DSLRUsers.com

Probably not quite what you thought it was gonna be huh?

He looks petrified.

Nice find with the first - I like the long exposure action in the sky and water and I really like the goanna but I'm not sure the two parts go together - the bottom part is a really nice picture on it's own as is the top but the two together? if you know what I'm getting at? Update: I've taken a second look and I'm warming to the combination

#2 is perhaps a bit of the same - I really love the textures and shadows around the wood and surrounding sand (I think you could do a detailed view of just that) - but that hard dark wall on the right and the sky and clouds compete so much

#3 - I like the idea of the shell but I reckon you needed to be closer to it (or not included it at all and just had those very cool wavy lines in the sand) - it looks a little too oof at the bottom too (almost like some bad clonage happened)?

#4 is not really making it for me - + too much magenta?

#1 He needs a beret. Also, I agree with Remorhaz. I see two pictures here, but not one.

#2 Lose the Goanna, and maybe tone back the saturation a tad for me

#3 I'd lose the sky almost entirely.

#4 Doesn't do much for me either. Can't say why. Probably a lack of POI. As a prime example of the target audience for the new Leica, I can't comment on the colour cast

cheers for the feedback.

Remorhaz wrote:Nice find with the first - I like the long exposure action in the sky and water and I really like the goanna but I'm not sure the two parts go together - the bottom part is a really nice picture on it's own as is the top but the two together? if you know what I'm getting at? Update: I've taken a second look and I'm warming to the combination

Mr Darcy wrote:#1 He needs a beret. Also, I agree with Remorhaz. I see two pictures here, but not one.

I do have a landscape version of teh same thing that would probably appeal more for you guys, however I am going thru a portrait orientation phase atm hence i wanted that sky as a primary focus, however i see that the two components do compete.

Remorhaz wrote:#2 is perhaps a bit of the same - I really love the textures and shadows around the wood and surrounding sand (I think you could do a detailed view of just that) - but that hard dark wall on the right and the sky and clouds compete so much

same as above - the black walkway is just one aspect that cannot be avoided here, it does block the image somewhat..

Mr Darcy wrote:#2 Lose the Goanna, and maybe tone back the saturation a tad for me

believe it or not, the reds and saturation in the clouds has been dialled down! it was pretty intense.

Remorhaz wrote:#3 - I like the idea of the shell but I reckon you needed to be closer to it (or not included it at all and just had those very cool wavy lines in the sand) - it looks a little too oof at the bottom too (almost like some bad clonage happened)?

with teh wide angle, i could not get much closer, the OOF bits on teh bottom are because the camera was so close to teh ground, outside the hyperfocal range i guess.

i actually threw the shell in there for kicks and giggle (note the disturbed sand), the one with nothing but sand felt, well empty to me..

Mr Darcy wrote:#3 I'd lose the sky almost entirely.

hmm, yes, i like that idea, standby on that.

Remorhaz wrote:#4 is not really making it for me - + too much magenta?

interesting, i don't see much of a cast there and teh image was warmed up quite a bit, the post sunset glow was very blue and cool from teh left side of the image - i may try and beat that lower part of teh image over teh head with some cast correction and see what transpires.

Mr Darcy wrote:#4 Doesn't do much for me either. Can't say why. Probably a lack of POI. As a prime example of the target audience for the new Leica, I can't comment on the colour cast

fair call.

Matt. K wrote:He looks petrified.

haha, and so he should after i told him to straighten up.

again, cheers for teh feedback.

Gerry

Big thumbs up on #1. That's a great example of how it's the photographer, not the camera. It took you to see the "goanna" and compose accordingly. Superb and the sky doesn't bother me.

Gerry,

I reckon by doing a bit of judicious croppage, you can keep the iguana and the sky in both #1 and #2. #2 might even lend itself to a square crop.

I really hope you brought the iguana home with you. I reckon we can use that in any beach we go....

re: shell, nice idea to include it! But that image overall is the weakest.

#4 is too busy and most importantly, the elements seem to clash too much. Perhaps that's art??

I was going to suggest a square crop for the first as I feel there is too much sky, but somebody has already done that!

#2 & #4 are not hitting the spot for me , # 3 has potential too and deserves further exploration with cropping maybe even a B&W conversion.

I am warming to this version.

biggerry wrote:I am warming to this version.

Better I think - but I reckon this does make the sky look more dropped in - it's obviously not but... it doesn't look natural to me

I like the square crop better too, but I reckon try taking about 1cm off the bottom bring the 'goanna' nearer to the edge of frame and increase the sky by the same amount.

The fire in the sky in #2 is awesome....took me awhile to find your goanna though...I kept looking for a smaller one