We had a photo competition last night and the judge talked about 'capturing your interest' as one of his criteria. This is a lovely picture with beautiful colours, but it just does not 'capture my interest'. Maybe if it were unfurled? Or if there was a bird perched on top - or something.
Alan
"It just does not capture my interest," he said . . . while making detailed suggestions about the image's composition.
Hmmm. Apparently it does!
🙄
Rich
My interpretation of Alan"s comment is that he is suggesting what your image might need for it to capture his interest.
Agreed.
Alan, xpatUSA, DanHasLeftForum,
I knew what Alan meant.
Guys, without regard to my image, at all . . .
If one comments that a particular thing holds no interest for one, and, goes on to make specific comments about changes that one might make to the thing in the service of increasing one's interest in the thing . . .
Then, by definition, one was interested from the beginning.
The thing about paradoxes is that they are so paradoxical . . .
Back to photography.
Maybe.
Rich
Thank you Chris.
But it's not so peaceful and calm when the weather turns nasty 😉
For years I've wanted to come across layered blue mountains like these.
Here it isn't only the distant peaks creating the layers and depth. The foreground trees also add layers with points and valleys that make patterns with the ranges.
I think I can distinguish nine layers in the image.
While I have read a little about Go Pros and seen them around, I haven't knowingly looked closely at an image from one. I saw this and googled. It's a very impressive image from something so small. I don't know the exif but the shutterspeed had to be enough to stop the movement taking place here. The corners and edges are far better than I'd have anticipated. Loads of dof.
The main features are a little way back but the pedestrian crossing bridges the gap. The blossom trees frame one street. The blossom detail is a strength. The monument and lampost bookend the cyclists.
The shot makes this feel like a pleasant place to live.
It's a good location for a panoramic treatment. The horizon, water channels, east/west slices of land and especially the main water channel moving to the opening and connecting foreground and the ocean, all combine well. The foreground yacht gives a great feature that stands out against the blue. It is close to being on the ideal rule of thirds magic spot. It isn't just the sweep of the scene that makes it attractive. Looking at it large there is plenty of detail to be explored as well.
Some of the edges and tree trunks have what seem to be Noise reduction software artifacts. If so, a touch less noise reduction might have helped. Anyway, I've become used to noise reduction in my own shots and I prefer those artifacts to noise.
It looks a bit underexposed. The shadows suggest it was taken with direct sunshine.
I'll vouch for that. The bar crossing is notorious.
The exposure is about right and what I wanted for my blur, camera shake, DOF requirements and lens sharpness.
I couldn't have used a wider aperture or slower shutter speed. It was fairly blustery at the time and I wasn't using a tripod to take the series of shots for the pano.
It's certainly not underexposed*.
The image lightness looks good and how I want on my screen.
For obvious reasons it could render lighter or darker on other people's screens compared to my screen.
* underexposed - more light could have struck the sensor per unit area within dof and blur constraints during a shutter actuation without clipping important highlights.
David,
It would be a public service were you to tell us the make of this perfect screen you keep extolling, and the careful steps you take to calibrate it correctly.
Then others might be able to see what you see and marvel at the quality! Furthermore, doing this might inject a more objective tone into the discussions, rather than your perpetual statement (I paraphrase): "It looks absolutely right on my screen -- others may not live in such luxury of perfection".
I apologize.
I went back to see if there was EXIF data and I realize it was a phone image. Samsung S8. The GoPro images are prefaced with Gopr.
All cool. Thanks for the correction.
While this image doesn't have the same detail in areas like the blossom, it's still better than I would have expected from something the size of a Go Pro.
Where did you have the GoPro mounted? You got the framing with the blossoms right again.
I don't know the bird. Some kind of native turkey?
The heads look vulture like. I wouldn't mess with those girls. I get the feeling from the photo that they would stick together.
The synchronized extended necks suggests the solidarity of the gang.
The rearmost has got itself in the wrong position and messed up the outline of the two to the right. I think that the focus had just missed. I think the camera is focusing on the grass slightly closer to us than the closest bird's head.
