Aug 5th |
8 comments - 5 replies for Group 24
|
8 comments - 5 replies Total
|
