DELETE THIS ACCOUNT

Sometimes overt digital alterations work, sometimes they don't.

Interesting enough but my sense is there's too much in the frame - a little busy for this composition. My inclination would be to crop - not to isolate the window alone (although that might also be a valid choice and certainly changes the image) but to remove some of the other detail (right, bottom), perhaps all of the other detail. Perhaps removing the lower most band of yellow, leaving the shadow of the band just above, might be a starting point.

You can see horizontal banding - digital artifacts of either your capture or post-processing. They are also visible in the non-cropped version but not quite so distinct.

There is a definite green cast, which isn't too surprising given the lighting but at least you can correct it post exposure. Different monitors (and printers) will render colour quite differently as you've seen - search here on PN for "calibration" - no doubt you'll find lots of links.

Seems a bit muddy when the apparent light looks like there ought to be more contrast and punch.

Interesting effect. I do believe I prefer film for these - reciprocity effects make for interesting colouration yet unless there's a need to push speed, no increase in grain. Win-win.

 

Personally I like the smaller version of this - viewed as intended the "grain" is just too bizzare for me; scaled down further would hide the digital artifacts somewhat more. Perhaps a PS whiz could reduce the "splotchy" nature of the colouration... but I think whipping out the film camera would be faster ;-)

Very well executed. You are producing some excellent b+w images out of your all digital process with sparkle and tonality the "desaturate and call it black and white" crowd just aren't achieving. Images like this give me some hope for b+w.

This abstract of values and shapes with a limited palette of colours caught my attention right away. Can't say that I'd buy a calendar based on such a theme and with this well done image, but I wouldn't be unhappy if given one.

Whenever I see summer shots with these colours I think "polarizer and chrome" and all sorts of great memories of summers gone by, captured mostly in the mountains on K25 and K64 in my case, come flooding back.

 

Of course, sometimes I'm wrong and its a digital capture that triggers the memories...

I like this image very much - you have indeed captured a mysterious moment. Was this done on film?

Certainly very interesting how the light has formed such well defined beams.

Nice light caught in her hair. Personally I don't like the digital sepia "look" but this one isn't too bad, although the sepia and ultra-modern plastic "kroc" shoes is a timeline mismatch to be sure ;-) ... but that's a nit. If the grass was more indistinct (focus, or different in value (brightness)) such that the child stood out more, this would have much more impact. That said, its still a nice image with a certain mood to it.

 

Keep trying to find locations, angles, compositions where you can get a non distracting background behind your subject. Sometimes getting down low will help you do that. Be not afraid of filling the frame with the face, use your telephoto prime lens or zoom or what have you. Try more of these unposed shots ... and if they pose for you whenever the camera comes out, take it out more and wait for them to return to play. I tend to take more shots once kids have forgotten I'm there, and just observe their play and wait for interesting moments to capture.

 

 

First reaction: wondered if you had a shot similar to this but with all in focus. I understand that might not work any better, but that was my first reaction was to wonder. Also wonder if how this would look if "flipped" horizontally to make the angle run from u.l. to l.r.

Nice enough; great eyes. Too bad the contrast differences (or rather the inability of the medium to tame them?) have obliterated so much detail in the highlight areas (face, part of hand).

Cute; wish there was higher contrast (a common reaction I find from myself when a great deal of the frame is near middle gray).

You've got other b+w's which I prefer to this fairly straightforward shot. Since it appears to be film (yay!), perhaps a filter could have been used to at least put a little drama in the sky. But maybe the opening boat while 'interesting' isn't *interesting* enough, if you know what I mean...?

Too bad the highlights are blown out so much, but there's likely no detail in the file to recover with contrast adjustment.

Think this would work even better with a bigger light source to soften the very hard and distinct shadows.

A lovely mountain vista leaves me yearning for spring time so I can get back into the hills myself. Perhaps unavoidable given the often harsh light in the alpine/subalpine regions but it does seem to be rather high in contrast.

I do believe you missed my point Glenn: I comment in as constructive manner as I can muster, much more often than not. I care not about numbers, as you suggest, but the honesty of the effort that raters and critiquers put into the review process. Since I can't do anything about anyone else's approach, I don't worry about it and concentrate instead on being honest with myself. I would do the same if I'd rated or commented 10 images or 1000.

When a third of all of the images you have critiqued on this site are 1's, 2's, and 3's then I think that is a problem... Glenn

That is not a problem, it merely makes sense. On a scale of 1 to 7, you'd expect a certain percentage to be in the lower, middle, and upper 1/3 of the scale. Its not a surprise to me at all that 1/3 are placed in the lower 1/3 - 1/2 of the scale. Its not a surprise to me at all to see something of a bell curve in terms of quality of images, and objectivity of raters. Welcome to a big and diverse community!

Clearly I am not rating images with mal-intent. I've stated my approach and my comment history certainly underlines that I'm objective, fair-minded, and interested in positive contribution.

I don't get your concerns over this issue, but might be more sympathetic if you railed on about people who casually give 7/7 ratings... my perception is that there are more of those folks on photo.net then there are 3/3 raters. I don't get it because rating, like photography itself, is purely subjective. Whether rating works at all depends on intent (and how broad the group of raters is). If a rater honestly intends to reflect honest opinion, I don't care what the ratings given from that person are.

I like it just a little more with my thumb hiding the boat.

Harsh light, blownout highlights and unnatural skin colours don't help this image. If the original is really difficul to work with, sometimes moving on is the thing to do.

The angle of the light casts something of a distracting shadow off the eye / eyelash.

This is one of the better "reflection only" compositions I've viewed today.

Suspect this image really needs to be seen much larger, and/or printed on paper, to appreciate any shadow detail.