I like them all,but #1 is my favourite.Love the composition.
Tough call they're all good but like Jim the first gets my attention
I like them all but # 1 is realy nice.
Not sure about the vapour trail on No. 1. To me it looks a bit like a scratch. How would the sky look if you cloned it away?
If it was bigger I would be tempted to say leave it alone.
No 1 is very nicely composed. As others have remarked I would lose the vapour trail. This is one of those images you can walk into
I would go for no 2 - if I was allowed to stamp out the front centre starburst. I can see getting thrown out of another forum approaching
Where's the voting option "None of the above".
Seriously though, I like No1 and would like it a lot better if the sky was cropped down to about 3/4 of the full height of the shot. I would like to see the trail removed along with about 3 distractions that protrude above the skyline, heads of grass and what may be cranes in the distance.
Shot No4 could be a stunner if some of the foreground detail could be recovered, and a bit of creative colour work could be done on the sky. Oh, and maybe crop up a little from the bottom.
Just a mug's opinion for what it's worth.
Seriously, I'm often thought of as "a complainer" due to an unfortunate ability to spot flaws in things - worst thing is, I mention them to help people improve, but unfortunately, that's not how they're often received. I work on the theory that if I can mention something - and the other party can agree with me - then they've got an education, and I've helped someone - so it's a win/win for all. And I receive criticism in the same vein of course - I don't always agree with it - but I do always appreciate it!
Light reference to the lead in light, I thought about removing it (by fair means or foul), but prefered it in on the grounds that it contrasted well with what would otherwise be a very dark area, although I have toned it down a little and also desaturated it a little in my final version (not shown here - I'm too lazy to update the site & relink!) (These are destined for large canvas prints).
Thanks for that. To be honest it was just a throw-away shot that turned out better than I was expecting (took it whilst scouting out the main location for the shoot). Easy enough to crop out some of the sky, but I wouldn't want to change the aspect ratio - and I think resampling would accentuate the path too much; unfortunatly this is one of the curses of UWA lenses when shoting vertical, although I probably could have framed it a lot better. I might reshoot it at some stage when there's a more interesting sky, and set it up with tripod etc, now that I know the basic composition works.
I had my GND filters with me, but in all honesty, I've left the foreground dark because the detail that's there is pretty boring and distracting. Not sure what you can see at your end, but if your monitor levels are right you should see just a hint of foreground detail.Shot No4 could be a stunner if some of the foreground detail could be recovered, and a bit of creative colour work could be done on the sky. Oh, and maybe crop up a little from the bottom.
Hmm I'd say 1, followed by 2 as first impressions. I voted 2 in the end, more due to liking the subject more (it's dark, I react badly to sunlight (and fire, stakes and garlic)). However on reconsidering I think I want to change to the last, especially since no-one has voted that yet. It didn't stand out immediately and I'd personally prefer the foreground black, completely sihouetted (but leaving the land background grey) which would draw my attention more toward the sky. Sounds strange but I've considered how I missed that sky which is better than the sky in the other images I'd say, I think it was because the dark land attracted my attention and I thought "hmm too dark for detail" but if it was black I'd ignore that and I think it would take the focus off the ground and shift it onto the sky.
Just my opinion and again I'm no expert. I think criticism is good too as long as it's helpful and not just "rubbish, I hate it //end comment", but yeah I think it can often be taken the wrong way, although I know criticism from a usually encouraging person is often taken right I've found. Saying that encouraging the good things can often help people naturally abandon a mistake and concentrate on what they do right and refine it and achieves the same effect as criticism of the negative points. Obviously it's a balance at the end of the day, and although usually constructive criticism that upsets can be well motivated and helpful and the problem arises from the criticised persons pride or their misunderstanding sometimes the constructive criticism is the problem as it can discourage someone and hinder more than help.
Nice Colin. Hanging out at the airport again I see. I like the evening sky with clouds...good colors. The starburst look from the lights are also good. Did you use a filter to achieve that?
Ruined how? Was there reflection/flare or something due to filter being on? If so I didn't notice, actually I quite liked it hence I voted it over the first.
Hahaha, that's cool. Sorry I thought it was a "oh dear my filter ruined the shot" use of the rolls eyes sarcastically icon hehehe, it disappeared in my browser btw, I presume you pulled it out some thing else? On the filter thing I disagree "scientifically" but think sometimes people are on to something. I know a lens could cause issue due to reflection issues but hood and so on would minimise/eliminate.
I've posted elsewhere that it's common knowledge that UV cannot pass through glass. Maybe wavelengths like close end of uv A (eg. around λ=360nm) will get through a bit but it's insignificant, also i doubt the sensor is that sensitive to it since it needs to pass not just through lens and the piece of glass over the sensor but the filters too, and it will likely only get through the blue (and perhaps not all of it) thinking about it. This means that the most than can happen is the sensor detects a tiny weeny little bit more blue I'm guessing, which would hardly be noticable in nearly every circumstance I can think of. It's not like film where UV trashes it due to physical sensitivity/chemical factors, a photoreceptor isn't oversensitive to a given wavelength like film as far as I can see. Hence in the case of film when the only glass between film and unfiltered sunlight is a lens coupled with the sensitivity and way film reacts to light a very small amount of short wavelengths could trash it.
However if the filter isn't perfect and does indeed filter out some visible violet then that could mess up an image but that isn't the UV filtering or a UV related error, that's using cheap (or not so cheap maybe) filter that's effectively filtering out the blues in the same way say a mild yellow would. The only time a true UV filter would make a difference is if it's film and it cuts the small close UV fraction that would reach the film otherwise. Like I say I have no UV filter and am going on scientific reasons not photography experience but you can't argue with science (well not in this case), however too many people say it affects it I notice so it's either a falsely percieved due to expectations effect (we all know the mind is powerful enough to do that) or the only other likely culprit is since it's visible effect then it must be visible light filtered, not all filters will do that hence not everyone agrees because for some it won't be the case.
Nice work. I particularly like #1 and #3, and like #3 (airport) a bit better because it has a nice color. #1 has a nice composition, but the light seemed a bit strong.
Just a by-pass question: how could you get so close to the plane?