Please post no more than five images a day and respond to as many images as you post. Critics, please be constructive, specific, and nice! Moderated by gahspidy and mtbbrian.
By posting on the Photo Critique forum you agree to post only your own photos, be respectful, and give back as much as you receive. This is a moderated forum and anything abusive or
off-topic will be removed.
A tighter crop might help, moving in on that blue object could create some mystery as to where is the owner. The extra sky and water don't add a lot to the image IMO.
Pete
Isn't it a cool thing in nature that the colours never seem to clash...
Thanks for the perspective. It is good to see through someone else's eyes.
The 2:00 pm light was bad, but it's when I was there, it is also representative of what you see floating down that river -- blinding sun, then the darkness of overhanging trees. I didn't notice the blurriness, but I suppose that is accounted for by shooting from a raft going downstream.
It's sorta missing a subject, but I do like how it seems to dead end right into a river/lake? Maybe there was a bridge there once(?) And yeah, the image is quite soft.
I also see something here, but like you, I cannot determine what it is.. maybe that big branch up there is acting as imaginary support for the missing suspension bridge?
Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just opened up the bigger version and it is WAY soft. Unusably soft.
Maybe something went wrong with the compression. I just checked the file and I was wrong about the lens. I used the 10mm f/2.8 @ f/3.2, I had it on manual with auto ISO and it was at ISO 2300 (way too high for that camera) and 1/3200, which was unnecessary.
I was feeling like Winslow Homer there for a moment on the river.
I just opened up the bigger version and it is WAY soft. Unusably soft.
Maybe something went wrong with the compression. I just checked the file and I was wrong about the lens. I used the 10mm f/2.8 @ f/3.2, I had it on manual with auto ISO and it was at ISO 2300 (way too high for that camera) and 1/3200, which was unnecessary.
I was feeling like Winslow Homer there for a moment on the river.
This site does compress images and make them softer, I've confirmed it. But I don't know when it does so... though probably when they reach a certain file size. I also emailed Photo John when he was still here with both an original image and one from the site (which I separately downloaded). He replied that yes, the site does compress, but offered no information as to when.
Especially not good from a photo critique standpoint, eh?
Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------