|
|
KEVIN TEMPLE
{K:8657} 5/14/2004
|
yes your right Danny adding the sky made it feel Fake(ish) although I need talk (I have been known to add skys to the inside of caves!!!!!!!!!! the first picture was more than good.I am always of the opinion that if you have a photo and you would like to show it rather than not(and you need a better sky to do this ,then go ahead and do it (as long as it improves the picture)
|
|
|
|
Lic Roth
{K:2001} 5/12/2004
|
=) Glad to know my comments are helpful, honest, or whatever else constructive criticism is supposed to be. I agree that the original sky is nowhere near as dramatic as the other. It's also very light in color, so the bird does appear somewhat "washed out" within the picture. But it's still a good shot, just not as powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Turnbull
{K:180} 5/12/2004
|
Cheers Danny,
maybe a different sky for this one,good selection on the bird.
|
|
|
|
|
Danny Brannigan
{K:19523} 5/12/2004
|
Licia. Here is the original.Probably better than my innane attempt to add a sky.
|
wagtail original |
|
|
|
|
Danny Brannigan
{K:19523} 5/11/2004
|
Licia You are quite correct-well almost.I photographed the bird thid morning on that bit of rock(Dry stone wall in england)but changed the sky in ps but was careless around the rock. Well spotted and I am extremelypleased to have some meaningfull comment as I find most comments too polite on this site.
Thank you. Regards Danny Brannigan
|
|
|
|
|
Lic Roth
{K:2001} 5/11/2004
|
Are you sure this isn't Photoshopped? The bird is in sharp focus, while the outline of the rock, even by its feet, looks fuzzy. I can see the lens glare on the right, which means that's where the light was coming from, but the rock is evenly lighted throughout, quite unlike the sky. Strange.
|
|
|
|
|
Danny Brannigan
{K:19523} 5/11/2004
|
Quite pleased as it was hand held.
|
|
0 
