Timeline for Weekly Featured Image: Jun 20, '11
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2011 at 17:56 | comment | added | dpollitt | While I like the composition, to me the biggest missing factor is the white balance. If this was pulled warmer it would make a huge difference. As others have stated, it also is too dark and could use exposure compensation. I wish I had a lion to photograph, looks fun! | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 10:08 | comment | added | Aquarius_Girl | @Vian Though I am NOT an expert photographer, but still I find the photo to be cluttered (with leaves) and too tightly framed. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 21:03 | comment | added | jaxxon | Genearally agree w/ @jaylance . . the exposure seems off as well. Blown highlights and low-contrast/desaturated mids and blown (is that the word?) shadows. Agree that a little post-production love would help this photo a lot. Compositionally, I like that there's space to the right where the lion is looking.. but the foreground branch and the bright spots in the background are distracting. Hope this helps. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 20:55 | comment | added | Vian Esterhuizen | @shutterbug Thank you :) It's not that I'm upset about rating, but thanks for the +1. I just wanted to get some feedback on why people were so against having it as featured image. After seeing the latest submissions it didn't stand a chance anyway. Just trying to learn. I actually got almost identical feedback on Photo.net as Jay gave. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 18:07 | comment | added | Jay Lance Photography | @Vian: This is at best a 'snapshot' quality image... It appears that (aside from the crop) this is right out of the camera with no post-production work. You've done nothing to help the subject stand out amongst a lot of busy background/foreground elements, overall the colors are dull, and the subjects eyes aren't bright so it appears lifeless. Ultimately there's nothing to draw the eye in, and nothing to direct the eye in the frame... It is, well, a snapshot. For those reasons I don't think that -3 is harsh at all... | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 17:50 | comment | added | fahad.hasan | just made it -2 from -3, I liked it... :D | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | Vian Esterhuizen | Anyone got critiques on the image? Feel the -3 is a bit harsh. | |
| Jun 14, 2011 at 19:29 | comment | added | Vian Esterhuizen | Was just in the process of uploading the larger version. I wish I had L glass, unfortunately this was not shot on the L version of the lens. | |
| Jun 14, 2011 at 19:28 | history | edited | Vian Esterhuizen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Jun 14, 2011 at 19:11 | comment | added | Jakub Sisak GeoGraphics | can you add a link to a high resolution version? Is this the "L" series version of the lens? | |
| Jun 14, 2011 at 18:54 | history | answered | Vian Esterhuizen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |