Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How about slight desaturation and bringing out the details? I would try reducing the exposure and playing with contrast as well.
@larner – please tell something about your photograph. this is one of the forum rules which you claim to have read – besides asking for comments is a simple act of courtesy. you don’t get it, do you?
I would draw the attention of the @admin to this
There is a slight tilt to the left and like others said harsh lighting, shadows and busy background make it look less pleasing than what it could be.
@somebloke – if your version of constructive criticism is telling what annoys you and what pisses you off, comment on others’ comments, patronizing and taking sides…I would rather not give constructive criticism. help yourself man, just step back and read your own comments and honestly tell yourself if they are constructive or least bit useful.
@larner – the least you could do is to ‘ask’ for critique. You just post the photograph without a word and claim to have read the rules? Are you checking to see if the rest of us have read up the rules?
This one isn’t right because the jockey’s face is hidden behind the hat, exposure needs fix and the movement is not obvious. There must have been more apt moments to capture hope you haven’t missed them.
a bigger aperture would have surely helped. exposure is right again but posing is too overt. capture the mood not the model.
Overexposed (seems overcast too) sky and underexposed hills – I know it’s challenging in such lighting condition, but the blue is unreal.
I like the window shot but it is distracting in a wicked manner (I don’t mean to say anything about the subject). You could use some vignetting to hide peripheral details. Exposure seems right though.
the second one is a snap shot and wont’ cut it – read up some great content on this website about portrait making. there was no need for so much head room and it looks like a mistake and what’s the glare about?
@nikon-nut – haven’t you noticed, she is hiding something between those legs, something black! (no disrespect meant to the subject – its the treatment of the subject that’s worrisome)
@larner – read up the forum rules man, will you? haven’t you got a word to say about your mind boggling photography? amazing man!
Portraits with subjects wearing dark glasses, that semi-vintage background, shadow on the wall…what are you up to these days?
@somebloke Dude, who cares what annoys you – that’s not criticism. You are too lazy to read up the thread…why don’t you just look away please!
You can change the cropping if you cropped but retained the original. You can’t change the composition (framing) – you will have to take another photo for that.
Have you read the ‘Shark Tank’ rules?
Its not just rude but also dumb to just post a snap and expect people to scamper and tell you what a wonderful shot you got there.
I just noticed in your post that David’s nuts (or avocados?) have grown bigger. LOL. 😀
The picture looks underexposed – especially part of her left eye in shadow doesn’t look pleasing. I don’t see light behind her hair.
@pmarione Michelangelo’s David will look better with an erection ;)D)
Thanks. I love this too 😀
If I bring out the details, the columns become less clear – I didn’t want that either.
I agree with you about the exposure but frontal composition is impossible – they don’t allow stepladders at this heritage structure. I wasn’t carrying one either for I was traveling to this place. 😉
The columns are a part of an indeed tall temple tower and perspective is unavoidable.
@tomdinning Well, the place, the columns and the details did give me goose bumps. I liked the repeating pattern of the figures on the column and the early morning lighting accentuating the pattern.
I kicked myself for ignoring the settings for the whole bunch of photos I took in Khajuraho. I wasn’t even thinking about the settings though the camera was in aperture priority mode.
Yes, I like this shot (despite whatever) and am happy with it yet agree that this is not the best possible.
