Ladies Fishing on the Hillsborough River

Alberta I like the composition, more like my style, however I would photoshop it a little, color and perhaps crop a little so that the ladies are more towards the center, I would also bland out the bucket.But these are the things that I like to do. All the photos that you saw in my album are altered in some ways.

Charles

When I subscribed to Photo.net, I believed it to be a site for unmanipulated photography. The

displayed works, comments and suggestions from some really good photographers on this

site may be changing my opion. Please comment, rate this unmanipulated photo and if you

care to comment, let me know if you would alter it and even how. Thanks so much -

It is interesting to note the different opinions about fotographic composition:

F.I. Under no circumstances would I crop this picture for the purpose of moving the position of the two fisherladies. They are in fact perfectly placed where they now are. The bucket is an essential ingredient to fishing and its presence gives the image a reality factor....without the bucket this shot would almost look staged. The bridge, so beautifully mirrored in the slightly rippling water, closes the foto on top...I would change NOTHING in this image...well done, Alberta.....Bert

What Bret said.

Perhas Charles, who commented above is right....from his professional or not point of view. These comments about cropping this that way or the other are so common on this site. Im not gonna argue as i dont know much about it, but could u explain why, as preceeding speaker Charles said, ladies should be moved a bit to the center? From my subjective point of view, the picture is just about right...shows the reality, coldness of landscape and warmness of these two figures. Ok, fine, perhaps if they were emphasized, it'd be better. In my opinion ladies in the corner contrast better with raw but magnificent and a bit cold nature, thats what makes this pic cool.

PhotoNet Rating Summary: There are 4 anonymous raters who rated the photo in the "Rate Recent Photos" or "Rate Category" features, with an average score of 3.50 for Aesthetics, and 3.25 for Originality.

 

4 is average. This photo isn't even up to average?

 

I believe something is wrong with this rating system :(

I like this unmanipulated photo!!I just said that this site had to call photoshop.net!!!!....and 3/3 is like a tax paied,not from all!!!,when you requests a rate and critiques for a photo!!!Ciao,arrivederci..

Grazie per il vostro molto gentili parole and buon grado. Anch'io piace molto questa foto :) Ciao -

Your picture is just right. I played with it and couldn't do anything that would make it better. As far as ratings go: There are a lot of jokers who rate every single picture they can get their hands on as a 3/3. I have learned to ignore these low ratings which almost always are anonymous and pay attention to ratings, good or bad, from people who let their names known. And I tend to check their portfolios to see whether their work qualifies for giving ratings. Yours does.

 

Thanks for your rating, comments and especially for picking this particular photo. It's one of my favorites. I've learned volumes about the rating system since joining and although I can't say it doesn't bother me at all, it sure doesn't bother me much. The comments I receive and can learn from, the information in the many forums, a chance to analyze and critique intelligently (sometimes with an upload of adjustments) are what it's all about. Cheers -

Here are my two cents (Canadian! :-))) ) on this one. Before you kill me, let me tell you that it is a beautiful shot.

 

Let me first state the obvious: We're all glad to be rid of the wet darkroom, right? Hmm... think about it. Couldn't we argue that "true photography" must be done on film, in a darkroom, without a computer? Those were the old days, with every photographer altering every picture ad nauseam with primitive tools like caches, filters to enhance and dramatize the sky and the shadows... THE DARKROOM WAS THE PHOTOSHOP OF THE PAST, long gone thank God.

 

We've all adopted digital cameras that modify your pictures IN THE BOX, in the jpeg format, and we're not even able to control that if we shoot in jpeg. So where's the catch? The camera already does its own photoshopping on your shots, playing with contrast and sharpening and saturation and what have not!!!

 

Where am I getting at? It's obvious: I will certainly not let that stupid camera get away with it. So I shoot in RAW and Hello Pshop, here I come and you better behave, 'cause you're gonna give me the result I want. This result is usually different, sometimes very different from what the camera thinks. Plain and simple: The camera is not a religion, it's a tool, to be used along with other tools. So, am I ashamed to use Pshop heavily? Oh yes - about as much as I am ashamed to cook my food.

 

Only a matter of knowing who's the boss: the camera's heavy electronic tampering, like it of not, or me. The choice is simple.

 

Let's go now for the pros and cons.

 

1. Do not reframe. Having the ladies there, seemingly not important to the picture, is one of its main forces. Reframing could destroy the picture.

 

2. The composition is absolutely perfect. Beautiful in fact, original and creative, what with all those lines, horizontal and vertical.

 

3. Yes, you should saturate the colours a bit. Cool the picture may be, but cold it should not. A matter of opinion of course. But once again, don't forget that you are here the victim of your camera's own decisions on this, and true enough, the camera is victim of its own tampering with contrast! Isn't that funny? Or rather not?

 

4. Those modern and very expensive cameras and their expensive sensors, even the full-framed ones like mine, do a very poor job at mastering shadows and highlights. They're simply not sensitive enough. They probably will be ten years from now. Right now, all the more so if you're using the jpeg format, your highlights are very rapidly washed out.

 

Your picture is almost a textbook example of this: the sky's reflection is totally washed out, and I mean, totally (pure white, 255-255-255), and this is usually to avoid entirely as you lose all control over this portion of the image. I remind you that there are two main reasons for this, one that you can only partially control, and the other that you can control all right. Your sensor is responsible for this in good part, and the solution lies in bracketing and - God forbid! - composing your final image from several initial ones, thus beefing up your sensor's apparent sensitivity. The second factor is the jpeg format with its very low level numbers and its in-camera tampering a la bad Photoshop, and this can be controlled by using the RAW format.

 

Remember what I think about Rules. Well, there is one rule I respect totally: avoid washed out zones.

 

How is that? As I said, don't shoot! Remember, I still say that this is an impressive photograph, showing exceptional talent for image composition and photography. Am I stupid or what?

 

I hope that you don't mind this "in-depth" analysis. Take care,

 

RogerG, The Photographer From Elsewhere

That was THE most insightful comment I've ever received on this site and well worth my membership price. I only wish you had written that a year ago (of course I wasn't a member then so it couldn't/wouldn't have done any good:) This photo was shot about a week after I got my new Nikon D200. I knew nothing about RAW files and the dreaded blinkies. I therefore can't do much with this JPG except boost/cool the color as you suggest. I could try PhotoShopping some interest into the sky's blank stare with data from similar shots taken in that location that day. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain. Your guidance is priceless. Cheers -

I've received occasionally such comments from true gurus, on Apple Discussions groups, and on Canon Digital Photography Forums. This last site, maintained by POTN and independent from Canon, can be pretty useful for any Canon maniac. So it can be done, it's a matter of philosophy. It should be much more common in photo.net.

 

To the credit of photo.net, I must say that some forums are pretty useful. But as far as pictures are concerned, well, you know what I think.

 

Take care,

 

RogerG, From Outer Space (!!!)