Dee Why in B&WModerators: 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
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Dee Why in B&WWe took Alex down to Dee Why for a relaxing afternoon (given cricket was washed out). I took a handful of pics with B&W in mind.
I would appreciate any feedback. I tried to go for a tilt-shift kind of look with this one, but I don't think I got it. Be as harsh as you want. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
the last two really work, with the stark look and great composition of #3 and the great toning (Glow) of #4
Lovely conversions Patrick. #3 and 4 work well. IMHO a little darkening on the three other corners and a lightening of the bolt head at about 3 o'clock on #2 and its an interesting image too
cheers marco
Thanks guys.
Keith, I was waiting for ages, with a tired and hungry 6 month old to consider, for these two young girls to get out of the pool. Firstly, I didn't want to be seen taking a photo of two young girls in a pool, and secondly, I didn't want to take a photo of the pool with two young girls in it. Marco - I agree with your comments on the "thing". Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
1st and 3rd ones are great! 1st one just needs to have the vertical and horizons levelled though.
Love the high contrast and simplistic result that you've achieved with the 3rd. Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Patrick,
I really think the stand out image in this series is the 3rd one..I think it would look great on canvas. Care to share your conversion/PP moves? Geoff
Special Moments Photography Nikon D700, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8VR, SB800 & some simple studio stuff.
Wayne, at first I thought I had straightened the first one (vertically), but remeasuring I find it is not straight.
Geoff, I think I used the channel mixer for conversion, setting the Red to about -50, Green (middle slider?) to about 180 and Blue (bottom slider) to about -30. (Hard to recall). I then used curves to bump contrast - I was aiming for a close to white wall, although didn't quite get it. Thanks for the comments. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Previous topic • Next topic
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|