Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Merced River Rapids, Rocks and Plants in Afternoon Light  (Read 865 times)
John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« on: February 10, 2013, 08:17:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Constructive criticism always welcome.

Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652


« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 01:55:25 PM »
ReplyReply

What is the shutter speed, please ?!

For me the result is interresting as it's different of other works that use fairly long 5 to 30 sec shutter speed !

But slightly overexposed for me.
Logged
John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2013, 02:12:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks. I generally don't blur water unless I need to in order to emphasize the main subject.  

I don't remember the shutter speed, probably somewhere around 1/15ish around f/22.  I need to rescan, the chrome has texture in all the highlights.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 03:13:21 PM by djjohnr » Logged
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2013, 03:44:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I've looked at this a couple of times now and it's not the highlights in the water that are a problem as there is some texture there. To my eyes, there are too many competing elements - bright water, bright rock and bright plants - and they don't seem to work together. Viewers are subliminally drawn tot he brightest parts first but there is no natural connection between these elements.
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2013, 04:58:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I was trying to tie together the plant, main rock and foreground rocks, however that diagonal is opposite the flow of the stream.  Here's another version with that work taken out.

Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652


« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2013, 04:29:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the first version, more dynamic !!

Perhaps, just little touch of brush to recover some highlights, but good overall.

Thierry
Logged
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2013, 10:10:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm calibrated and all the water textures show up just fine.
What does work better to my eye composition wise, is eliminating the foreground rocks.

David
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2013, 01:05:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, since everyone gets an opinion, I like the two 2/3 or so of the image, but I could do without the bottom.  I find it distracts with the main stream and creates competition for the eye.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2807


« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2013, 10:41:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I was trying to tie together the plant, main rock and foreground rocks, however that diagonal is opposite the flow of the stream.

Do you find the plant, main rock and foreground rocks, interesting -- or is this an exercise in technique?
Logged
John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2013, 12:14:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you find the plant, main rock and foreground rocks, interesting -- or is this an exercise in technique?

I find the overall scene and lighting interesting, with particular emphasis on the main rock, the plant and the light on the foreground rocks.  The diagonal I had added was more of an exercise/experiment (I'm doing homework for a printing workshop I'm attending in a couple of months).  The image you see at the top of the post has changed several times during the course of this thread, the diagonal contrast increase I referenced is no longer present.  While there's still some room for improvement, I'm fairly happy with where it's at currently - the eye is drawn initially to the rapids and the main rock then wanders to the plant then eventually down to the light on the rocks. 
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652


« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2013, 01:11:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, since everyone gets an opinion, I like the two 2/3 or so of the image, but I could do without the bottom.  I find it distracts with the main stream and creates competition for the eye.

Mike.

Someting like that ?!

I think you are right Mike, it looks better to my eyes too !
Logged
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2013, 02:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

too much cropped off ! It need to be cropped right above the bottom rocks.Doing so draws the eye first to the big rock then clockwise with the flow of the water, around to the right.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad