sager76 = gave this photo a modest three stars. I don't disagree, but I'm curious what my opponent didn't like. I'd like to know what flaws to look out for and what I can work on...
sager76 = I gave this photo a modest three stars. I don't disagree, but I'm curious what my opponent didn't like? I'd like to know what flaws to look out for and what I can work on...
Sergey Kryshen, what do you like about this photo?
Thanks for your support. Honestly, I'm old enough not to worry about ratings and assessments, but if you've given a rating that's out of the ordinary, please justify it (regarding sager76). sager76, It's hard to give every work a unique twist... This is especially true for "birdhouses" and "landscapes": sometimes the sun is shining from the wrong direction, sometimes there are no clouds, and sometimes the sky is a complete haze. As for the subject matter, I beg to differ... The subject matter of this photo, as I interpret it, certainly wouldn't fit into a single message. There's another way to resolve our dispute: post photos on the forum on a given topic and within a set timeframe. Let our colleagues decide on the topic; whose photo is the best is right. There's no limit to the technical equipment; I'll be shooting with a Canon 550D and one of my Soviet-era manual lenses. How's that for a proposal?
There's another way to resolve our dispute: post a photo on the forum on a given topic and within a set timeframe. Let our colleagues determine the topic; whose photo takes off is right...
That's a wonderful way. I'm all for a photo on the topic "Shot," so it's sure to take off... -)
Captain, is this your photo? If it is, I'd say it's technically very well done. Similar photos are featured on our forum. The foreground is a bit dull, but that bit of distance on the right is intriguing—what's there, beyond the hill?
If this isn't your photo, you should have provided a link to the source. So whose photo is it—yours?
Captain, is this your photo? If it's yours, I'd say it's technically very well done. Similar photos are featured on our forum. The foreground is a bit dull, but that bit of distance on the right is intriguing—what's there, over the hill?
If this isn't your photo, you should have provided a link to the source. So whose photo is yours?
Then you should have provided a link to the source
—see above, there are plenty of sources on every computer with a pig. Technically speaking, anyone who purchased XP can provide this image as their own, since it's included with the operating system.
Your image is the same as the screensaver. Flip it horizontally, and it'll look identical.
A wonderful method, I'm all for a "Shot"-themed photo, so it's sure to be a hit... -)
Sergey Chubarov, whose photo is it? Yours, Sergey's, or Lermontov's? If not, why didn't you provide a link to the source? Sergey Kryshen demands that you follow the rules on his page!
Sergey Chubarov, you could say "SHOT"... And the photo - for you, a landscape is just a landscape, but I love this place and shoot there a lot, so I have a slightly different perception. Before writing this, I looked at some of your work - you do great work, but some of it left me indifferent. Everyone has their own preferences. Happy shooting.
Captain, And the answer was - What's there, in the distance... That's what's interesting, that's what I like about the photo, but if you don't, I can't help you. Have a great shot...
Captain, And the answer was, "What's there, in the distance... That's what's interesting, that's why I like the photo, and if you don't, I can't help you. Good luck with the shots..."
Sergey Kryshen, if that's the case, then why not "What's behind me?" or "What's in the grass?" or "What's in the sky?" Or even better, "What's in my pocket?" -)
Captain, )))))))) Admins, do you accept bitcoins? )
Interpocula, I liked it...bitcoins!)))..with a minimum rate of 2300...Albert bets 20 bucks...how will you split at least one...by the way, did you install Tor too?)))
Sergey Chubarov, I once read this phrase about photography: a shot is considered successful if it evokes emotion. The most common statement in this regard is: "I wish I were there." The vineyards near the villa near Torrenieri in the fall of 2014—that's the place that evoked that emotion...and the same question: what are those houses in the distance?...I'm sorry, I didn't even think about the pocket.
Beautiful work! Yes, the idea of photo duels seemed very interesting! Absolutely right, every critic who wants to express their disapproval of any photograph should submit their work to a duel. The problem here could be with judging. If only this problem could be solved somehow, so that everything would be objective.
Oleg Kaledin, the judging, as always, is our entire community, and whether it's objective is irrelevant. A topic, a reasonable deadline, and off we go...
Interpocula, I liked it...bitcoins!)))..with a minimum rate of 2300...Albert bets 20 bucks...how are you going to split even one...by the way, did you also install Tor?)))
StatusQuo, ))) Nope. Standard internet. Didn't install it. And, not only on principle, but also to prevent anyone from putting a check mark where it shouldn't.
Landscape is a very difficult genre these days. Previously, it was enough to take a technical picture in good light on a wide slide, or even better, a format camera with pan/tilt. And success was guaranteed. There were few masters; any more or less high-quality photograph was a hit. Some (Adams, Gippenreiter) went the "documentary" route. That is, photos of an object, where the object was nature. Here you have to make a daunting choice: 1) a super-technical photograph and 2) taken in such remote places that the average photographer in their right mind wouldn't venture, especially with a large gimbal, a powerful tripod, and optics weighing several kilograms. Others (Kenna, Burkett, Pritisk) began making "art." Very beautiful photographs. Place any of their photos next to this one, and people will say... Well, they will say. Two very different things, and both are obvious. Now, when everyone's DSLR handles everything automatically—sharpness, exposure, bracketing, HDR, and a stabilizer so slick you don't even need a tripod—taking a technically sound picture is as easy as pie. And they do it. Everyone's their own Shishkin. Only rarely does anyone go beyond technicality. They don't bother to be special. Everyone's shooting epic pictures. A horizon from edge to edge, sky and clouds, a river, a meadow, a forest, a boat, a church, a rickety hut. Sunsets, sunrises, fog, and all the rest of Dunilovo... Everyone's shots are equally sharp, contrasty, and beautiful. No one even wants to try a simple, unusual angle. Just lie down on the ground and shoot from a low angle. Or climb a tree. Or get a telephoto lens and kill the perspective... I wish I never looked at this monotony. I'll finish this opus with a quote from D. Malakhov: "If you put a company of soldiers to use a jigsaw to cut a deer out of plywood, how many masterpieces will come out? That's the point..."
Thanks for your support. Honestly, I'm old enough not to worry about ratings and assessments, but if you've given a rating that's out of the ordinary, please justify it (regarding sager76). sager76, It's hard to give every work a unique twist... This is especially true for "birdhouses" and "landscapes"; sometimes the sun is shining from the wrong direction, sometimes there are no clouds, and sometimes the sky is a complete haze. As for the subject matter, I disagree... The subject matter of this photo, as I interpret it, certainly wouldn't fit into a single post. There's another way to resolve our dispute: post photos on the forum on a given topic and within a set timeframe. Let our colleagues determine the topic; whose photo performs best is right. There's no limit to the technical equipment; I'll be shooting with a Canon 550D and one of my Soviet-era manual lenses. What's wrong with that?
Sergey Kryshen, what a controversy over nothing... There's no dispute, just an assessment of "outliers." That's what I'll limit myself to. And I plan to continue to award those "works" that are particularly outstanding in content or technical terms.
Tikhomirov, that's why they post pictures like this, so you can fuck to your heart's content. I'm 100% sure that you, captain, wouldn't even get a picture like this. Chubarov might be able to take a slightly better picture, but that's what they're dragging him around for. The fact that heated debates are going on behind this kind of work can only evoke a smile.
Serg Tix, We need to call up those from the Academy of Arts for military training... And put them in the same company! )))
Andrey Semykin, We only just cleaned up the army; it's at least become more or less combat-ready, at least something worthwhile. Although Zhirinovsky once proposed a bill to stop jailing drug addicts and instead send them to the army for re-education, but smart people wouldn't allow it. Ask Kaledin, he probably knows. But our Chinese comrades have experience, and it turned out to be very positive for the state, when they sent all those chatterboxes to the army for re-education, because you can't trust them with anything except a hoe. They're even knocking down photo sites one after another, like StreetPhoto, Gray Wave, and ExPhoto. Now those guys are here, including Chubarov.
Tikhomirov, that's why they post photos like this, so you can fuck off to your heart's content. I'm 100% sure you, Captain, wouldn't even get a photo like that. Chubarov might be able to do a slightly better job, but that's what he's being dragged around for here. The fact that heated debates ensue under such work can't evoke anything but a smile.
Panechkin., Trollechkin, when will your masterpieces be successful? Everyone's a good troll!
it seems things are worse with you than I expected - I thought you were a regular troll, but it looks like you're just a local idiot ))) ... Foolishness, by the way, is often revered as a Christian feat... ...so keep going, what can you do... )))
...and it would be better if you didn't film it, of course... )
Panechkin., It seems things are worse with you than I expected – I thought you were a regular troll, but it turns out you're just a local idiot ))) ... By the way, foolishness is often revered as a Christian feat... ... so keep going, what can you do... )))
... and it would be better if you didn't film it, of course... )
Andrey Semykin, You simply misunderstood. There's another subspecies, the women with balls, and you're one of them. In short, I'm personally ready to part ways with you right this minute, once and for all, please don't bother me.
Show this work, this landscape. I really liked it, I'll vote yes!
I looked at mine and yours, compared them – you have trees and I have trees, you have a field, I have a meadow, your clouds are black, mine are white, you have a stream, I have a pond. What's the difference in the content of the photos? Yes, my bird isn't flying; it's in the reeds, a common moorhen, a green-legged marsh hen. You can't see it, but it's there. Yes, my post-processing technique is simpler; I like colors that match the weather and time of day. It loses some of the image's appeal, but it preserves the natural look...
I lack ambition and skill, I'm aware of this, and I won't even mention my weak technical skills, hence the overall rating – twenty-five points. I'm just doing what I love, carefully studying other artists' work, trying to understand how they manage to achieve a decent final product. By the way, I've worked through all the processing steps for your photo; you managed to transform a hopelessly gray landscape into a picture, a plus for you...
Actually, I wanted to ask you to carefully read my first message on this page.
I've only been working on landscapes for a couple of months now, and I need simple, practical comments and advice on the work, not empty talk from smart-alecks about "if I were an astronaut." Thank you if you read this message to the end.
Photoshop isn't enough. It's not trendy. Seriously, the lighting isn't very good. The trees seem to have volume, but the grass is flat. And the colors could use a bit more richness. But I always like dark pictures, it's a matter of taste
The photo's composition is poor. There's no emphasis on anything. The beauty of no single component of the landscape is revealed. The river, sky, grass, and trees exist independently, rather than creating a unified image.
Weed out the ragweed!
It looks like a Windows XP screensaver.
Thanks for your support. Honestly, I'm old enough not to worry about ratings and assessments, but if you've given a rating that's out of the ordinary, please justify it (regarding sager76).
sager76, It's hard to give every work a unique twist... This is especially true for "birdhouses" and "landscapes": sometimes the sun is shining from the wrong direction, sometimes there are no clouds, and sometimes the sky is a complete haze. As for the subject matter, I beg to differ... The subject matter of this photo, as I interpret it, certainly wouldn't fit into a single message. There's another way to resolve our dispute: post photos on the forum on a given topic and within a set timeframe. Let our colleagues decide on the topic; whose photo is the best is right. There's no limit to the technical equipment; I'll be shooting with a Canon 550D and one of my Soviet-era manual lenses. How's that for a proposal?
If this isn't your photo, you should have provided a link to the source. So whose photo is it—yours?
Your image is the same as the screensaver. Flip it horizontally, and it'll look identical.
Then you could call it: "Favorite place at midday with partly cloudy skies (shot number....999th)"
Unconvincing. I take it you're just having fun, with nothing better to do? Have fun to your heart's content... Have a nice day tomorrow...
What do you like about this photo?
- the answer was anything but an answer. You're a master of spam!
About the XP screensaver, are there any more questions about my photo?
Sergey Chubarov, Kapitan, G. Meremyanin, do you accept bitcoins?
I'm betting on the judges!
Or even better, "What's in my pocket?" -)
Admins, do you accept bitcoins?
Yes, the idea of photo duels seemed very interesting! Absolutely right, every critic who wants to express their disapproval of any photograph should submit their work to a duel.
The problem here could be with judging. If only this problem could be solved somehow, so that everything would be objective.
Only rarely does anyone go beyond technicality. They don't bother to be special.
Everyone's shooting epic pictures. A horizon from edge to edge, sky and clouds, a river, a meadow, a forest, a boat, a church, a rickety hut. Sunsets, sunrises, fog, and all the rest of Dunilovo... Everyone's shots are equally sharp, contrasty, and beautiful. No one even wants to try a simple, unusual angle. Just lie down on the ground and shoot from a low angle. Or climb a tree. Or get a telephoto lens and kill the perspective... I wish I never looked at this monotony. I'll finish this opus with a quote from D. Malakhov: "If you put a company of soldiers to use a jigsaw to cut a deer out of plywood, how many masterpieces will come out? That's the point..."
Andrey Semykin, I looked at your photos, and it looks like you're a woman, so I'll let this nonsense pass. As for not taking pictures, here's a quick recap if you're interested. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010146006061&sk=photos&collection_token=100010146006061%3A2305272732%3A69&set=a.298571013824430.1073741828.100010146006061&type=3
but it looks like you're just a local idiot )))
...
Foolishness, by the way, is often revered as a Christian feat...
...so keep going, what can you do... )))
...and it would be better if you didn't film it, of course... )
But in reality:
Everyone here already knows that.
Show this work, this landscape. I really liked it, I'll vote yes!
I looked at mine and yours, compared them – you have trees and I have trees, you have a field, I have a meadow, your clouds are black, mine are white, you have a stream, I have a pond. What's the difference in the content of the photos? Yes, my bird isn't flying; it's in the reeds, a common moorhen, a green-legged marsh hen. You can't see it, but it's there. Yes, my post-processing technique is simpler; I like colors that match the weather and time of day. It loses some of the image's appeal, but it preserves the natural look...
I lack ambition and skill, I'm aware of this, and I won't even mention my weak technical skills, hence the overall rating – twenty-five points. I'm just doing what I love, carefully studying other artists' work, trying to understand how they manage to achieve a decent final product. By the way, I've worked through all the processing steps for your photo; you managed to transform a hopelessly gray landscape into a picture, a plus for you...
Actually, I wanted to ask you to carefully read my first message on this page.
I've only been working on landscapes for a couple of months now, and I need simple, practical comments and advice on the work, not empty talk from smart-alecks about "if I were an astronaut." Thank you if you read this message to the end.
Should I post a link to the marsh hen?
https://prophotos.ru/lessons/15440-s-emka-peyzazha-v-sumerkah
https://prophotos.ru/lessons/15016-zachem-snimat-peyzazh-sovety-ot-dmitriya-konstantinova
http://photo-element.ru/ps/longexp/longexp.html
http://photostocks.info/p-514/semka-peizazhei-fotosemka-prirody/
https://photo-monster.ru/lessons/read/poleznyie-sovetyi-dlya-syemki-peyzajey
Seriously, the lighting isn't very good. The trees seem to have volume, but the grass is flat. And the colors could use a bit more richness. But I always like dark pictures, it's a matter of taste