brian_bryce1

You are of course correct, I simply was not being careful. It also isn't in DC, it has been corrected.

First off let me say that commonality does not reduce the value of a picture. Second let me mention that the picture you reference is not accessible. Third let me point out that smug comments that are not constructive are never appreciated here at photo.net nor anywhere else that I can think of. Fourth I dont know what you are talking about rambling about I suppose you think must have been in my head; I have plenty of things in my portfolio, while you with your attitude may not think much of them, everyone must start somewhere. Clearly the site has merit as you say this is a common photo and since I did not submit it to the critique forum I see no reason for your comments, as they say nothing about the photo other than it is common. But while we are making comments on photos let me make one right back at you:

 

Ok you are walking along and you see a gaunt African man with a toothy grin, and you think back to National Geographic, you change your f stop and shutter speed and take a picture of the man straight on, yearbook style, with fully defuse lighting. You get it back and you like it so you post it on photo.net and think youre a photographer. You announce to the world that you dont get it unless you have seen it in newspapers and magazines 1000 times before. You dont get it either I guess.

I could have done what you ask in photoshop, but I am certain I shot this at F4 so the depth of feild would be the min for the particualar lens I had with me, thanks for the tip I agree the big tree is a bit distracting.

To each his own personally I like the texture of the foreground (might be difficult to see in this size, certainly is in "medium") as it plays off the texture in the sky. Not to be too defensive, but often outside one makes do with what lighting one has, as better lighting is time consuming at best and at worst will never turn up. I wait for lighting for short periods only, on hikes, in far away places.

Here is my attempt to correct the said problem:
http://glue.umd.edu/~bryceb/indianapolis.jpg

It is still a little off though I will admit.

I realize that there are some distortions due to the lens of what

should be straight lines. But aside from that what do you think?

Here is a text bookish shot, thus I realize originality is low but how

well did I execute it. I tend to shy away from things like ND filters

as I'd rather have what is actually there.

What do you think of the mood and exposure. Any other comments are

welcome to.

The shot is near Cavendish.

I like the tonal and textures of this picture as well as the lines and

think that the soft light of the day matches the calm of the ocean,

creating a calm mood. What do you think?

I went over to Antietam just to shoot a quick rollwith my new Olympus

Stylus Epic. A good picture for a point and shoot I think. What do you

think?

I doubt it is ever lit much better due to it's position. Perhaps at 9 or so in the morning as the canyon faces East-ish. It was taken at about 1 pm. It certainly wasn't clear but it also wasn't heavy overcast.

Most excellent shot. The kind i try to take although I do not know the merit of useing Velvia as B+W film. B+W negative film should have more latitude and you can always use a contrast filter on the print or contrast it when you scan the negative.

I shot of a falls on the Cedar Run Trail in SNP. Camera is on a tripod

in the water.

The texture is what is great about this picture, but I find the texture in the sand that does not make up the tracks distracting from the tracks which I assume are the subject here.

I actually own Paint Shop Pro. How exactly do you correct it. A deformation tool? Rotating would only work if all the straight lines were near each other. As far a contrast the clouds could be whiter but other than that any contrasting would make the picture look unnatural... Increasing the contrast makes the picture darker and complicating with lightening the picture make the right-hand tower far to white. Burning selected areas would probably work though...

I agree with you on the getting father away or using a wider lens but in this case neither was possable. I'm at the back of a parking lot on the other side of the street and 35mm is the widest lens I currently have. Also if I had $285 I would buy the lens you suggest but even that is out my budget.

One of my better B+Ws. Feel free to comment on it. Just don't say

things like I should have used a tilt/shift lens, sorry I can't afford

such things. Feel free to check my other photographs out.