mark lucas

Unless it was intentional, may I suggest first removing the magenta colour cast.

 

Also, perhaps crop the blown out sky completely and clone in some more hedge to fill the uneven gap at the top.

One minute compared to Avedon - the next hit with a 3/3.....ouch!

Well, is he smiling or not?

Personally, I would like to see the catchlight cleaned up a little bit, as above.

Please resubmit without the disastrous framing effect - I think this will do very well.

Very good study of the Hornbill, but it looks like you locked focus on the beak rather than the eye which is a shame.

 

I think this works better than your flamingo shot because, although they are both displaying natural behaviour, this makes for a more pleasant composition.

Jerry, thanks.

 

Out of curiosity, how did it get here if you didn't submit it for critique?

p.s. think a black frame would work better

 

Perhaps just a little more contrast needed?

p.s. why are only the high raters thanked for their ratings?

How will adjusting the monitor let him see the head (only joking).

Jerry, you have some attractive bird poses in your folder. This is not an elegant pose.

 

And, no, I won't show you any elegant pictures of birds. You asked for critique - accept critique.

Jerry, the colours and the way the subjects jumps out is superb, but I'm afraid for me it's not a pretty "pose". The bird is messy and doesn't even make for a good abstract (just my opinion)

Thanks to all for the comments left on the previous submission of

this picture. Following advice regarding framing I have decided to

resubmit it. Any critique welcome - thanks

I find the light on the bird a little harsh.

Nice posing and lighting but I wonder why the woman has to be topless? Is it just a little too "obvious"?

Is this oversharpened or are you creating an effect?

Anyone care to translate what I assume is Polish - are people saying this isn't manipulated? Surely not?

Would suggest cropping just a little off the top to remove the branches protruding into the frame.

I'm sure you know already, but it's a shame you cut of the wing-tip.

Personally, I think the quality of the light is better than the quality of the subject and composition - just a personal thought.

 

The broken stump and the central placing of the main tree detract from the composition. Perhaps better use could have been made of the conditions?

Unfortunately, the foreground doesn't do justice to the magnificently lit mountain.

As above, might I suggest a quick levels and saturation adjustment?

Alec, what's up with that sky. Did you trek all that way and forget your grad?

 

Unfortunately, points deducted for that, the glare on the water and perhaps a little more foreground would benefit things?

 

Good stitching.

Hola Saul.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm as keen on this one as some of the other commenters. Here's why:

 

There's too much "blackness" around the bottom half and particularly the left hand side. I'd be surprised if the clouds weren't added in Photoshop as they look out of place.

 

The patch of cloud that we can see through in the foreground draws the eye away from the illuminated buildings which seem to be suffering from some kind of hazy effect and are neither sharp enough or prominent enough to make this one stand out from the crowd.

 

Finally, I find that the sharp silhouetted trees on the left leave the composition unbalanced.

The details say "no" to manipulated, but surely those birds were added afterwards?