That doesn't make sense because in your first post you said
At first you said there were things that needed adjustment but then in the very next sentence you say you left the flaws in deliberately.
If you left the flaws in deliberately, for artistic effect or whatever, then they clearly don't need adjusting since they gave the look you wanted.
So why did you say they did need adjusting?
Sometimes we need the words.
If all we knew was that this is Mr. Percy who enjoys his job at the Zoo, we would have a character revealing photo. He's enjoying sharing what he does to bring pleasure to a customer. The slight backwards tilt of both indictes that this is a moment of posed, shared fun. The rakish tilt to the pith helmet of Mr. Percy gives an impression of his jungle personna and suggests that he doesn't take it too seriously.
Then we have the full story. Now real loss and waste is added.
It's a powerful combination and it is made more so when it is felt through your grandson.
C'mon, you can follow that.
I'll take that as meaning you can't answer the simple question. No matter. Carry on 😉
I like your imaginative fairy-tale like interpretations.
A couple of a Spangled Drongo.
Unfortunately I couldn't get to the other side of him for better lighting. In the first I have caught him in an unnatural vertical pose. The rear on shot included to show some of the blue shade in his wings.
In Australia the word Drongo is used as a strong form of ridicule - idiot or fool or worse. When looking up this bird I found out the history of that usage. Apparently someone named a horse after the bird and mistakenly talked up the capabilities of said horse. Needless to say, the horse didn't perform to expectations and the punters (gamblers) who lost money on him started to use the name in disdain... 😉
Here you used a much more appropriate shutter speed for the focal length than you did in your previous bird photo.
I like these two much more.
Very nice photo made more so with the inclusion of the background story.
Thank you for sharing.
It's interesting to compare the original from Sagittarius with the suggested alteration from Dan. I like what Dan has done but it becomes a quite different picture.
The photo angle accentuates the massive build. All the power is quite motionless and seated. The space the photographer has left in front and behind the subject creates isolation. There is nothing that hints of distraction or other engagement of the subject. The arms are folded. "Thinking" is the logical interpretation.
Here's where the original differs. The dark and hooded eyes internalize the thinking. The thoughts are private. A hint of Rodin here.
In Dan's version, the eyes blaze. This isn't internalized thinking, whatever the thoughts, they are projecting outward.
A deceptively simple photo that gives more and more as I look at it.
I'll take it as meaning that you really can't follow it.
That's fine but you haven't shown what I posted is not correct.
That's one interpretation but I don't see it as a different photo. The highlighted eyes still give me a pensive sombre look on the gorilla with a bit more "punch", especially when zoomed in.
You caught just enough highlight to give glow on the sumptuous paintwork.The shot makes clear the utterly snug and fine fitting of the panels. The tail light red is glorious and the teardrop shapes hint at speed. For all that, it isn't a model I know but there are plenty of hints about the nature of the model in the shot.
Again, your text becomes important here. Your intoxication with the vehicle comes through loud and clear. Fittingly, there you are immersed in the tail-light. It's a touch I enjoyed and smiled at.
Apparently, I have to start to put a note on my posts about not to edit my pictures without permission. Any critique, comments and suggestions are welcome. I am quite capable to implement any suggestions by myself and see if I like them. In the last example with my gorilla image Dan posted his interpretation of my image, creating a different image, and in his last post his image has been posted alone, starting life of his own. I always thought that asking permission to edit somebody else's image is a common curtesy. Is this to much to ask?
This works well. I feel it is considerably more successful than the image you posted last week using a similar technique. Here the colours are carefully selected and adjusted to the position of the introduced colour in the image. The increasing warmth and brightness of the colour areas take the viewer's eye across the bridge and through to the centre point. There, the golden glow suggests a journey's end with something satisfying, perhaps mystical, waiting for those who cross the bridge.
A further thought. The colours themselves are appropriate. They are part of a palette that can often be found in Asian art. The whole image comes together harmoniously.
That is correct and I would normally do so but in Roel's OP he clearly states that permission to edit is not required in this thread.
"PLEASE NOTE CLEARLY:
It is understood that unless the original poster specifically states that they do not want an altered image posted that you are free to alter the posted image and repost it in a reply for C&C purposes (no use for other purposes!). That reposted image may remain permanently or you may remove it after a short period of time if you prefer. No copyright disputes here!"
In the second instance I didn’t upload the image again. I simply linked to the original edited image I posted. Anyone can see the url to the edited version I posted earlier or to any other image people post. It's not rocket science.
If you are concerned about image theft, unfortunately the harsh reality is that you cannot prevent anyone stealing an image after it has been uploaded to the www.
Thank you for your thoughts but you read very much more into the image than what I was thinking when creating the image.
While that is true, the owner of the image has now clearly stated their preference. It would be courteous of you Dan to now state you will comply with his wishes in future.
