Reflections at Concord Point
by LN13

Comment:
If you compare this shot with your "heron" shot at the same location, looking at composition only, you can see, I am sure, how much stronger the other one is. Here you have a surprsingly static composition considering the grace of allt he component elements. It's dividing into 3 horizontal bands, none of the alone especially powerful or compellin.

You have other issues as well, especially with sharpening, which has haloed the poles, and also with not having the image aligned vertically (the lighthouse is falling over, and there's no real horizon to worry about, so...)

On the plus side, the merging of sky and water is fantastic, positively ephemeral. As with the other, I'd love to play with this one if you sent me the original. It's the best way I have of showing what I mean, which is why I do so much of my "commenting" in the forums where evryone can study the work being done.

Concord Point Lighthouse with Heron
by LN13

Comment:
Larry, this is potentially an absolute KILLER good shot. I'm glad you asked for comments and I got to see this.

One interesting thing; the horizon does not "feel" quite level even though it actually is. The reason why is cuz you've pointed the camera down quite a bit and so the lighthouse itself is leaning outwards near the top of the frame. Now, this can be fized with POS perspective control, and I'd be inclined to try that.

Another issue is the radial banding in the sky; I'm not sure if that's just an artifact of compression or visible at a larger size as well; but I do know that I process a lot of shots similar to this and don't have a problem with it. I see it's a 98kb image, so that may explain it.

Finally, I see here a prime candidate for some subtle contrast masking. If you'd like to send me the original jpg (or a full-size jpg from RAW if that's what you shot) I'd love to experiment with this shot. My e-mail's on my profile.

You keep watch while I....mrmph...
by BeeCee

Comment:
This is sort of a transitional image for you, in your small portfolio. I look at the dates on your various entries, and I see such rapid improvement! I'm sure by now you're aware how relatively unsophisticated the lighting is in this shot, and wish you could do it again. I'd make particular note that the pure black surround is not an ideal one for this subject, and that you have a vague "glare" on the box itself that is hurting you. That's the wax overlay on the cardboard carton, I believe. Some sort of coating anyway. It is possible that a polarizing filter would solve that problem; they work to some degree even with artifical light.

Genesis
by BeeCee

Comment:
Again, a fine concept and a very decent image. I might have tried to avoid the strict horizontal lineup of eggs across the top. As others have noted, the not-all-blue egg is a bit of a problem also. I wonder if actually PAINTING the egg with a wash of food color would have helped? That said, this is overall very competent work, and very imaginative as well. I like it!

Alphabet Soup with Quackers
by BeeCee

Comment:
This image has many strengths, not least among them the absolutely gorgeous lighting on the flatware. I mean, really! Conceptually, it's also very strong. What I do NOT like as much is the desaturated-looking yellow of the duckies, and their unnatural beak color. I have a couple duckies like that, and they are hard to shoot. I have a couple other duckies that are much MORE yellow, and they are a joy to work with.

Finally, the BG itself is unfortunately quite uninspired, a rather insipid color and very flatly-lit. If it were advanced editing, you could solve it by burning in from the upper right along both edges with a gradient, but that wasn't an option here. Better control of your light would have done the trick, to allow the BG to shade off to dark upper left; a "pool of light" as it were...

untitled
by BeeCee

Comment:
I am actually getting to like your style. I'm glad you asked us to take a look, I've never studied your portfolio before. There's nothing I can "recommend" to "improve" this shot. I mean, sure, there's a zillion ways it mighthave been done and arguably some might have scored better, who knows? But this is very dynamic and luminous and just an all-around handsome shot. I like the tonal progression of it especially, as articulated by the diagonal shift from dark to light and shadow to luminance (not the same thing). Good one!

Aquatic Waves
by sherpet

Comment:
Now this one is quite beautiful. Here you are getting into interesting territory. Have you tried cropping the original a tad around the area that is currently the center of this image, so that you don't get that faint sense of "horizon"? It might be worth experimenting with. I like this very much.

Waves
by sherpet

Comment:
Technically, this is a "triptych" of 3 distinct versions of the same image, not a "merge". It is handsome, and it is good to see you experimenting, but I much prefer the original ojn its own. However, I'd expect that if theis were in a gallery as a large print, many might prefer it to the single-frame shot simply because it so obviously injects an element of "art" into what many might see as "just" a photograph.

My Dad's Toy
by BakerBug

Comment:
Once more, MAJOR DOF issues here. IN photographinng models like this, you usally want more realism, not less. The train is admirably sharp, but the vegetation is so OOF that it is extremely unpleasing to look at. You also have a figure/ground issue at the front of the locomotive, where it is merging right into the shape behind it. Careful attention to lighting can solve this problem.

The Internet
by BakerBug

Comment:
Again, I see DOF issues here. What's intriguing, and even instructive, is that the LEFTmost lamp is sharp and the RIGHTmost cord of the 3 is sharp. This is kind of frustrating visually. The reason it is happening is because the camera is aimed at an angle to the subject, and the plane perpindicular to the lens at that given focusing distance includes both those points.

FYI, in case you did not know it, at any given f/stopo and any given focusing distance you have "x" amount of DOF and it is distributed as follows: 1/3 of x in front of the point-of-focus and 2/3 of x behind the point of focus. In other words, if you have 3 inches of DOF to work with, and you focus at 4 inches, the DOF will run from 3 to 6 inches.

It can be helpful to actually MEASURE the actual physical depth of your subject in a shot like this, and then place an extraneous object 1/3 of the way into that depth, and manually focus on that object, then remove it and make your shots at several different apertures, to choose the one with the most pleasing DOF for your composition.