Critique please: Lower LakeModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Critique please: Lower LakeAfter some constructive criticism please.
This is a shot of what my kids call the 'lower lake'. The shot is a long exposure in infrared, with some added film grain. http://www.nikonaustralia.com/gallery/Other/lower_lake Here's my thoughts. At first I thought the shot was far too busy, but after a while I found that this 'busyness' was not actually a bad thing for me.. it gave me plenty to dwell upon in the shot. I would have also liked to have exposed for longer to get star trails.. but there is always next time. Over to you. Cheers http://www.markcrossphotography.com - A camera, glass, and some light.
very nice - although I'm not a huge fan of IR.
As a suggestion, have you tried cropping to avoid the foliage in the foreground? Not sure how it would look, maybe just burning a little to reduce the whiteness of it would help. I like the fact you can make out stars, although a slightly darker sky would have shown them better. Regards, *** When getting there is half the fun! ***
i might make a couple of adjustments as per your suggestions... will let you know...
http://www.markcrossphotography.com - A camera, glass, and some light.
Xerebus, I can't give you any critisism constructive or otherwise because I've never tried IR, but I do have a question. How come the trees are so obviously IR but their reflection in the water is very normal?
__________
Phillip **Nikon D7000**
the trees had direct light from behind me reflecting on them.... in the original shot, you can't actually see any reflection in the water... i had to play a lot with contrast to actually start to see the reflection...
http://www.markcrossphotography.com - A camera, glass, and some light.
Hi Xerubus
Don't know anything about IR so cant comment on this aspect. Re the foreground - I actually think it might improve with a touch more of the foreground included...but then I know too well that experience of making multiple croppings of same image and at the end going...well quite like them all really - gets confusing. Like the shot before on your website - silk clouds. Vic
Previous topic • Next topic
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|