MrAndMrsIzzy

Or quite possibly a combination of both, and I did try to fix it in post (that's where all the layers came in), and as you pointed out! It didn't work. But! It did give me a good shot at working with layers and selections.

Colors good. Nice soft pastels. Sense of calm. Aside from that, Think if it was possible you should've moved to a spot without all those tree branches in the way. Just the sky the mountain and the reflection of the sky in the lake. As for the mountain itself, you could do without that blurry pole, stick, etc. whatever it is, sticking up there, and the skyline of the mountain itself is blurry to. There's nothing wrong with blur per se. It's just another element of the image, and depending on the image, it can add to, detract from, or just sit there and do nothing. In this case, it detracts from. This of course is just my opinion, and as I've indicated in earlier posts, at the end of the day, the opinion that counts regarding an artist's work, is the one held by the artist.

Good comp! Road leading the eye into the scene. Wall and tree on the left and wall in back keeping it on track. That left wall and tree along with the right side of the road and the overhanging branches forms a natural frame for the church (think it's a church) on the other side of that back wall. The mix of colors and tangle of branches also adds to the scene and provides a feeling of being there. Nudging the brightness up a bit might not hurt but contrast and color looks right on. I'd probably try to clone out that garbage can and the pole next to it, as well as the traffic light looking thing on the other side of that back wall. The can and pole would probably not be much of a problem but the traffic light would likely be another story. No matter though, it's still a good image.

Thank you !

Ok. Not quite sure if it's a brightness problem, a contrast problem, some combination of the two, or maybe a saturation\lightness problem. Looking more closely, it actually starts at the lamp rather than the barred window, and as indicated in my earlier post, not as apparent in Dieters version. It's most apparent in the stonework on the buildings. Starting at the lamp and going back. It looks like different shades of the same color. As if the part of the image from the left edge to the lamp is under a nice clear bright sky and from the lamp back is under a dull overcast one. I don't know how else to describe it. It's not a gradual shift either (or at least doesn't look like one).

Don't know if it's my eyes, my screen, the way it's processed, some combination, etc. But except for the tree on the right, something looks off from the barred window back in both the top image, and Dieters example. Not quite as bad in Dieters example as in the top image, but it's still there.

Thankyou! Forgot about the exif. (G)

It's digital, more recent (2007) than most (if not all) of the other stuff I've posted, and at this point it's still a work in progress. The original image was captured in September of 2007 at Baxter State Park in central Maine. The camera was the Canon Digital Rebel, and I don't remember which lens I was using. The first image is the original (except for resizing to post) as it came out of the camera and yes it was shot as a high quality low compression jpg rather than camera raw. The second (except for flattening and resizing to post) exists as a layered psd. I did put the bottom leaves on a separate layer and gave them a little extra sharpening, The full rez version is edited to print out at 7.5" x 9.3". Unedited (as it came out of the camera) Edited (at this point)

Intention or not, it works. Not at all unusual Amanda. Some of the best images are the result of happy accidents or experiments. This one for example. You may not have planned it that way, but the pebblegrain (don't know what else to call it) pattern (which I'm guessing is the bottom of the pool) contrasting with what looks like the central starburst like spout of water coming up from the fountain and the splashouts surrounding it (but mostly at the top) makes for a very interesting composition. Well done!

Nice shot. Good comp. Like the off center placement of the couple and use of the sun to cast a little light their way. Don't know if that was deliberate or accidental, but either way, it works. The tree on the right along with what I'm guessing is a rock and that bush on the left, act as a sort of natural frame. That tree on the left (behind the lamppost) going up and branching off to meet the tree on the right forms an archway of sorts to complete the effect, and the lamppost does its bit to add a little atmosphere. Cropping from the left side of that tall building on the Jersey side of the river (the one to the right of that tree) all the way across to the right edge of the image, might work as a good -2 version (so to speak) of this image also

Amen!

I like the image and like Mike sez it's a great documentary shot. The diagonal parallel lines of the tracks, the near bank, river, far bank, and towers, crossing with the opposing diagonal parallel lines of the grid, makes for a really good composition. Without the story behind it though, it would just be another good picture. As for the number of souls around today who don't have some knowledge of what happened. I think you'd be surprised by #.

Good point !

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is regardless of what the person asking for the critique thinks of that particular piece of work, there's always (or at least most of the time anyway), room for improvement, and a proper critique should offer suggestions to that end.

Thank you. Tried what you suggested. That didn't work either. I vaguely remember having problems back when I first signed on. Don't know if it was me, the site, or some combination of the two. Maybe there's a connection. As for other options. There might be one, but it's a little drastic and may not work quite as well as I think. That said, leaving well enough alone and moving on, makes the most sense.

That is what I see. There're two galleries there (neither of which has any pics). "Single images" Which I'm guessing was created automatically when I signed on, and "Mr and Mrs Izzy" which (if I remember correctly), I created. It's the "Mr and Mrs Izzy" one I'm trying to delete. It's listed as private. I tried to make it public. It didn't work. I tried to delete it. That didn't work either. ????

Amen!

Did that. Didn't work. Did notice a small circle with a diagonal line through it. I'm guessing that means the gallery's got some kind of block on it. Why it's there, how it got there, etc. I have no idea.

How do I delete a gallery that I have created?

As you indicated Amanda. Yes it is washed out. That doesn't make it a bad image. In fact it's a good image that needs a little work. You said in your post that the only camera you have is the one in your phone. That's probably not a problem. I don't know much about cellphone photography, but cellphones have come a long way since they were first introduced, and so (as I understand it) have the cameras in them. That said, it's still nice to have some kind of editing program on your computer. It doesn't have to be a top of the line one with all kinds of bells and whistles, and a price to match. There're plenty of options. One possibility is Irfanview the website is www.irfanview.com It's basic, but does have some capabilities that other basic programs might not have. It's free, and comes in bot 32 and 64 bit versions. I don't know if it's strictly windows or both windows and apple, but considering the price, it's worth checking the website to find out.

Don't know much about them but've seen enough to agree with jc about stock. Aside from that I think you did a pretty good job of arranging the elements. The opposing angles of the phone and cord. The diagonal placement close to that corner of the table sort of using that corner and the adjacent edges as a sort of natural frame (don't know if that was accidental or deliberate but either way, it works). The positioning of the scratch card and key, Etc. Think you nailed it.

Thank you. I have no doubt that at some point I may very well revisit this image, and do a -3 version or possibly even a -4 version. For the time being however it's simply going into the catalog for later reediting consideration.

Like your crop! When I was considering the -2 redo, it never occurred to me to crop out the blue area and I thought leaving those patches of greener vegetation in the lower foreground would result in too much foreground. Clearly (looking at your crop), I was wrong. Lesson learned (or relearned as the case may be) = Just because I think it won't work doesn't mean it won't!!! Try it before committing.

Thank you. "How did the horizontal/diagonal line in the background between the blue and sandy-colored strips go from straight in the unedited scan to wavy in the edited one?" In the unedited scan, that line (as you noticed) slants down towards the right and disappears behind the trees at the right end. That I felt detracted (sort of like a crooked horizon line). The edit was to camouflage that slant to try and make it look less like a crooked horizon which it wasn't and more like a natural slope which it was.

Ok! Here again, first image is the unedited (except for resizing to post) scan. And here's the -2 reedit.