I posted some images from a session at my local race track (Here) some time ago but sometimes when you go back to a set of images, you see something that you have missed first time around. This was perhaps one in that category. C&C welcome.
I posted some images from a session at my local race track (Here) some time ago but sometimes when you go back to a set of images, you see something that you have missed first time around. This was perhaps one in that category. C&C welcome.
I'd certainly agree that this deserves to be seen.
The one top right and the two top left are a bit of a nuisance, because if you can 'see' the image without them in it, then, I think, it's an absolute flyer. It would win competitions. So, I think those three half-in : half-out karts do weaken it. But is still a very good image.
Last edited by Donald; 29th June 2016 at 01:26 PM.
Picture composition is great and I like the second without the extra half cars.
The over-processing is really an image-killer for me.
If you are entering a competition, it is about reading the rules before competing actually. I just wondered why the guy in the cheating game was chosen then taken the prize away publicly. The judges should had made the decision not to chose his image in the first place.
Seeing this shot is for CiC you can clean your shot as you wish...and the result is really good. I like the second one. You did a good job with the editing...and besides I like the colours.
John, I like your edited image the best because it is better than the first because you fixed the problem in the second image. And so forth. You fix it any way you like. This is simply a process of finding the best possible image. I do not care one bit how it is fixed. Is that not what photography is about? Finding the best image. This is not 'cheating' it is fixing.
Cheers Ole
Thanks for all the comments.
Donald, PP is a matter of context and intent for me. Shots that purport to be an accurate record, should remain unaltered in terms of the subject whether we're talking about an event, an item, a person or even scenery. I have no problem with PP that is confined to improving image quality or even minor tidying up to improve the clarity afforded the actual subject but none of which alters the subject itself. However, I believe there is a stage beyond that where rather than just taking a straight forward record, you envisage a composition that uses an original capture as raw material but that can then be developed in PP to produce a pleasing image, in effect and in part, from your imagination. I don't say one is better than the other. They are just different aspects of the hobby we all enjoy and it puzzles me why there are some that want to ascribe rights and wrongs to one aspect or the other. This BTW, has nothing to do with competition rules where in some cases the comments have been surface deep when there are more practical reasons why they exist as they do - but I've had my say about that elsewhere.
Lew, I'm not sure what you had in mind but I do agree with you at least to the extent that I originally de saturated the BG in order to separate the lead pack from the cluttered BG. It was the easy option. The BG clutter has been removed in the second image and it didn't need both. Had I taken the trouble to clone out the clutter in the first place, I would have left the remainder as was.
Last edited by John 2; 1st July 2016 at 09:40 AM.