|
Johnny Reb - you might want to read the OP, you know, like it says in the title of the thread.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Yeah, I did. What exactly is wrong, if you don't mind my asking? Is it the lack of critique? I'll fix that if so. Johnny Reb fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Yep, this is the critique thread, after all 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:
I don't think it's overprocessed, I'd try to take out that car in photoshop, though. And it seems a tiny bit noisy. Otherwise it's beautiful. Johnny Reb fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I like this photo, just not the distracting glow at the left lower corner. Other than that, I really like the feel of it. Where was it shot? Sorry, I missed your question. Do you know Vancouver Island at all? This was at the little beach at Aylard Farm in East Sooke Park - about 45 minutes out of Victoria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:Johnny Reb - you might want to read the OP, you know, like it says in the title of the thread. I find your warning to the poster to be tough but fair. I don't think I would change it. However, it ultimately failed to convey its message to the viewer — he posted a critique but didn't edit it into his post so it's possible he may still be probated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
post more pics also crits for the critgodMagic Hate Ball posted:
Simple compositions, simple lighting. Is that what low-key looks like? I don't know! But I like it. As for the individual pics, the first one is nice, but something bothers me. Might be the lighting/saturation of the figure, specifically the shadow on the right side. You've got this 50-50-dark/background-bright/foreground balance, I think the subject should really stand out from the background and towards the middle it just doesn't do that. The second shot is my favorite. You could cut some black off the top and the balance would be none the worse, but it's cool as it is. The third pic is my least favorite. I see what you're trying to do, but I would have at least reflected some light onto the darker parts of the subject so you can still make them out. My eyes detect that tiny sliver of light and then they try to take in the whole flower and it just doesn't work and that bothers me. Skizzzer posted:
The first one doesn't do it for me. I know where you were going with this, but the end result is unfocused. It's like you made a photo of the fence and the sign happened to be there and then you realized there's an animal in the background too. Lighting does absolutely not do you any favors and may in fact be your main problem. Everything is in the shadow and your entire picture is too dark. The second shot is cool. I probably shouldn't say that since it veers off into that kind of postpro-playground territory that dorkroom really seems to hate? But for the sake of honesty, I think it looks nice. The dark bee contrasts well against the glowing flower and with everying so blurred it's vague and burnt-out in a good way. Kinda dreamlike.    P.S. Thanks for the feedback Dave
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Johnny Reb posted:
Woah I like this effect, I am inspired to try and capture something similar. This is just narrow aperture with long exposure I am guessing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Johnny Reb posted:
I would like to see more of the frame to get context ... what/who is she looking at? And for mine. Trying to take the camera with me everywhere, and lately I have been doing a lot of hiking.  Little Spidey Tall trees
mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I would like to see more of the frame to get context ... what/who is she looking at? I'm not a big fan of the backlit spider web. To me the backlighting overpowered whatever might be interesting in the geometry of the web. I think if light had been toned down a bit and the web had more definition it would have been much stronger. I really do like the tall trees particularly the way the forked tree in the background intersects so symmetrically with the trees in the foreground. The crop is a bit distracting to me, but it does accentuate the tallness so it is hard for me to say it is a bad call. I think adding a very slight bit of exposure in post process would really bring out bark detail, but otherwise I think it works pretty well. For my contributions Arlington National Cemetery  Garden of Stone by noonebutme2010, on FlickrUninteresting buildings lit with interesting light  Crystal Sunset REVISED by noonebutme2010, on FlickrAttempting to get abstract with the dodge and burn tool. I already know I got a little out of the lines because I am not too coordinated with the brush yet.  LuminousBridge by noonebutme2010, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
iammeandsoareyou posted:Attempting to get abstract with the dodge and burn tool. I already know I got a little out of the lines because I am not too coordinated with the brush yet. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
iammeandsoareyou posted:I'm not a big fan of the backlit spider web. To me the backlighting overpowered whatever might be interesting in the geometry of the web. I think if light had been toned down a bit and the web had more definition it would have been much stronger. Your uninteresting buildings would be more interesting if you leveled your horizon better. There is perspective correction tools in Lightroom and they work very good. The light is nice, but every other element of your photo, seems to overrun the lighting. Its pretty lackluster. Maybe try an HDR next time? Your last image, the burnt bridge is terrible. I understand you are learning, but my 2year old could stay in the lines better than you. What was your intent here? The shot needs a tighter crop, and your brush skills, need a lot of improvement. I suggest a Wacom Bamboo tool, they run about 50bux refurbished. At the end of the day, those 2 shots feel lazy and bad, and you cant fix lazy and bad in post processing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Hello Dorkrook. I used to post here a lot, then I started shooting weddings professionally, and it basically killed all my creative spirit when it comes to taking random photos of junk. I really want to get back to having fun with a camera though, so I'm going to try and post here a few times a week this summer. I'm used to harsh criticism, so please be mean.iammeandsoareyou posted:
I really like the contrast in the cemetery photo, the blown out sky could have been a real deal breaker, but you chose well with the editing. That said, in my opinion black and white photos of grave yards are up there with photos of fences when it comes to cliched photos. The second photo is good. Your composition was just right and the exposure between the sky and buildings is great, which is something that is difficult at that time of day. The way you cropped out the ground makes it feel desolate. Other than the composition, your last photo needs a lot of work. You need to look into using masks to burn/dodge with more accuracy. Keep trying on that one until you feel comfortable with it. ------- I took these photos on a walk this afternoon.  Walk-6-4-14--3 by cclunie, on Flickr Walk-6-4-14--15 by cclunie, on Flickr Walk-6-4-14--5 by cclunie, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Wooten posted:
I like the texture in the first one, but overall it's pretty boring. The second one needs a little deeper depth of field, I would have probably stopped down a bit more just to have a bit more of the clover in focus. The third one is my favorite, I like the rusted metal next to the shiny (but a little dinged) Mercedes. Plus what the gently caress does Cash Price mean? Good job man.  _MG_3869.jpg by Photografaffer, on FlickrThis one is for my portrait final, I set up in a different location from the other shots I was taking for a group portrait assignment and I really liked how this one turned out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Entenzahn posted:post more pics also crits for the critgod Thanks for the feedback! I hated the first picture as I was taking it too - not really a fan of bird pictures, and the environment was pretty uninspiring. quote:That's a cool vehicle thingy, but I think if it filled more of the frame or if you had a different perspective it would be more interesting. Part of the reason I feel this way is the graffiti on the wall right behind the green part is the same colour as the body of the vehicle and for me, it makes it harder to focus on the vehicle. My eyes keep looking at the graffiti, but it's obscured and so I feel frustrated. Also the skull is a point of interest for me but it's right at the edge of the frame - my eyes in general flick from point to point but it doesn't know where to settle. quote:Same criticism here, lots of things to look at, but the ground and the wall is not as interesting as the graffiti. I really like that pop of red in the bottom piece of graffiti, and I love how the blue turns into that orange and yellow piece on the left. I wonder how it would've looked if you got down and closer to the wall? I hope that helps, feel free to disregard/listen to someone better than me. Chekans 3 16 posted:
I can see his dick. I keep looking at it now. Besides that, I like the shot. I went camping with a bunch of friends, took like 300 pics, and only ended up with 2-3 that I liked  . This is one: DSC_0139-Edit.jpg by badmountain, on FlickrAnd a few from the other night:  Walking Around by badmountain, on Flickr Downtown at Night 2 by badmountain, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that my first photo is boring, I kept it because I thought it looked like a robot face.  Chekans 3 16 posted:
It's a good photo, but I think it needs more separation between the subject and background. A hair light or some subtle rim lighting would make it amazing. Skizzzer posted:
The first one is interesting to me. There's a lot of good texture and color on the tree trunk, and the exposure of the the background is well balanced. Nice shot. The second is kind of boring. It doesn't have a very defined subject, and the crookedness of the vertical fence post makes me uncomfortable. I like the exposure on the third, but I feel like it could benefit from a slightly different crop. The fence is really close to the middle of the frame and the light is really close to the top edge, i think if you moved everything down just slightly it might flow a little better. I can never get square crops to work either. ----- A couple more from my walk, I wish the A in USA was sharper on this first one, but oh well.  Walk-6-4-14--16 by cclunie, on FlickrThis church is getting torn down in a few days.  Walk-6-4-14--4 by cclunie, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Skizzzer posted:
I like this picture. The light from the streetlamp is nicely flagged by the housing of the lamp, creating some nice falloff that makes the shot. Also, the shot is framed well. The other two pictures are kinda meh. In the first one there's not a whole lot going on. The subject is the 25 sign I guess? 25 is a good number. The flowers are pretty in the second one. The centered composition is sort of dull, the background is busy w/ all those cars, and the light is kind of dull too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Wooten posted:
Thanks! I agree with you on the sharpness. I wish the bolt beside it was in focus like the one on the left too. Like the composition. I like how the church fills the frame on your second pic - it gives a nice imposing impression of its size - but it's a bit too much for me. I don't like how it's not completely symmetrical (the window on the right is not in the frame) and overall I would prefer a bit more space on the sides. The sky's really boring there too so that doesn't help. Dren posted:I like this picture. The light from the streetlamp is nicely flagged by the housing of the lamp, creating some nice falloff that makes the shot. Also, the shot is framed well. Thank you, this (and Wooten's and Ent's crits) is very helpful. It's been fun walking around and seeing something I like and then trying to translate that into a picture. I liked the flowers in the second pic too, and I thought the lamp was a nice complement to it. I'm going to go back when there's better light out and see if I can do better.  Walking home by badmountain, on FlickrNot sure if I should've had a smaller aperture here, kinda wish more of the fence was in focus:  Gate by badmountain, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Walking home by badmountain, on Flickr I like this, especially the sort of warm sepia but not really tone. I agree you need a little more focus, but I'm less on the fence and more on the back flowers. Both sets in focus with everything else behind them out would be really nice. As it is my eye is drawn more to the out plant in the in plant. Trying some new things aside from birds and babies:  Line by mattphilpott, on Flickr  Alarm by mattphilpott, on Flickr  Rail by mattphilpott, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Huxley posted:
Dial the saturation back on the top one a notch, and the first two make an awesome diptych. The last one is nice, but it feels kinda busy and out of place in the set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Huxley posted:
Ok, so this is my first critique and also my first time posting photos. I think the first one is a little boring. The colors are nice but it lacks something for me. I really like the burglar alarm. The third photo does seem a little busy and maybe needs a tighter crop. Maybe it doesn't need the railroad in the front? They are re-doing a road right by my house. There is quite a bit of construction equipment lying around.  construction1 construction2 construction3
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Hello Dorkrook. I used to post here a lot, then I started shooting weddings professionally, and it basically killed all my creative spirit when it comes to taking random photos of junk. I really want to get back to having fun with a camera though, so I'm going to try and post here a few times a week this summer. I'm used to harsh criticism, so please be mean. I appreciate the feed back. On the bridge pic I was trying to accentuate the bridge structure. In the original the background was really blown out (I took it at the wrong time of day) so I tried to go abstract by just maxing out the dark on the background and maxing out the light on the bridge. I knew I hadn't really gotten the application right, but I kept going back and forth on whether I liked the concept. This probably is a good file to practice with, but after looking at it in the light of feedback, even with better application this image would never be about anything but post-process. Honestly I was trying to salvage something that should have really just gone to delete. In the vein of providing feedback, at first I couldn't understand why you took this picture other than the tones, which I like. Then I saw that you said it looked like a robot face. Then all I could see was a robot face. So now I think it is an effective picture. I think this is case where titling actually matters. My eyes didn't naturally follow the shapes to form the face without a nudge in the right direction. I kept trying to find the subject, but as I got that the whole field of the photo was supposed to be the subject it came together. So I guess my critique is title it "Robot Face". I tried my hand at panning and action shots this weekend.  Bike Race1 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr Bike Race2 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr Bike Race3 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
 VIEW from united states by difficult listening on Flickr  VIEW from united states II by difficult listening on Flickr I get, and like, what you're doing here, but I feel like the first doesn't really belong. The latter two are almost aggressively abstract, so much so that at first glance it's hard to tell what I'm really looking at, whether it's because of the obfuscating splatter of paint or the flattened, repetitive shapes, but there's none of that in the first. In a way it's almost a more prototypically "good" photo in that it cleanly directs your eye, but it doesn't fit with the others, which are way more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
iammeandsoareyou posted:
Thanks for the feedback. I know I need to work on my naming, I blame lightroom. Panning is a lot of fun, imho it's the best way to shoot bicycles. Your second shot is the strongest of the three, I really like it. It is sharp and has enough blur to show speed. When composing panning shots (and action shots in general) it's a good rule to leave more space on the side of the frame that the action is moving toward. Your eye likes to see where the subject is going and it helps to lead your eye through the rest of the frame. 35mm is a really challenging focal length for panning. Longer focal lengths will give the illusion of more speed as the background will be much more magnified. You will also find it's easier to fill the frame with your subject while panning if you use a longer focal length. Magic Hate Ball posted:
The first photo is good, I like the way you put the Your second photo is amazing  it has amazing color and exposure and texture and it's interesting and it's composed perfectly, then I realize there's motion blur and it gets even better. My only complaint is that this photo makes me feel bad about myself. Really fantastic shot.----  Industrial Park Walk-1 by cclunie, on Flickr Industrial Park Walk-2 by cclunie, on Flickr Industrial Park Walk-3 by cclunie, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Wooten posted:
I like this, but I really want the spherical foreground drops to be in focus too, it feels like the focal plane is landing on a relatively boring part of the leaf on the right. Maybe a tighter crop would help? If you had a 90mm TS-E, making the focal plane track the central vein of the leaf would look amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I like this, but I really want the spherical foreground drops to be in focus too, it feels like the focal plane is landing on a relatively boring part of the leaf on the right. Maybe a tighter crop would help? If you had a 90mm TS-E, making the focal plane track the central vein of the leaf would look amazing. Maybe I'll try it again as a focus stack. Then again I have been considering blowing my CPS equipment evaluation on a tilt shift.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Wooten posted:
I'm really diggin' this, love the contrast and colours, with the squishy lookin' bokeh. The only thing that kinda throws me off is the bolt on the right of the picture being out of focus. My brain wants it to be in focus and is upset that it isn't. Wooten posted:This church is getting torn down in a few days. Doesn't really do much for me, feels kinda drab when I feel like those windows and the richness of the bricks could bring out some nice colours. Also it appears to not be level nor centered correctly (if that was even the intention). Here's a couple.   Noir by ProWessler, on Flickr Ark fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:
In both of these pictures I like the framing, the composition and the subject matter, but both have issues due to one problem - you needed to use a tripod. The cityscape is being killed by chroma noise. A lower ISO and much longer exposure would have helped. In the landscape the colours are great but the DoF is too thin - you needed a smaller aperture  DogWalk by jkostashuk1, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
grack posted:In both of these pictures I like the framing, the composition and the subject matter, but both have issues due to one problem - you needed to use a tripod. I hate defending my photos by talking about shooting conditions but both were shot from a moving train (hello blotchy brown window).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I'm not sure the second one is DoF, it looks to me like the picture was taken out the window of a moving car and the foreground blur is due to a parallax type effect. I rather like the image like it is, though it might have more impact if part of the road was in frame maybe? I'm not sure, it probably doesn't need messed with. edit - I guess getting the road in frame would be impossible if it was shot from a train. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I hate defending my photos by talking about shooting conditions but both were shot from a moving train (hello blotchy brown window). Fair enough, then. Have you tried a chroma noise reduction on the first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Ark posted:I'm really diggin' this, love the contrast and colours, with the squishy lookin' bokeh. The only thing that kinda throws me off is the bolt on the right of the picture being out of focus. My brain wants it to be in focus and is upset that it isn't. On the first one I like the colors and the shapes with the arched door, but the modern metal door on the bottom right is a little jarring and out of sync with the more classical arch structure of the front door. The second one I really like. The shapes and tones really work for me. The only thing I could nit pick about are the two flare spots in the bottom right hand quadrant of the photo, on the mannequins shirt. Otherwise everything really flows together to my eye.  View From Arlington House by noonebutme2010, on FlickrI shot these two with expired Kodak VC. They both had kind of an aqua cast to them. The first one I didn't correct too much because it didn't seem too distracting, but the second I really maxed out the aqua and blue sliders to compensate and ended up with purple that's not on the actual subject.  Chinatown DC 1 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr Chinatown DC 2 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
How did you scan / process the negatives to begin with? I did a quick curves layer on the second Chinatown image and managed to reduce a lot of the blue cast, just by setting the black, white and grey points (I used the concrete building in the middle of the frame as the grey point). I'll post a copy if you'd like, but I'm sure with access to the original file you'll be able to do a better job of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:How did you scan / process the negatives to begin with? I did a quick curves layer on the second Chinatown image and managed to reduce a lot of the blue cast, just by setting the black, white and grey points (I used the concrete building in the middle of the frame as the grey point). I'll post a copy if you'd like, but I'm sure with access to the original file you'll be able to do a better job of it. Forget it, Baron. It's Chinatown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:How did you scan / process the negatives to begin with? I did a quick curves layer on the second Chinatown image and managed to reduce a lot of the blue cast, just by setting the black, white and grey points (I used the concrete building in the middle of the frame as the grey point). I'll post a copy if you'd like, but I'm sure with access to the original file you'll be able to do a better job of it. That actually would be great. I would love to see what someone better with Lightroom could do with it. I am really pretty basic with photo editing. I really know just enough to usually use the right sliders to get things more or less right. I have one of those teach yourself manuals that I need to sit down and spend a weekend with. As for processing/scanning, I shot it at box speed and had it commercially processed with no adjustments. I scanned it at 4800 dpi on a canon canoscan with unsharp mask on. Other than that I pretty much let the scanner make the choices. For comparison sake, this is the shot with the arch the color it is in real life, more or less.  China Town DC by noonebutme2010, on FlickrAnd Twiin...well played sir.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
The blue/green cast on both of those is very strong. I basically did what Baron Dirigible did but in Photoshop, with a levels and curves adjustment. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Wooten posted:
I'm afraid your first picture isn't to my tastes. It looks like it was taken well and processed well. I especially like the color on the felled tree's end. I think I'd like to see a wider shot with the stump and tree taking up perhaps the bottom third, so I can see the surroundings and consider where the tree had stood. The second's really good. I think I like the colors in all three quite a bit, actually. I agree with Bubbacub that I want there to be a thicker focal plane, but I want to see it with the biggest drop, the other one almost in the very middle, entirely or almost entirely in focus. I think that would be better composed, but I admit that it might not work because that drop doesn't look like it's silvering the surface of the leaf the way most the others are. I like your third. The colors of the car might be more saturated, or maybe a lot more striking with the same post work if you could take it with a polarizing filter to cut down the reflections on both paint and glass. I like a lot about the framing, like the angled treeline and the dirt at the very bottom, but the trashed cupboard or appliance or whatever that is is too close to touching the edge for me. I like that it's there, and I like the car being centered. I just want the shot to be a little wider to make a teensy bit more space for the box. grack posted:
This is a fun shot and I like the rich dark tree trunks throughout the picture, but I'm bothered by the post on the left and a bit by the framing. I definitely want that post not to be there, particularly since it runs right along the edge of the man's silhouette. I think it would be better framed with more room on the right side, since I'm supposing that he's winning this struggle and I want it to be open, not cramped, in the direction he's moving. I think it's a really great moment. They both look resigned or nonchalant or something, this tugging's just the usual business (probably could've chosen better words there but whatever). Well done catching that. iammeandsoareyou posted:
Leaving the color discussion aside just a moment, I think these shots have a lot of potential but I want a wider angle on both of them. The first feels like it needs a little breathing room above and on the right side. The second I want there to be more space all around, the gate's close to fitting in and so I want it to fit entirely in and I think it would serve the photo well. I took these a while ago for my friends, who are the band pictured. It was sort of the worst conditions, with strong lighting on a yellow-green wall behind them but nothing on them and all-around dim either way. So these were at 25600 ISO or something silly like that, and I'm not sure making the camera work that hard left much of value in them. But then I think of that photo of Johnny Cash giving the finger and remember they don't have to be totally sharp for me to like them. Let me know what you think, where I did something right and where I screwed up.  CX0A0978 by MatthewKSears, on Flickr CX0A1666 by MatthewKSears, on Flickr CX0A1685 by MatthewKSears, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I took this yesterday in the Saddle Mountains of central Washington. All post done with PS CS5 via Bridge. Looking at it, I think it works well except for how dark the cloud's shadows are, almost as dark as the basalt rubble areas... Maybe a do-over with a little less contrast. Also, not sure if I like how thick the strip of the near black basalt is on the very bottom, but I like how it contrasts with the salt extrusions. Not sure if I should crop that out or not. The salt itself is why we were there in the first place, as the insects we were looking for are halophilic. The whole area is sage, greasewood, and rabbitbrush... very stark, obviously. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:The salt itself is why we were there in the first place, as the insects we were looking for are halophilic. The whole area is sage, greasewood, and rabbitbrush... very stark, obviously. Yeah, I'd go with your instinct to crop it even tighter. The shadowy foreground feels very flat - it looks like an awesome landscape, but the light isn't being very flattering there. Did you get any closeup shots of the insects or the salt?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I took this yesterday in the Saddle Mountains of central Washington. All post done with PS CS5 via Bridge. Looking at it, I think it works well except for how dark the cloud's shadows are, almost as dark as the basalt rubble areas... Maybe a do-over with a little less contrast. Also, not sure if I like how thick the strip of the near black basalt is on the very bottom, but I like how it contrasts with the salt extrusions. Not sure if I should crop that out or not. I like the composition, but with no light in the foreground there isn't a whole lot to look at. I would revisit this at a different time if possible.  DSC_0024 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:45
|
|