Still LifeModerators: 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
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Still LifeInterested in your thoughts on the following image in its two variations.
Specifically, regarding treatment, subject matter and crop. Let's try again. Last edited by Reschsmooth on Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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
Re: Still Life
Ok, I don't really know why - no security settings on my gallery in Smugmug. 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
Re: Still Life
Patrick Do you have external links set to No rather than Yes in the settings for that gallery? Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
Re: Still Life
No - set to "yes" 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
Re: Still LifeOK I can see them now (but they're on flickr instead of SmugMug I see).
My comments - I prefer the landscape crop because I see the entire RHS pear. I think the lightin works well, BUT (and it's a big but) that brown blob in the background distracts me in both images. Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
Re: Still LifeI like the tones here but keen to see more of the pears.
Re: Still Life
Matt, I think this may say more about you than the photo? Thanks for the feedback, folks. 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
Re: Still LifeI prefer the secon, but the image doesn't come
accros to me a balanced. There is more edge to the left than to the right.
Re: Still Life
I suspect that he's saying that you have a nice pair. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Re: Still Life
My brother had it on vinyl but I had the separate LPs "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" and "A Saucerful of Secrets". Oh, you weren't talking about Pink Floyd. 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
Re: Still Life
Vinyl? Where's the silver halide version? g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Re: Still Lifehere's my take, there is no point for the eye to focus on, nothign that pops out and locks the viewer to the image, that makes any/all of the PP treatment a moot point in my book.
Here's an alternative idea for teh second one, recover the highlights a bit, crop to get the one of teh brightest parts in the intersection of the thirds then push the existing PP further to remove more light detail in the image, hence leaving teh viewer with less to look at and more to think about. gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
Previous topic • Next topic
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|