|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 79 |
Sep 22 |
Comment |
Karl Another interesting and creative image. Just for kicks I did a crude extension of the rainbow. I am not sure that I like it as much as your version. Your original is very well done. It's one that I do not want to stop looking at. |
Sep 19th |
 |
| 79 |
Sep 22 |
Comment |
I think that you did an excellent job in seeing the potential in the original image. I like the way you have varied the tonality to complement the curves. I would not be coy about showing your image out about a 60 to 70° angle. |
Sep 19th |
| 79 |
Sep 22 |
Comment |
If I was asked what the original was, I would probably lose my house. There is no way that I would have thought the original was a bridge. It has a delicate and ethereal feel to it. It's a shame that the fluorescent tube appears at the top of the image. Otherwise, I think it was very well done. |
Sep 19th |
| 79 |
Sep 22 |
Comment |
I almost completely agree with Karl's comments. However, I would like to see a little more texture in the rear part of the flower. |
Sep 19th |
| 79 |
Sep 22 |
Comment |
Judith, thank you for sharing this image. I think you did a great job in image mining. I think your choice of filters was spot on. Because of the abstract quality of your image, there are many objects that a viewer can see. The first thought that came to me was a bird sitting on a branch, in front of a waterfall. Very well done. |
Sep 19th |
| 79 |
Sep 22 |
Reply |
Gerard: Thank you for your kind remarks. Your comments are not wrong. Of course, I would then have a different image, that might not tell the same story. You can tell ftom the ocean in the original that there was enough of a wind that the pools in the rocks would not have been smooth if the shutter speed was much shorter. |
Sep 19th |
5 comments - 1 reply for Group 79
|
5 comments - 1 reply Total
|