While I like the overall composition, I would have loved it probably even more if you had somehow managed to lift your camera high enough for the fisherman in the foreground not to overlap with the pier/structure in the background.
I do realize of course that such a change is not always physically possible.
Still, I often find it remarkable how much perspective difference can be achieved by just lifting the camera as high as you can.
On numerous occasions, I have assisted families taking photos and group shots with their smartphone on touristic locations.
They often frown when they see me lifting their phone very high (or, alternatively, almost getting down on my belly to go low).
But the result and difference is often worth it.
There is a lovely feeling to this photo. The triangular composition is strong and brings attention past the boats and buildings to the distant mountains, but it is the colours and the shapes of the clouds, which really attract. Then, most importantly, the man with the bike. He seems to be local, but still turns toward the scene and admire the view, and I think that is the magic ingredient. He may have seen it hundreds of times before, but still seems captivated. Of course in reality it may be much more mundane. He may have spotted someone he knows and couldn't care less about the scene, but it is the impression he gives that is important.
I like all three of these. The first, with the Milky Way cascading into the cupped hands of the valley. The second, with the eerie peaks staring at the Milky Way flowing above. Or the third, with the Milky Way seeming to frame a dark figure, who is descending into an expectant forest. All three capture scientific astronomical features and and use them to create mystic stories.
I have enjoyed trying to catch the starry skies, fascinated by the fact that the camera can see them better than I can, but I have never had much success, so I particularly enjoy these.
I love the humour of this one, and that you saw the potential of the situation and took advantage of it.
The AI has been used to trim off a few details, which improves the illusion, although actually the original is fine as it is. Of course, if the AI had been used to trim off the neck and head of the second bird, it would no longer be as satisfying. It would still carry the merits of the idea of a four-legged bird, but it would lose the magic of being the capture of a fleeting moment that occurred naturally. So it made it interesting to see the original and compare it to the AI.
Well done for getting the exposure right on the black feathers, keeping so much detail and without blowing highlights elsewhere. The swan still stands out nicely against the watery background, even though it is also quite dark, creating a fairly low key image. Nice one.
That is a very unusual self-portrait! At first I was intrigued by the details of the eye-lashes and hair, but then I got sucked into that black hole in the middle and never came out, seeing the bull's world in a sharp but distorted rendering. It is a very unusual photo, and all the better for it.
I agree with Roel, so I will just choose one to comment on.
This works well in monochrome. By removing colour, it highlights the different shapes and qualities of the heavy, chunky stone wall and the (relatively) light and delicate pylon and wires. I think the simplicity of the composition of this photo works much better than in the last photo, which also features pylons, but which get a bit lost in the colours and busy detail of the landscape, even if the top parts stand out well against the sky.
This image is rather dark, which gives the it a certain drama, but you might consider lightening it.
It is also interesting to consider that both stone walls and the pylons with their cables are both man-made objects, and both leave a heavy mark on the surrounding landscape. Interestingly the walls are generally considered in a positive way and are generally thought to add character to the scene, whereas the pylons are generally hated, and cropped out during the process of taking the the photo or later in post-processing wherever possible. I wonder why.
This one definitely benefits from viewing full size to appreciate the facial expression of the rose lady!
It is a quirky little subject, which immediately attracts attention.
You have also controlled the depth of field perfectly to have Rose sharp, but all her little friends out of focus, but with enough form that we can still see what they are.
Very good.
The early morning light with the pinks and pastel colours are wonderful, and their delicate nature has not been ruined by processing attempts at enhancement. The vertical format makes this seem even more like a slice through nature, like a geological sample, and even though it is showing an exact scene, it could also be an abstract attempt to suggest the local landscape in general. In any case it works very well. Love it.
First of all I love Minnie‘s image. It is very obviously an AI image and has been beautifully crafted with imagination, purpose and skill. It is a prime example of the benefits of AI.
I think the following discussion was good too, and was surprisingly consensual, considering how devisive the topic of AI is at the moment. I think the above summary sums up how I feel about about the use of AI.
There are some grey areas of course. For instance the face recovery in software like Topaz does a marvellous job. Sometimes! It can, however, create a face, which is of a much higher quality than the original, but no longer looks like the person. This would be a case where AI was used with the best intentions, but actually introduced something new, possibly even the face of another living person. I also tried the Replace tool to remove tourists standing in front of a cathedral. It worked brilliantly, but when cycling through the three options it gave me, I realised the architectural details replacing the people were different in each case and probably had nothing in common with the original.
For the sake of this thread, I don’t think it is an issue. For documentary or news purposes, then it would be different.
I think so long as an important feature has not been added, then no comment is necessary. If the photographer tells AI to “place a white horse in the empty field, and change the lighting to sunset”, for instance, then we should mention it. We can then comment on the merits or otherwise of the photographer’s decision to do that.
