|
|
Critique By:
José Lins (K:1544)
5/4/2002 11:37:13 AM
What could I add to the other comments? Perfect!!!!
I love this kind of shot.
Congratulations Marc...
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Marc Robin (K:3385)
5/4/2002 9:29:16 AM
Thanks for all the nice comments everyone! It goes to show that putting a bit of thought into a picture really makes a difference.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Christian Gennert (K:964)
5/4/2002 9:08:41 AM
What can I say... Just an magnificent shot!!!
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Dawna G. (K:7709)
5/4/2002 8:28:27 AM
This is awesome Marc. Great way to introduce yourself - the angle, the lines leading to you, etc. great.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Terrence Kent (K:7023)
5/4/2002 8:25:46 AM
Agreed, great use of the geometry here, and a unique self portrait, welcome welcome~
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Phillip Filtz (K:1792)
5/4/2002 8:23:57 AM
Well, I can't give a constructive comment due to nothing to add here, other than I fell out of my chair when I looked at it. No wonder you got a funny feeling. I'm still dizzy.
Nice pic
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Marc Robin (K:3385)
5/4/2002 8:23:20 AM
Thanks Steve, and yep, totally, it's way better without the bright spot. My eye doesn't get stuck there anymore.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kompier (K:4629)
5/4/2002 8:01:27 AM
Very nice Marc.
As we talked about in the chatroom, removing the bright area in the left corner was the right choice.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Marc Robin (K:3385)
5/3/2002 10:30:22 AM
I'm posting the original before inversion.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
michaelle . (K:3807)
4/4/2002 6:33:14 AM
Marc,
The touch-ups done on this were not that difficult. First, I adjusted the curves, lightening the foreground to a more acceptable range.(I ignored the sky completely as it was already blown out). Then I adjusted the levels to bring the shadows back in. After making these adjustments - I did the real "cheating". I used the eye dropper tool to pick the lightest shade of blue from the upper left hand corner. Then I used the magic wand to select the absolutely white sky. I enlarged the selection by 3 pixels. Next I selected the fill tool and set the opacity to 50% and tolerance to 30 and filled the selection with the blue color producing the "blue sky". Finally, I did a little dodging and burning.
Regarding the sky thing... when you have to actually "make" a blue sky for any picture, it is probably best to go back and re-shoot on manual or with different light as this type tweak is considered a little over the top even to those that use PS on a regular basis to adjust their pictures 
Michaelle
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Marc Robin (K:3385)
4/3/2002 11:06:15 PM
Thanks for all the tips! I'll try and apply them. I've started using manual exposure a lot more now for this kind of shot. I hope it helps a little. And Michaelle, i really like what you did with it. Somehow the objects in the foreground are more visible and the sky is less obnoxious. May I ask what adjustments you made? I dunno if you guys noticed but there are two little horses right beside the shack out front :-)
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
michaelle . (K:3807)
4/3/2002 10:33:43 PM
I agree with you that trying to reach the perfect range within in a picture using film is the ultimate challenge, and useing PS too much to "touch up" a picture can make one feel like they are "cheating". However, I have found that PS can only make a good picture better and not a bad picture good, and I feel that this picture IS good. With that in mind, please accept my PS modified version of this shot as more food for thought than anything else.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Deleted User (K:6775)
4/3/2002 10:13:23 PM
Hi Marc *smile* next time you are in a situatioin like this, do the thinking for your camera meter. The meter seen all that brightness from the sky ...and shut down to compensate, making the forground (your main subject of this image) much too dark.
Next time you get in this situation...meter on your subject and then compose your photo leaving out most of the sky that you know is going to be overexposed anyway. You mentioned you cropped alot of the sky out so it obviously wasnt needed to create impact for this pic.
Hope these tips help some...*smile* Maggie
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Marc Robin (K:3385)
4/3/2002 10:08:54 PM
ok, cropped off almost all the white and played with the colours a little in PS...I don't really feel honest doing that though.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Marc Robin (K:3385)
4/3/2002 10:01:30 PM
Hi, thanks for the suggestions. It was getting kinda dark when I took the picture, though. I'll try cropping off all the white. I didn't know that a subject could be out of range for film.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Bill Krul (K:5597)
4/3/2002 9:56:02 PM
looks like the subject was out of range for your film. A little too light at the top and too dark at the bottom. May have been the scan. Maybe cropping all of the white from the top might help.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Bill Krul (K:5597)
3/28/2002 6:22:52 AM
This photo has a nice potential. A tripod and less exposure for the extreme light in the central edifice would have maximized its potential. Good idea and great color.
|
| Photo By: Marc Robin
(K:3385)
|
|
