klaus.sailer

Any comments regarding composition and other technical aspects are

very welcome.

What do you think?

Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

This one was modified in photoshop to have the painting upright

instead of 90 degrees rotated. Was not able shoot from another

position. Rotating the whole photo would have yielded a weird view, I

think.

 

Suggestions welcome, thanks!

The leaf which is in focus gets lost due to its medium grey tone located between the bright stone and the darker leaves.

I think this needs more than just focus to set off a point of interest.

I assume a point of interest was the goal here because of the selective focus, or am I wrong?

 

Rectangular crop from a much larger frame... works??

My b/w concert shot from yesterday wasn't considered very original...

how about this one?

What do you think? Any opinions or suggestions welcome, thanks for

your help.

Trying to capture some motion here, what do you think?

I like this one because it is NOT overexposed. It could use some (or much) more contrast though, but the detail in the face is all there. Certainly gives a smoother look than with too many dark tones. I guess if you try printing it, you will see how much contrast you need at least so that it doesn look too washed out.

Any comments or critique appreciated. Thanks.

Nice and simple, or needs more context... what do you think?

I find the background light not too bad. The colors are ok, and the leaves are not too dark in contrast to the light spots. Did you focus on the leaves intentionally and thus blur the flower? I would like to see more detail, maybe with smaller aperture. Another thing which is clearly visible: Color seams (blue) at the branches where the light is very strong. This is very much depending on your camera (lens) and I think there's not much you could do about it. Most cameras would produce this problem in this lighting situation.

Yes, for this colorful thing the desaturation works well. The background is blurred and looks like old b/w.

One thing bothers me: The wheeee is actually missing.

Everything is sharp, that's ok, but looks a little too static, I mean this is a rollercoaster! You might get better results if the kids with the flying hair are more present.

The intent of this picture was not to let it look like a real photo. The main subject here are the details of the bike, nothing else. Otherwise I wouldn't have spent a whole day over my Cintiq 18sx graphics tablet to remove the background (see the spokes?). I made some versions with shadows etc., but this is purely a stock photo for me to reuse if needed.

Good capture... please do not upload pictures in this huge size, the long side of the picture should be no more then 800 px, thank you.

If you are not familiar with stereo pairs, you might want to know that this picture gives a 3D effect if watched correctly.

Try to focus your eyes in the distance, until the right picture overlaps with the left picture. Normally this works best with the large version. The distance between the left and right picture must be smaller than your eye distance.

As you can see from the right third of the picture, there was just too much haze.

Comments welcome

Tell this to my camera, i didn't do anything to the colors. I could remove some red, if the photo looks more realistic. That's life with a Fuji S1 :-)

Interesting photo. The moving water avoids the (sometimes) boring symmetry which is IMO often the negative point in photos showing something reflected on a water surface.see this

I had a full frame of that scene, and it looked awful.

Nice shadows and lights. And most of all, the inner part of the arches is not too dark. I think it already is good enough in the colour version; the colours are not too distracting from the shape of the arches and shadows.

I think your camera is more suitable for showing light differences. (Like your other shot with the sunset through the arches). For this shot it lacks some sharpness.

What disturbs me most here, is the bright cast from the bell downwards, most visible at the bottom middle of the photo. When looking at the photo i wonder if it really was there or is some strange digital cam phenomenon.

 

I like the persprective of this picture a lot.

 

I would like this picture a lot more if it was sharper. At least the sign on the wall in the right half should be decipherable. How about using a better scan resolution or lower jpeg compression?

 

Or was that intentional, to make it look older? Doesn't work IMHO.

Did they build these huts with photographers in mind? Terrific, especially the shadow from above along the way.