Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Weekend trip to The Poconos  (Read 1417 times)
RoyHubbard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« on: July 13, 2010, 04:54:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's what I came home with:





« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 06:47:56 PM by RoyHubbard » Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 806



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2010, 06:43:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RoyHubbard
Here's what I came home with:

I like number 2. The others are not interesting to me.
Logged

RoyHubbard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2010, 06:48:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Hans.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4084



« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2010, 02:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hkruse
I like number 2. The others are not interesting to me.
I think that's a little unfair on number 3, which is quite pretty, but I agree that 2 is the best.

Jeremy
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 806



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2010, 04:18:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
I think that's a little unfair on number 3, which is quite pretty, but I agree that 2 is the best.

Jeremy

NUmber 3 is taken in what looks to me as pretty harsh light which does not do the scene justice. It would help alone to reduce the brightness and a bit the exposure during post processing. But in my eyes there is little of interest in the scene as it stands. But it could look entirely different in diffent light.
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 868


« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2010, 05:08:29 AM »
ReplyReply


*3 is most pleasing for me.
Logged

RoyHubbard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2010, 09:22:25 AM »
ReplyReply

#3 WAS taken at a less than ideal time, about 15 minutes before noon to be precise. I felt alright with the outcome, but as you are the second person who thinks it looks overexposed I made a (very) slight adjustment.

I appreciate the feedback. It's easy to lose sight of minor details going through so many photos in post, and it really helps keep things in perspective.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2010, 10:38:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RoyHubbard
#3 WAS taken at a less than ideal time, about 15 minutes before noon to be precise. I felt alright with the outcome, but as you are the second person who thinks it looks overexposed I made a (very) slight adjustment.

I appreciate the feedback. It's easy to lose sight of minor details going through so many photos in post, and it really helps keep things in perspective.

This one is a big improvement. Thanks for sharing.
Logged
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2010, 04:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Another vote for #2.  #1 just lacks visual interest for me, and I agree with most of the consensus that #3 seems a bit washed out.  Perhaps a contrast boost would go a long way on that one.
Logged

Diapositivo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2010, 07:26:05 AM »
ReplyReply

#2 is a nice composition but IMO it is rendered a bit too warm too look natural.

#3 is a nice composition, I would try to "burn" the central part where the tree belt is thinner, it look to me as if there were a lens reflection exactly on that spot, this lowers contrast in the central part of the image (central also in the sense that the eye is immediately driven to that spot). Also beware of the dirt spot in the upper-right corner, in the sky (can be easily eliminated with the "clone" tool).

Cheers
Fabrizio

EDIT I see there are two more dirt spots in the sky, again I would "clone them away".
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 07:28:29 AM by Diapositivo » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad