Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Posting Twenty-two – April 18, 2011
Image 03 Feedback
“Beach Flora

 





Mad Mike Lacks concept but was executed fairly well. It is not a good image of flowers, it is not a good image of the shore, it has no focus and tries to convey too much about two subjects. Either get closer to the flowers and make them the center of interest and make the shore secondary, or widen out the view and make the flowers a secondary subject in the main subject of the shoreline.

Fotobug – Another image which I found not worthy of my time in photo shop. The overall shot doesn’t move me. I would be interested in what you finally did.
To Fotobug on Image 02, most of my tweaking is accomplished in less than ten minutes and more often than not closer to five.

Jill L. – I think I can see what you were trying to capture here. However, your centering of the rock and the flowers is a distraction. The water showing in the upper right corner is another distraction. If you need to work on this, consider cropping tight – very tight!





What I did – My usual workflow through the RAW tools (adjusted the temp, blacks slider, clarity, and vibrance). Into CS5 for a tighter crop, Levels adjustment and selective Curves. Finally, I sharpened only the main subject – the rock and flowers. Scary how close Jill L’s processing is so close to what I did.



Monday, April 11, 2011

Posting Twenty-One
Image Study One - Feedback
Image 02 - "These Boots"








Mad Mike: This one has both pre-visualization and execution working well. The one slight distraction is the out of focus foreground leaves in the bottom right.

To Jill L. – On Image 01, it seems that we were on the same page as your adjustments followed my thought process.

Jill L. – The foreground is out of focus and bothers me slightly. The oversized boots can stand on their own to carry the overall photo. Did you consider blurring out the background?

Fotobug The boots are almost comical in look. I thought you might want to try some different photo shop filters to give them a new look.

To Fotobug - On Image 01, well this was certainly one I would keep. It’s a wonder to me to take the original flat image and end up with this very colorful one. Thanks for sharing what you did.

What I did on "These Boots" – My usual workflow through the RAW tools. Then I decided a horizontal flip would give it a better feel. A minor cropping, some Curves adjustment and a final sharpening!


Monday, April 4, 2011

  
Posting Twenty
Image Study One - Feedback
Image 01 - Bay Farm 











Mad Mike - You had a good concept going, but failed in its execution.  The misty mood of the image was perfect for the subject. It’s just that the composition needed adjusting.  Moving the sun/moon to directly behind the tree would have brought more contrast to define the tree branches out rather than having them blend into the darker area of the sky.

Fotobug - This one would end up in my trash unless I had some serious time to work on it.

Jill L. – It looks like you had some interesting clouds in this picture. I would try to reframe it so the tree does not look so centered. Also, those branches on the left should be removed either by a crop or a clone. If I could have downloaded this I would have tried to open up the shadows.

What I did – Bay Farm was originally captured in Camera Raw so I adjusted the White Balance, Exposure, Clarity and the Vibrance before opening it in CS5. With a 12 x 10 crop, I was able to eliminate those trees that bothered Jill L. After a run through Curves, I picked up some color in that bleak sky. Yes, Mad Mike, I wish I had taken a few steps to the right to bring the sun behind the tree. I had plenty of room to move, too! Next, the image had an encounter with NIK Color Efex for its Contrast Color Range and Graduated Neutral Density filter which gave the sky this impressive glow. Finally, a brush with Noise Reduction and some sharpening.




Next week, we'll look closer at Image 02. You have time to join Mad Mike, Jill L., and Fotobug with your comments.


Thanks Mad Mike, Fotobug, and Jill L. for responding. . .