ilkka_nissila

I don't think the figure was added, individuals standing on the edge of Prekestolen is very common in pictures and I doubt they're all added in post. I think the processing of this image is very nice and it's perhaps the nicest I've seen of this location.

I think the focus is quite problematic; it would have worked well if it had been crisply set on the girl in the middle. Her eye whites are showing and her eye would have made a better point of focus due to that. As for the third girl being possibly deliberately in sharpest focus, well, the problem is that although I can see that the focus is on her (after trying very hard, I can see that her hair is the sharpest), her face isn't quite crisp for some reason (movement?) and because her left eye isn't as openly visible as the middle girl's, I think the image loses visual impact that it might have with the focus on the middle girl's left eye. Additionally, by choosing the middle girl as point of focus, the first girl closest to the camera gets better visibility and attention from the viewer.

A very nice photograph. If I am to criticize it, I think the edge of the cliff next to the lighthouse looks like it has JPEG artifacts or excessive sharpening halos. I am sure a print without these restrictions looks great.

 

The dark tones on the rocks are very beautiful.

The sea and the coast are ok, but the sky is too colorful and fake.

I have difficulty separating this picture from a typical postcard. The colors are unnatural, overall quality is nothing special. The composition seems cut off from the top and bottom, a more square format would suit the subject better. But in the end, there's not enough subject to make a photograph of it worthwhile. A tree? A mountain far away behind some mist? The unnatural color on the ice really puts me off.

Yeah, then why does the rock carve a path in the ground? The ice would only help the rock move by removing friction, in which case the rock would not be able to move significant material to the sides. In the picture above you can see that material has been taken from the path and moved to the sides by the rock. Only if the ground is wet would this happen.

I don't believe in the ice theory. If it were iced surface, why then is there a track carved by the rock, just like it were moving in mud? If it were iced, there would be no track. It must be mudslide.

Yeah, it's been done so many times and I've seen stronger versions than this. It's not a bad shot by any means, of course.

 

I figure the rocks move with the wind when the valley is soaked by rain.

 

I'd like to go there myself.

I think the out of focus nose is ok, the background detail on the sand is essential for the picture and the photographer has made an excellent compromise here. Besides, the eyes are sharp. This photo has a lot of feeling.

I like the composition a lot, very good use of (not really) empty space. The colours are a little wacky but they're not bad at all.

This is a really nice shot. Talk about a background! Good use of a wide angle to create a sense of place.

... but of course, as a work of art, it doesn't matter so much how it was made.

Cropping isn't the same thing as cloning. Cropping is needed pretty much everywhere because photographs need to fit the area and aspect ratio of the page layout in the application, and typically cameras don't allow the adjustment of aspect ratio (XPan is an exception but even there it's not continuous).

 

It is of course much more difficult to get the shot right in the first place. If you start to add and remove elements in Photoshop, I'm sure you can improve the composition in various ways. Also, removing the garbage takes away from the documentary value of the photograph because it makes people believe (falsely) that it is clean and there are no, well, McDonald's bags in the area.

I think it looks great as it is. The white background doesn't bother me at all. You could of course redo the shot with different backgrounds but ...

This one is really very beautiful.

There is only one reason to post to the photo.net gallery: to exhibit work and get critiques. Any other reason is misuse of the site.

 

As to the horizontal lines: they can also be processing/drying scratches, and I very much doubt that they would be induced by the scanner somehow.

The angles of the rays point to the position of the sun on the sky, and it's quite easy to see that all the rays go through one point, which is as it should be. The sun shines from quite a low angle for the most part of the day and year in Norway.

There are almost no lakes in Norway - they have something more interesting than that. :-)

 

I love this shot, and as the rays were not created in Photoshop, it's value is not reduced by the existence of the possibility of creating such an image in Photoshop. It's even more valuable than it would have been in pre-Photoshop era because it shows integrity.

But it's 35 mm film, not medium format. :-)

 

I think this is one of the most beautiful photos on the site.

I think the original is much more beautiful than the lightened image. So IMHO the original exposure is correct. The opened up foreground looks unnnatural.

Very nice, the mountains and clouds have a dream-like quality. Too bad I live in the wrong continent!

I think it's a nice subject but the right third is badly out of focus and I'm sorry to say this but it ruins the picture. Are you saying that you have only one tripod? Nature photography is very rarely successful without a tripod.

I think this is excellent, worlds better than the POW chosen both compositionally and in the colours.

I don't like the colours. The blue is muted, and the shot would be much better if shot using any of a variety of transparency films, such as E100G, EPR, Kodachrome 64, or (shudder) Velvia. IMHO the image needs a crisp, clean, fresh look and that is just missing in the execution here.

 

I would crop 10% off the bottom.

 

Nevertheless, I welcome this type of an image as POW.

Amazinly beautiful; black and white landscape photography at its best. I like the composition of the land formations. Did you balance the sky using neutral density filtration, darkroom, or digital postprocessing? Just curious about the technique.